The National Forests and United States Department of Agriculture Grasslands in Texas

Forest Service Non-Native Invasive Plant

August 2008 Species Project

Environmental Assessment

The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas

NEPA (short for the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969) is the Where is this Forest Service decision-making process that provides opportunities for project in the interested parties to give their ideas and opinions about resource Forest Service management. This input is important in helping the Forest Service to NEPA process? identify resource needs, which will shape the alternatives evaluated and lead to the formation of a decision. The following explains the steps of the NEPA process, and where the attached proposal is in that process. ; Step One–Need for a Project. The Forest Service or some other entity may identify the need for a project. YOU may bring the need for a project to the attention of the Forest Service. ; Step Two–Develop Project Proposal. The Forest Service or a project proponent develops detailed, site-specific proposal. YOU may be proponent who develops proposal or YOU can share input and ideas. ; Step Three–Scoping (Public Input). The Forest Service solicits public input on the site- specific proposal to define the scope of environmental analysis and range of alternatives to be considered. YOU provide site-specific input on issues, alternatives, and mitigation measures. ; Step Four–Develop Reasonable Range of Alternatives. If scoping determines need for EA or EIS, the Forest Service develops alternatives. YOU suggest alternatives to the proposed action during the scoping process. Step Five–Information for Formal Public Comment Period. Forest Service performs analysis of environmental effects, identifies preferred alternative, and solicits formal public comment. YOU provide timely and substantive comments on the analysis during the comment period. Step Six–Environmental Analysis & Decision. Forest Service finalizes the EA and makes decision to implement one of the alternatives. YOU can review the decision; you can appeal if you disagree, and you have “standing.” Step Seven–Appeal. Forest Service allows public 45 days following legal notice of decision to appeal. YOU may file formal Notice of Appeal. Step Eight–Implementation. Forest Service implements the project. YOU may contribute labor, equipment, or funding to implement the project. Step Nine–Monitor and Evaluate. Forest Service monitors and evaluates project results. YOU provide feedback on the project to the Forest Service.

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, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720- 6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Contents Crosswalk of Scientific and Common Names of Species Found in the Non-Native Invasive Plant Species EA ...... 4 CHAPTER 1—PURPOSE AND NEED ...... 11 Introduction...... 11 Proposed Action...... 12 Adaptive Management...... 14 Treatment Areas...... 15 Project Location...... 15 Purpose and Need ...... 23 USDA Forest Service Southern Regional Framework for Non-Native Invasive Plant Species...... 23 What the NFGT Land and Resource Management Plan Says About NNIPS Management...... 24 NFGT Desired Condition...... 25 NNIPS Desired Conditions for all Management Areas on the NFGT...... 26 How NNIPS Interfere with Management Area Goals ...... 26 Management Area Descriptions...... 27 Other Species to Watch For ...... 35 Proposed Action...... 35 Integrated Pest Management...... 35 Adaptive Management...... 37 Treatment Priorities and Schedule of Activities ...... 38 Types of Actions Considered...... 38 Cumulative Effects...... 39 Decisions To Be Made...... 39 Public Involvement ...... 41 Tribal Consultation ...... 41 Issues...... 41 Non-significant Issues and Comments...... 42 Additional Comments Received During Public Involvement ...... 43 Significant Issues ...... 47 Issue 1: Herbicide Use ...... 47 Issue 2: NNIPS Treatments in the Wilderness...... 47 CHAPTER 2—ALTERNATIVES ...... 49 Alternatives...... 49 Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Consideration...... 49 Alternative Suggestions from the Public Incorporated into the Alternatives Considered in Detail ...... 50 Alternatives Considered in Detail...... 50 Alternative 1—No Action...... 50 Alternative 2—Proposed Action...... 51 Alternative 3—Modified Proposed Action...... 56 Alternative 4...... 56 Alternative 5...... 56 Comparison of Alternatives...... 57

1 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Comparison of Alternatives by Forest Plan Direction, Needs, and Activities...... 57 Comparison of Alternatives by Issues ...... 57 Issue 1: Herbicide Use ...... 57 Issue 2: NNIPS Treatments in the Wilderness...... 57 Comparison of Alternatives by Summary of Resource Effects...... 57 CHAPTER 3—DIRECT/INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ...... 69 Detailed Analysis Introduction ...... 69 Alternative 1—No Action...... 69 References to Direct/Indirect and Cumulative Effects ...... 69 General Cumulative Effects...... 70 Issues from Public Scoping and Associated Resource Analysis ...... 74 Issue 1: Herbicide use ...... 74 Soils and Hydrology Resources...... 74 Vegetation Resources...... 82 Terrestrial Wildlife Resources ...... 103 Aquatic Resources ...... 120 Issue 2: NNIPS Treatments in the Wilderness...... 132 Wilderness...... 132 Other Resource Considerations ...... 136 Physical Elements ...... 136 Air ...... 136 Socioeconomic Elements...... 140 Heritage...... 140 Recreation—Not including Wilderness (MA 7)...... 141 Scenery Management...... 148 Socioeconomics ...... 157 Environmental Justice...... 167 Acronyms and Abbreviations ...... 169 List of Preparers and Consultants ...... 170 References...... 171

2 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

The National Forests and Grasslands of Texas

3 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

CROSSWALK OF SCIENTIFIC AND COMMON NAMES OF SPECIES FOUND IN THE NON-NATIVE INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES EA

Table 1. Scientific and common names of species discussed in this EA by important category Scientific Name Common Name Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Fund on or Near the NFGT Ailanthus altissima Tree of heaven Albizia julibrissin Mimosa Arundo donax Giant reed or Arundo Bothriochloa ischaemum var. songarica King Ranch bluestem Carduus nutans Nodding thistle Eichhornia crassipes (aquatic) Water hyacinth Hedera helix English ivy Hydrilla verticillata (aquatic) Hydrilla Imperata cylindrica Cogongrass Lespedeza cuneata Sericea lespedeza Lespedeza cuneata Japanese/Glossy privet Ligustrum sinense Chinese/European privet Lygodium japonicum Japanese climbing fern Melia azedarach Chinaberry Myriophyllum spicatum (aquatic) Eurasian water-milfoil Nandina domestica Nandina Paulownia tomentosa Princesstree Phyllostachys aurea Golden bamboo Poncirius trifoliata Trifoliate orange Pueraria montana Kudzu Rosa multiflora Multiflora rose Salvinia molesta (aquatic) Water fern (giant salvinia) Solanum viarum Tropical soda apple Sorghum halpense Johnsongrass Tamarix ramosissima Salt cedar Triadica sebifera Chinese tallow Vernicia fordii Tung-oil tree Vinca major/Vinca minor Periwinkles Wisteria sinensis Chinese wisteria Offsite Native Invasive Plant Species Gleditsia triacanthos Black locust Juniperus virginiana Eastern red cedar Robinia pseudoacacia Honey locust Other Plant Species of Concern Documented in the State of Texas Centaurea biebersteinii Spotted knapweed Cyperus enterianus Deep rooted sedge

4 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Table 1. Scientific and common names of species discussed in this EA by important category Scientific Name Common Name Dioscorea spp Climbing yams Elaeagnus angustifolia Russian olive Elaeagnus umbellata Autumn olive Lonicera fragrantissima Bush honeysuckles Lonicera maackii Bush honeysuckles Lonicera morrowii Bush honeysuckles Lonicera tatarica Bush honeysuckles Lythrum salicaria Purple loosestrife Microstegium vimineum Nepalese browntop Paederia foetida Skunkvine Phyllanthus urinaria Chamber Bitter Polygonum cuspidatum Japanese knotweed Scabiosa atropurpurea Mourningbride Schinus terebinthifolius Peppertree Other Plant Species Discussed in This EA Acer rubrum Red maple Calopogon spp Orchids Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush Ceratophyllum spp Coontail Chasmanthium spp Wood oats Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green ash Ilex deciduas Deciduous holly Itea virginiana Virginia sweetspire Lemna spp Duckweed Liquidambar styraciflua Sweetgum Magnolia virginiana Sweetbay magnolia Morella cerifica Waxmyrtle Najas guadalupensis Southern naiad Nelumbo lutea American lotus Nuphar spp Spatterdock Nymphaea spp Water lilies Nyssa sylvatica Blackgum Osmunda spp Ferns Persea palustris Redbay Planera aquatica Planer-tree Platanthera spp Orchids pogonia spp Pogonia Polygonum spp Smartweed

5 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Table 1. Scientific and common names of species discussed in this EA by important category Scientific Name Common Name Potamogeton spp. Pondweed Potamogeton diversifolius Water-threaded pondweed Potamogeton pedctinatus Baby Pondweed Prosopis. glandulosa Mesquite Quercus lyrata Overcup oak Quercus marilandica Blackjack oak Quercus michauxii Swamp chestnut oak Quercus nigra Water oak Quercus pagoda Cherrybark oak Quercus phellos Willow oak Quercus stellata Post oak Quercus virginiana Live oak Rhynchospora spp Beakrush Sagittaria spp Arrowhead Salix spp Willow Salix nigra Black willow Salvinia minima Native salvinia Sarracenia alata Pitcher plants Saururus cernuus Lizard tail Scleria spp Nutrush Sebastiana fruticosa Sebastian bush Smilax laurifolia Smilax Toxicodendron vernix Poison sumac Trillium gracile Slender wake robin Typha spp Cattail Vaccinium fuscatum Arkansas blueberry Viburnum nudum Possomhaw vibernum Botanical Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species Lesquerella pallida White bladderpod Geocarpon minimum Earth fruit Hymenoxys texana Texas prairie dawn Spiranthes parksii Navasota ladies’-tresses Botanical Management Indicator Species Apteria aphylla Nodding nixie Tetragonotheca ludoviciana Louisiana Squarehead (Sawtooth Nerveray) Botanical RFSS Known to Occur and/or Having Suitable Habitat on Various Units of the NFGT Amorpha paniculata Panicled indigobush Agrimonia incisa Incised groovebur

6 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Table 1. Scientific and common names of species discussed in this EA by important category Scientific Name Common Name Bartonia texana Texas bartonia Crataegus warneri Warner’s hawthorn Cyperus grayoides Mohlenbrock’s umbrella sedge Cypripedium kentuckiense Southern ladies’-slipper Dalea reverchonii Comanche peak prairie clover Hibiscus dasycalyx Neches river rose mallow Lachnocaulon digynum Pineland bogbutton Leavenworthia texana Texas golden gladecress Liatris tenuis Slender gayfeather Platanthera integra Yellow fringeless orchid Prenanthes barbata Barbed rattlesnake root Rhynchospora macra Large beakrush Rudbeckia scabrifolia Sabine coneflower Schoenolirion wrightii Texas sunnybells Silene subciliata Scarlet catchfly Streptanthus maculatus Clasping twistflower Trillium texanum Texas trillium Xyris drummondii Drummond’s yellow-eyed grass Xyris louisianica Louisiana yellow-eyed grass Xyris scabrifolia Harper’s yellow-eyed grass Terrestrial Wildlife Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species Charadrius melodus Piping Plover (bird) Grus Americana Whooping Crane (bird) Nicrophorus americanus American Burying Beetle (invertebrate) Picoides borealis Red-Cockaded Woodpecker (bird) Sterna antillarum Least Tern (bird) Ursus americanus luteolus Louisiana Black Bear (mammal) Vireo atricapilla Black-Capped Vireo (bird) Terrestrial Wildlife Management Indicator Species for the NFGT Various species Neotropical Migrants (bird) Colinus virginianus Northern Bobwhite (bird) Dryocopus pileatus Pileated Woodpecker (bird) Icteria virens Yellow-Breasted Chat (bird) Meleagris gallopavo Eastern Wild Turkey (bird) Odocoileus virginianus White Tailed Deer (mammal) Sciurus carolinensis Eastern Grey Squirrel (mammal) Sciurus niger Eastern Fox Squirrel (mammal) Terrestrial Wildlife Regional Forester Sensitive Species for the NFGT

7 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Table 1. Scientific and common names of species discussed in this EA by important category Scientific Name Common Name Aimophila aestivalis Bachman’s Sparrow (bird) Corynorhinus rafinesquii Rafinesque’s Big Eared Bat (mammal) Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle (bird) Lanius ludovicianus migrans Migrant Loggerhead Shrike (bird) Myotis austroriparius Southeastern Myotis (mammal) Pituophis ruthveni Louisiana Pine Snake (reptile) Somatochlora margarita Big Thicket Emerald Dragonfly (invertebrate) Aquatic Wildlife Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species Arkansia wheeleri Ouachita Rock Pocketbook (mollusk) Aquatic Wildlife Management Indicator Species for the NFGT Ammocrypta vivax Scaly Sand Darter (fish) Cambarus diogenes Crayfish (invertebrate) Campostoma anomalum Central stoneroller (fish) Erimyzon oblongus Creek chubsucker (fish) Etheostoma fusiforme Swamp darter (fish) Gambusia affinis Mosquitofish (fish) Ictiobus bubalus smallmouth buffalo (fish) Lepomis cyanellus Green sunfish (fish) Lepomis microlophus Redear sunfish (fish) Notriopis atrocaudalis Blackspot shiner (fish) Procambarus acutus Crayfish (invertebrate) Semotilus atromaculatus Creek chub (fish) Polyodon spathula Paddlefish (fish) Aquatic Wildlife Regional Forester Sensitive Species for the NFGT Faxonella beyeri Sabine Fencing Crayfish (crafish) Fusconaia askewi Texas Pigtoe (mollusk) Fusconaia lananensis Triangle PIgtoe (mollusk) Lampsilis satura Sandbank Pocketbook (mollusk) Notropis sabinae Sabine Shiner (fish) Obovaria jacksoniana Southern Hickorynut (mollusk) Pleurobema riddellii Louisiana Pigtoe (mollusk) Potamilus amphichaenus Texas Heelsplitter (mollusk) Procambarus nechesae Neches Crayfish (crafish) Procambarus nigrocinctus Unnamed Crayfish (crafish) Additional Speies Discussed Ameiurus melas Black bullheads (fish) Ameiurus natalis Yellow bullheads (fish) Amia calva Bowfin (fish)

8 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Table 1. Scientific and common names of species discussed in this EA by important category Scientific Name Common Name Carassius spp Carp (fish) Erimyzon succetta Lake chubsucker (fish) Capiodes carpio River carpsucker (fish) Esox niger Chain pickerel (fish) Ictalurus punctatus Channel catfish (fish) Lepisosteus oculatus Spotted gar (fish) Lepomis macrochirus Bluegills (fish) Micropterus spp Bass species (fish) Noturus species Madtoms (fish) Notropis texanus Weed shiner (fish) Periclimenes spp Shrimp species (invertebrate) Percina spp Darters (fish) Pimephales promelas Fathead minnows (fish) Uniomerus declivis Tapered pondhorn (fish) Biological Control Agents Ctenopharyngodon idella White amur (grass carp) (fish) Cyrtobagous salviniae Salvinia weevil (invertebrate)

9 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

10 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

CHAPTER 1—PURPOSE AND NEED The population of the State of Texas continues to increase annually. Within the National Forests and Grasslands in Texas (NFGT), Federal lands are increasingly influenced by human use and presence. Development of urban lands near National Forest (NF) System lands has resulted in increased human impacts and invasive species presence. The increase in development has increased the introduction and spread of invasive plant species on National Forest System lands, resulting in new infestations within important animal habitat. The NFGT invasive plant species inventory is currently incomplete; therefore, the extent of invasive plant species infestations is unknown. As more inventories are completed, it is likely that more acres would be identified. Introduction Chapter 1 presents the proposed action and explains the purpose and need for the National Forests and Grasslands in the Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project (NNIPS), decisions to be made, public involvement, and issue development. Site-specific needs for the NNIPS Project Area and potential resource effects have been considered in the preparation of this environmental assessment (EA). The definition of non-native invasive species is based on Executive Order 13112. A species is considered a non-native invasive if (1) it is not native to the ecosystem under consideration, and (2) its introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health. This EA and the accompanying NNIPS Management Plan are tiered to the following documents, and the activities proposed are within the standards and guidelines of those documents. • The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Land and Resource Land Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement, as amended (USDA-FS 1996). This EA and accompanying NNIPS Management Plan incorporates by reference the USDA Forest Service Southern Regional Framework for Non-Native Invasive Plant Species (USDA-FS 2005a) (for more detail see following Purpose and Need section). Additional documents that address control of NNIPS include: • Final Environmental Impact Statement for Vegetation Management in the Coastal Plain/Piedmont, and the Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Vegetation Management in the Coastal Plain/Piedmont (USDA-FS 1989). • The Ratcliff Lake Weed Control Project (May 2001), Davy Crockett NF. This project is currently active and involves the application of aquatic labeled herbicides to control hydrilla on up to 45 acres that encompass Ratcliff Lake. • Big Sandy Watershed Project (January 2005), LBJ Grasslands. This project is currently active and involves the mechanical and chemical control of johnsongrass, Sericea lespedeza, and nodding thistle on up to 80 acres within the LBJ National Grasslands. • Ladonia Watershed Analysis (May 2005), Caddo Grasslands. This project is currently active and involves the mechanical and chemical control of Sericea

11 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

lespedeza on up to 130 acres within the Ladonia Unit of the Caddo National Grasslands. The best available science is considered in preparation of this EA. However, what constitutes best available science might vary over time and across scientific disciplines. Generally, we show consideration of the best available science when we insure the scientific integrity of the discussions and analyses in the project NEPA document. Specifically, this EA and the accompanying project record identifies methods used, references reliable scientific sources, discusses responsible opposing views, and discloses incomplete or unavailable information, scientific uncertainty, and risk (See 40 CFR, 1502.9(b), 1502.22, 1502.24). The project record references all scientific information considered, including papers, reports, literature reviews, review citations, academic peer reviews, science consistency reviews, and results of ground-based observations to validate best available science. This EA incorporates by reference (as per 40 CFR 1502.21) the project record, including specialist reports and other technical documentation used to support the analyses and conclusions of this EA. Analysis was completed for hydrology, vegetation, terrestrial and aquatic wildlife, Wilderness, soils, heritage, recreation, scenery management, socioeconomics, and human health. Information from these reports has been summarized in Chapter 3. The project record is located at the NFGT Office in Lufkin, Texas. Alternative treatment methods for both of the current projects were considered under an integrated pest management (IPM) approach and the best methods, or combination of methods, were selected for each project based on effectiveness and projected success of control, and are compliant with the guidelines within the NNIPS Management Plan. Table 1 lists the NNIPS species discussed in this document and found on or near the NFGT.

Proposed Action The Forest Service (FS) is proposing to implement the site-specific NNIPS Management Plan for the NFGT. The two actions included in the management plan are: Treatment of existing NNIPS sites, and treatment of NNIPS sites found in the future. Treatments are based on IPM and adaptive management approaches. All treatments would be limited to a maximum of 500 acres per Forest and 500 acres for both grasslands per year. The action prescribes using an IPM and adaptive management approach to the control of NNIPS (see Tables 2 and 3) on the NFGT (see accompanying NNIPS Management Plan for specific treatment proposals). IPM treatments can include physical/mechanical, biological, cultural, or chemical techniques or any combination of techniques as appropriate. Refer to Table 2 for the preferred control technique by species (see also NNIPS Management Plan, pages 73–112). • Mechanical controls: Should a pest reach an unacceptable level, mechanical methods are the first options to consider if feasible and effective. Mechanical controls can include mowing, chopping, cutting, pulling, grubbing, disking, piling,

12 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

and root raking. Although usually not effective by themselves, mechanical controls can aid in control efforts of certain species. For example, the most effective and feasible treatment to remove infestations of Nandina domestica is to remove the plant from the soil using a root puller. For other species like Ligustrum sinense or Tamarix ramosissima, the plant may first be pulled from the ground or cut at the ground level using a saw or similar piece of equipment. However, these mechanical treatments may require a follow-up herbicide treatment to control resprouting or to the stump if the individual plant is too large to be pulled. This results in less herbicide being used on a smaller area, thereby reducing both costs and a potential for damage to non-target vegetation. • Biological controls: Natural biological processes and materials can provide control, with minimal environmental impact, and often at low cost. The focus here is on promoting beneficial organisms that eat target pests. While herbicide is usually the most effective treatment for infestations of Hydrilla verticillata, when chemical treatment is not feasible, the use of Ctenopharyngodon idella, would be the next most effective treatment method. Additionally, Cyrtobagous salviniae, a weevil that is specific to Salvinia molesta, can be effective in controlling populations of this species, but has failed to achieve complete eradication of targeted populations. As in the preceding example, biological controls can be most effective when used in conjunction with other controls within an IPM approach. • Cultural controls: Cultural controls can include restricting entry to an area, washing vehicles, using weed-free seed, prescribed burning (not in MA 7), and signing. For instance, signs would be used in recreation areas to alert the public of measures they could use to prevent spread of NNIPS. The use of native seed may also be used to fill the niche left behind by the removal of NNIPS, reducing the chances that another undesirable species will establish. Prescribed burning (growing season prescribed fire in particular) is an example of a cultural control method and is the most effective means of controlling Bothriochloa isheamum var. songarica. Burning would generally include areas of less than 100 acres, but specific treatment areas may be included within larger burn blocks. Burn plans would be developed for each prescribed burn that addresses issues of public safety and smoke. • Chemical controls: Synthetic pesticides may be used when other controls fail or are deemed unlikely to prove effective. Past studies, management abstracts, and recommendations from land stewards have shown (from Bugwood.org and texasinvasives.org) that most NNIPS do not respond to control treatments that do not include herbicide as part of an IPM approach ( i.e., Ailanthus altissima, Pueraria montana, and Triadica sebifera). For other NNIPS (Tamarix ramosissima, Ligustrum sinense) mechanical treatment alone may not provide adequate control (based on monitoring), and follow-up herbicide treatment may be necessary (adaptive management). See the NNIPS Management Plan for a guide of recommended treatments by individual NNIPS and “Appendix 5. Herbicide Use Protocols,” “Appendix 7. Emergency Spill Plan,” and “Appendix 9. Herbicide Hazard Quotients and Effects to Human Health.”

13 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Herbicide Application Methods: • Directed foliar sprays: herbicide-water sprays aimed at plant foliage to cover all leaves to the point of run off and usually applied with a backpack sprayer (use low pressure, drift retardants, and spray shields to avoid drift). • Stem injection (including hack-and-squirt): herbicide concentrate or herbicide- water mixtures applied into incisions spaced around woody stems made by an ax, hatchet, machete, brush ax, or tree injector. • Girdle-treat: herbicide concentrate or herbicide-water mixtures applied to an encircling band of removed bark around woody stems made by a cutting tool and applied with a spray bottle, wick, or paintbrush. • Cut-treat: herbicide concentrate or herbicide water mixture applied to freshly cut stumps (outer circumference) or stems (entire top surface) with a backpack sprayer, spray bottle, wick, or paintbrush. • Basal sprays: herbicide-oil-penetrant mixture sprayed or daubed onto the lower portion of woody stems usually applied with a backpack sprayer or wick applicator. • Soil spots: application of hexazinone herbicide as metered amounts to the soil surface around target woody stems or in a grid pattern for treating many stems in an area; usually applied with a spotgun or with a backpack sprayer equipped with a straight-stream nozzle. Aerial application of herbicide is not proposed for use.

Adaptive Management Adaptive management would be used to help control NNIPS. Adaptive management allows a succession of IPM treatments based on the monitoring of past treatments and the predictable outcomes of additional treatments. Adaptive management also allows for the treatments of new infestations of NNIPS based on the monitoring of similar past treatments of NNIPS. Under adaptive management, monitoring of individual NNIPS treatments would determine the effectiveness of initial treatment. An evaluation would be made as to whether additional treatments would be needed. Additional treatments would be implemented based on the predicted effectiveness of subsequent treatments. Control efforts for NNIPS, as performed under adaptive management, would first involve utilizing the least intrusive method to control and eradicate a NNIPS infestation. Those treatments would be monitored for efficacy, and, if successful, would continue until goals are met. If treatments do not seem to be effective, the treatment method would be changed to include new measures (also with predicted outcomes), and, once again, monitored for efficacy. An example would include the treatment of a small Melia azedarach infestation. Initially, it may be thought the the best way to eliminate the infestation would be to manually grub the trees out of the ground. If subsequent monitoring reveals that not all of the roots were removed and root sprouts have formed, it may be determined that the next best course of action would be to manually apply a small amount of herbicide as a spot spray to the shoots. Again, this treatment would be monitored to insure success.

14 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Treatment Areas Areas to be treated include affected ecosystems, FS Road (FSR) rights-of-way (ROWs), and administrative and recreational areas—anywhere in the NFGT where NNIPS are found. The current plan is to limit all treatments involving biological, mechanical, cultural controls, and chemical applications to an area not to exceed 500 acres per Forest, and 500 acres in the Grasslands per year. Table 5 displays specific proposed maximum acres treated versus total unit acres of known infestations (see “Appendix 3. Survey Lists/NFGT Invasive Species Distribution Information”). As additional infestations are discovered, annual acres of treatment could increase above current treatments, but could not exceed the maximum possible annual treatment acres allowed per unit. Future infestations of NNIPS would: • Require site-specifif NEPA prior to treatment, • follow procedures in the NNIPS Management Plan, and • use an IPM approach based on adaptive management as analyzed in this EA.

Project Location The NFGT is comprised of 637,621 acres in four Forests, and 38,186 acres in two Grasslands. The NFs are located in the "piney woods" of east Texas, surrounded by small private timberlands and timber management organizations (TMOs) like The Campbell Group and John Hancock Forest Management. The NFs are in the Humid Temperate Domain, Subtropical Division, and Southeastern Mixed Forest Province of R. G. Bailey's Ecoregion Classification System. The Grasslands are in the Prairie Division and Prairie Parkland Province. Local relief for both areas range from 100 to 600 feet, and 80 percent of the areas is gently sloped. Streams are generally slow moving and brown and murky with sediment. Annual precipitation averages 35 to 40 inches on the Grasslands, and up to 60 inches annually in the Forest areas. Major population centers are within 2-hours driving time. The grasslands are within one- hour driving time of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan areas in north central Texas. The Angelina National Forest (160,798 acres) is located in Angelina, Jasper, San Augustine, and Nacogdoches counties (Figure 1), east of Lufkin and divided by Sam Rayburn Reservoir. Significant attributes of this pine and hardwood forest include the Upland Island and Turkey Hill Wildernesses, the Bannister Wildlife Management Area, Old Aldridge Sawmill Site, Stephen F. Austin Experimental Forest, and eight recreation sites. Many miles of forested lakeshore along Sam Rayburn Reservoir provide a variety of recreational opportunities. The Davy Crockett National Forest (160,633 acres) is located in Trinity and Houston counties, west of Lufkin and east of Crockett, Texas (Figure 2). Significant attributes of this pine and hardwood forest include the Big Slough Wilderness Area, Ratcliff Lake Recreation Area, the 4-C Hiking Trail, the Piney Creek Horse Trail, the historic mill and townsite of Ratcliff, Alabama Creek Wildlife Management Area,and the Neches River on the eastern boundary.

15 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

The Sabine National Forest (153,160 acres), adjacent to Louisiana, lies primarily in Sabine, San Augustine,and Shelby counties, with small portions in Newton and Jasper counties (Figure 3). San Augustine, Hemphill and Pineland, Texas,are the major area communities. Attributes of this pine-hardwood forest include Indian Mounds Wilderness, seven recreation sites, and several oil and gas wells. Toledo Bend Reservoir, with its many miles of forested lakeshore, is adjacent to the eastern side of the Forest. The Sam Houston National Forest (163,030 acres) lies in Montgomery, San Jacinto,and Walker counties, about 60 miles north of Houston. The cities of Conroe, Huntsville, and Cleveland, Texas, are nearby (Figure 4). Lake Conroe is a significant water feature on the western portion, with several miles of shoreline having Forest ownership. Interstate Highway 45 divides the Forest and four-lane U.S. Highway 59 lies along the eastern edge. The Forest has five recreation areas with Double Lake and Cagle being heavily used by recreationists. Other attributes include Little Lake Creek Wilderness, Big Creek Scenic Area, Lone Star Hiking Trail (26 miles have been designated as a National Recreation Trail), and a major endangered red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) population. The LBJ and Caddo National Grasslands (38,186 acres) are located in Montague, Wise, and Fannin counties of north Texas and are open grasslands with scattered brush and tree cover (Figures 5, 6, and 7). Both the Caddo and LBJ were severely eroded, abandoned farms and ranches that the Federal Government acquired in the late 1930s. The LBJ receives heavy recreation use because of its proximity to the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan areas. Attributes of the LBJ Grassland include a variety of wildlife, the Cross Timbers Research Natural Area, Black Creek Recreation Area, and oil and gas wells. Also included is one of nine national flood prevention projects in the Nation, as amended by the Flood Prevention Act of 1944. The Caddo Unit is in Fannin County near the Red River and Oklahoma (Figure 6). The Caddo area has forested drainages with brush-covered slopes and grassy open pastures. Coffee Mill Lake, Lake Davy Crockett, and Lake Fannin provide excellent fisheries and recreational opportunities. Coffee Mill Lake and Lake Davy Crockett have campgrounds for overnight camping. Lake Fannin Unit is the site of a historic rural resettlement camp.

16 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Figure 1. Location of the Angelina National Forest

17 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Figure 2. Davy Crockett NF

18 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Figure 3. Sabine NF

19 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Figure 4. Sam Houston NF

20 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Figure 5. LBJ National Grasslands

21 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Figure 6. Caddo National Grasslands Bois D’Arc Unit

Figure 7. Caddo National Grasslands Ladonia Unit

22 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Purpose and Need

USDA Forest Service Southern Regional Framework for Non-Native Invasive Plant Species The FS has established a regional strategy (USDA FS 2005a) for the prevention, control, and eradication of NNIPS, which threaten the sustainability of forest ecosystems world- wide. The Region 8 Non Native Invasive Species (NNIS) Steering Committee will provide leadership to reach the Regional NNIS Goal and Vision. The working group is chartered by the steering committee to draft this strategic plan and associated documents to institutionalize NNIS programs for the FS Southern Region. Forests within the 13 states of the Southern Region are rich in biological diversity and provide vital goods and services. The current infestations and growing threat of NNIPS can displace diversity and habitats, disrupt vital ecosystem functions, and degrade productivity and recreational benefits. Non-native invasive plants, insects, diseases, mammals, fish, mussels, snails, and earthworms have increased in their range and severity, while even more invasive species threaten introduction through global commerce. This NNIPS strategy for the Southern Region is part of an ongoing national effort to combat existing non-native invasive species populations and curtail entry of new non-native invasive species. The Southern Regional Framework for NNIPS provides an interdisciplinary framework to strategically plan the NNIPS management programs affecting Southern Region (Region 8) National Forests as well as state and private forestry and research and development programs. This framework identifies the goal, vision, and program elements for NNIPS strategic management. It further identifies roles and responsibilities of state and private forestry, research and development, as well as the regional office, forest supervisors, and district personnel who are to accomplish the program elements. The goal of the Region 8 NNIPS program is to reduce, minimize, or eliminate the potential for introduction, establishment, spread, and impact of NNIPS across all landscapes and ownerships. The vision for the Southern Region is to implement appropriate and successful measures to prevent and control NNIPS; this program would: • Protect native ecosystems and biodiversity and help restore native plants and animals; • involve coordination between the NF System, state and private forestry, and the Southern Research Station; and • utilize cooperative partnerships with other Federal agencies, state and local governments, Tribes, non-governmental organizations, neighboring landowners, and others to achieve the stated goal. To do this, the entire Southern Region must respond quickly to prevent, detect, control, manage, and/or eradicate NNIPS infestations, and restore the desired ecological function following NNIPS removal. Region 8 NNIPS programs tier to the following program elements based on high priority management actions identified by the National Invasive Species Council (NISC 2001): • Leadership and Coordination

23 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

• Current Status and Trends • Prevention • Early Detection and Rapid Response • Control and Management • Restoration • Partnerships and Cooperation • Research • Information and Education

What the NFGT Land and Resource Management Plan Says About NNIPS Management The mission of the NFGT is to maintain, improve, or restore, healthy and naturally diverse ecosystems, which sustain those resources and values that contribute to the ecological, social, and economic needs of the public (USDA-FS 1996 [Forest Plan, pages 41–42]). Given this mission, the NFGT will: • Manage for long-term sustainability of diverse ecological systems, to include native plants and animals, which occur in the planning area. • Direct management through application of the processes that sustain ecosystems and provide multiple resources for the future. • Identify and manage unique or declining ecosystems within east and north Texas. • Use an Ecological Classification System (ECS) approach to management that provides improved resource capabilities and considerations. • Enhance threatened, endangered, or sensitive (TES) species through restoration of the processes and habitats these populations require. In addition, the NFGT has established five strategic goals that would guide the forest supervisor and district rangers during the implementation of the NNIPS management plan (USDA-FS 1996 [Forest Plan, page 42]). These goals are as follows: • Biological Environment – Sustain the biologically diverse ecosystems that provide the many natural resources, living and non-living, that occur on these NFGT lands in north and east Texas. • Social – Provide social and cultural benefits for the American public and the many Forest and Grassland users from a recreational, environmental, and aesthetic perspective. • Economic – Continue economic benefits that contribute to the support of communities within the planning area. • Production – Through sound ecosystem management practices, maintain the continual flow and the long-term productivity and sustainability of renewable natural resources without long-term detriment to other resource values. • Physical Environment – Implement practices that ensure clean air, soil productivity, and water quality, which help sustain all other resources.

24 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

NFGT Desired Condition Just as Forest Plan decisions are based on established mission and goals, the desired condition (DC) is a narrative or pictorial description of the desired state for an area. This concept of DC for a Forest or Grassland is beneficial when planning projects that maintain or move a specific area towards that condition. The future NFGT should be described in terms of the physical and biological processes, the environmental setting, and the human experience. These descriptions must both be easily defined in narrative form and with the use of pictures to help formulate management strategies. The following provides desired conditions for the entire NFGT (USDA 1996 [Forest Plan, pages 42–44]). • Areas of the Forest will generally develop older forest conditions, including bottomland hardwoods, mixed forest uplands and upland pine areas with an open character of longleaf, shortleaf, and loblolly pine stands. • Areas of potential old-growth forest will be identified throughout the life of the plan, managed, and allowed to develop through time. • Bottomland hardwoods along rivers and streams will be managed for the development of an older forest character. • Habitat for species groups that depend on mature forests will be more common. • Timber harvest will continue in ways that are environmentally and visually acceptable by providing areas of more continuous canopy and structural diversity. • Native species and communities are maintained or restored through provision of all Forest and Grassland successional stages; however, some early succession species or groups may not be as common as at present levels. • Examples of natural succession on Forest and Grassland ecosystems will be demonstrated through more areas that are managed for special attributes. • Some Wilderness areas, in the absence of fire, develop into dense thickets dominated by shade-tolerant hardwood species with few old pines. • Ecological communities will be enhanced through silvicultural practices, prescribed burning, grazing, watershed improvement, and other management activities. • Longleaf pine forests increase through restoration and management, providing contiguous habitat the Louisiana pine snake, red-cockaded woodpecker, and the prairie-like grasses and bogs. • Natural mortality in older pine forests from southern pine beetle (SPB) infestations and other factors will cause more small patchwork patterns of regeneration. • Sound land management will be demonstrated on Grassland areas, enhancing the natural prairie and crosstimbers of north Texas through a variety of vegetation management projects. • A greater sense of communication, cooperation, and partnerships between Forest and Grassland management and local communities will exist. • Opportunities for public involvement in planning and management will become more common.

25 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

• A range of recreational opportunities will be visible via access and signage, providing users easy access to trails, trailheads, and camping areas. • Roads will provide access to the NFGT; however, some of these roads will be for administration and management only, with limited vehicular use by the public. • Scenery along major travelways, lakeshores, and river corridors will develop and maintain a variety of scenic qualities, including some areas with an older-forest character. • Due to land exchange and acquisition programs, land ownership patterns will become more consolidated. • A sustainable flow of commodities such as timber from the Forests and livestock on the Grasslands will continue. Mineral development will occur within environmental constraints. • Economies of local communities will be diversified and supplemented by the many natural, recreational, and social values the NFGT provide. • Improve the developed recreation areas where facilities are lacking through major rehabilitation or replacement to meet demands from the adjacent Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex and the Houston metropolitan area.

NNIPS Desired Conditions for all Management Areas on the NFGT The DC is to reduce, minimize, or eliminate the potential for introduction, establishment, spread, and impact of NNIPS across all landscapes and ownerships. The vision is to protect native ecosystems and biodiversity, as well as begin restoration of desired ecological functions or components after NNIPS removal (“USDA-FS Southern Regional Framework for Non-Native Invasive Plant Species” [USDA-FS 2002a; page 1]).

How NNIPS Interfere with Management Area Goals For more detailed management area (MA) descriptions, see the NFGT Forest Plan. The effects of the most troublesome NNIPS in the MAs within the NFGT are described below. NNIPS found on roads and trails are also described. The occurrence of these species significantly decreases habitat quality by altering community composition and structure if allowed to spread. In time they could dominate the canopy layer and/or understory and form single stands as they have in other southern forests. Aquatic NNIPS may be present or have the potential to invade lakes, thereby interfering with the primary management goals for identified MAs. For instance, these species reduce sunlight and alter water chemistry, negatively affecting native aquatic plants and animals in sloughs and natural-occurring lakes. Populations of these species may occur, although mostly in scattered patterns along ROWs, old homesites, recreational areas, power lines, well pads, timber loading decks and skid trails, boat ramps, and improved trails. Other NNIPS are found adjacent to MAs and can pose new threats to the integrity of the forest community, increase fire danger, displace native vegetation, and decrease habitat quality for the conservation targets. NFGT lands must be continually monitored for the arrival of any new infestations of NNIPS so that they can be quickly eradicated.

26 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Management Area Descriptions The following MA descriptions are from the Forest Plan, pages 86–260.

Management Area 1 Upland Forests Ecosystems. These landscapes are managed for regeneration of forest and woodland communities, including restoration of the longleaf pine-little bluestem, and shortleaf pine-oak hickory dominated communities, while offering a wide range of compatible multiple uses. MA 1 Forest NNIPS include: Albizia julibrissin, Melia azedarach, Triadica sebifera, Vernicia fordii, Ligustrum sinense, Bothriochloa ischaemum var. songarica, Sorghum halpense, Rosa multiflora, Hedera helix, Wisteria sinensis, Paulownia tomentosa, Vinca major/Vinca minor, Lygodium japonicum, and Lespedeza cuneata. These species could alter community composition and structure if allowed to spread. In time, they could dominate the canopy layer and/or understory and even form monospecific stands as evidenced in other southern forests, thereby significantly decreasing habitat quality. The presence of these species interferes with the primary management goals for this MA. For instance, the reduction of sunlight to groundcover can alter soil chemistry, and the NNIPS out-compete native plants for available resources. These negative impacts act to decrease overall biodiversity in the affected areas. Populations of NNIPS currently found in MA 1 are in somewhat scattered patterns, typically along ROWs, old home sites, and recreational areas, and other scattered infestations within the management area. Other species not yet found within MA 1, but found nearby, can pose new threats to the integrity of the forest community, increase fire danger, displace native vegetation, and could decrease habitat quality for the conservation targets. Such NNIPS include Arundo donax, Pueraria montana, Imperata cylindrica, Nandina domestica, Phyllostachys aurea, Ailanthus altissima, Ligustrum japonicum, and Solanum viarum.

Management Area 2 Upland Pine Woodlands and Savanna Ecosystems. These landscapes are managed for large, older trees within the longleaf pine-little bluestem, shortleaf pine-oak, and loblolly pine-oak dominated communities; and a wide range of compatible multiple uses; but primarily emphasizing management for the recovery of the red-cockaded woodpecker. Refer to MA 1 and MA 6 for Forest NNIPS also found in MA 2.

Management Area 3 Grassland Ecosystems. These landscapes are managed for prairie and crosstimbers communities while offering a wide range of compatible multiple uses. Grasslands and savannas suffer the greatest concentrations of non-native species. Common invasive species that interfere with the primary management goals for this MA are Ailanthus altissima, Melia azedarach, Tamarix ramosissima, Sorghum halpense, Bothriochloa ischaemum var. songarica, Rosa multiflora, and Lespedeza cuneata. These species reduce sunlight to groundcover, deplete water resources through excessive evapotranspiration, and degrade grazing quality in infected pastures. Carduus nutans currently does not occur in MA 3, but is found nearby on private land and could impact the quality of grazing allotments. Other species not yet found within MA 3, but found

27 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

nearby, can pose new threats to the integrity of the forest community, increase fire danger, displace native vegetation, and could decrease habitat quality for the conservation targets.

Management Area 4 Streamside Management and Lakeside Buffer Zones. These areas, which incorporate riparian areas, jurisdictional wetlands, lakes, oxbows, and other areas in and adjacent to intermittent and perennial streams and lakeshores, will be managed to maintain the role and function of aquatic, riparian, and wetland ecosystems while providing opportunities for compatible multiple uses. Much of MA 4 is considered bottomland hardwood or transitions that contain characteristics of this habitat. Once exceeding 16 million acres, Texas bottomland hardwood areas have been extensively altered with less than 6 million acres (35 percent) remaining today. Hardwood-dominated communities, found along major NFGT drainages, perennial streams, and rivers, are extremely valuable and would be emphasized in restoration efforts. In addition, Eichhornia crassipes, Salvinia molesta, Myriophyllum spicatum, and Hydrilla verticillata may be present or have the potential to invade lakes in these areas. These NNIPS interfere with the primary management goals for wetland areas and the naturally occurring lakes that dot this region. For instance, NNIPS reduce sunlight and alter water chemistry, negatively affecting native aquatic plants and animals when NNIPS dominate sloughs and naturally occurring lakes. If NNIPS dominate seasonally flooded wetlands, they may displace native marsh vegetation that produces more abundant food for waterfowl. Refer to MA 1 for additional Forest NNIPS that also may be found in MA 4.

Management Area 5 Major Aquatic Ecosystems. These areas are managed to maintain the aquatic ecosystems while providing opportunities for compatible multiple uses. Since these constructed lakes are a major attraction for recreational uses such as boating and fishing, they are susceptible to the introduction of several non-native invasive aquatic species. Current species infesting aquatic habitat within MA 5 includes Eichhornia crassipes, Salvinia molesta, Hydrilla verticillata, and Myriophyllum spicatum. These species interfere with the primary management goals for these aquatic ecosystems. For instance, these NNIPS reduce sunlight and alter water chemistry, negatively affecting native aquatic plants and animals when it dominates sloughs and natural occurring lakes. If NNIPS dominate seasonally flooded wetlands, they may displace native marsh vegetation that produces more abundant food for waterfowl. NFGT lands must be continually monitored for the arrival of any new infestations of these NNIPS and any populations found must be dealt with swiftly to eradicate them.

Management Area 6 Upland Longleaf Pine Woodlands and Savanna Ecosystems. These landscapes are managed for large, older trees within the longleaf pine-little bluestem dominated community, and for a range of compatible multiple uses; but management emphasizes the enhancement of westernmost example of the rare and sensitive longleaf pine

28 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

communities and species such as the red-cockaded woodpecker. High recreation use in the area increases the likelihood of introducing invasive species. Due to the extremely high rarity and sensitivity of these micro-sites occurring within MA 6, the containment and eradication of any NNIPS found within this area should be high priority. The area is also a high use recreational area, further improving the likelihood of an incursion of NNIPS, which interfere with the primary management goals for this MA. For instance, these NNIPS reduce sunlight to groundcover, deplete water resources through excessive evapotranspiration, and degrade grazing quality in infected pastures. NNIPS occurring within MA 6 on the NFGT include: Albizia julibrissin, Melia azedarach, Triadica sebifera, Vernicia fordii, Ligustrum sinense, Bothriochloa ischaemum var. songarica, Sorghum halpense, Rosa multiflora, Hedera helix, Wisteria sinensis, Paulownia tomentosa, Vinca major/Vinca minor, Lygodium japonicum, and Lespedeza cuneata. These NNIPS could alter community composition and structure if allowed to spread. In time, they could dominate the canopy layer and/or understory and even form monospecific stands as evidenced in other southern forests. These changes would translate to a significant decrease in habitat quality. Populations of these NNIPS currently occur in MA 6, in somewhat scattered patterns typically along ROWs, culverts, old home sites, and recreational areas and other small, scattered infestations within the MA. Other species not yet found within MA 6, but found nearby, can pose new threats to the integrity of the forest community, increase fire danger, displace native vegetation, and could decrease habitat quality for the conservation targets. Such NNIPS include Arundo donax, Pueraria montana, Imperata cylindrica, Nandina domestica, Phyllostachys aurea, Ailanthus altissima, Ligustrum japonicum, and Solanum viarum.

Management Area 7 Wilderness, Current Direction. Wilderness areas have been congressionally designated, through the Wilderness Act of 1964, as areas “….which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions…” However, the presence of NNIPS alters natural processes and should therefore not be accepted where the management goals revolve around maintaining a “natural condition.” NNIPS that occur within MA 7 on the NFGT include: Albizia julibrissin, Melia azedarach, Triadica sebifera, Vernicia fordii, Ligustrum sinense, Bothriochloa ischaemum var. songarica, Sorghum halpense, Rosa multiflora, Hedera helix, Wisteria sinensis, Paulownia tomentosa, Vinca major/Vinca minor, Lygodium japonicum, and Lespedeza cuneata. If additional infestations are documented in future surveys, efforts should be made to control and eradicate these species in order to restore the area to ecosystems where natural processes evolve. These NNIPS could alter community composition and structure if allowed to spread. In time they could dominate the canopy layer and/or understory and even form monospecific stands as evidenced in other southern forests. These changes could create to a significant decrease in habitat quality. Populations of these NNIPS could occur in MA 7, typically along ROWs, culverts, old homesites, and unimproved trails, and other small scattered infestations within the MA. Other species not found within MA 7, but found nearby, can pose new threats to the

29 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

integrity of the forest community, increase fire danger, displace native vegetation, and could decrease habitat quality for the conservation targets. Such NNIPS include Arundo donax, Pueraria Montana, Imperata cylindrica, Nandina domestica, Phyllostachys aurea, Ailanthus altissima, Ligustrum japonicum, and Solanum viarum. NFGT lands must be continually monitored for the arrival of any new infestations of these NNIPS and any populations found must be dealt with swiftly to eradicate them.

Management Area 8a Research Natural Areas. These areas are part of a national network of ecological areas designated in perpetuity for research and education and/or to maintain biological diversity on NF System lands. Research natural areas (RNAs) are for non-manipulative research, observation, and study. They also may assist in implementing provisions of special acts, such as the Endangered Species Act and the monitoring provisions of the National Forest Management Act. As in Wilderness areas (MA 7), RNAs (MA 8a) are areas that are set aside to allow for the evolution of natural processes. However, the presence of NNIPS alters these “natural processes” and leads to unnatural conditions. As in Wilderness areas (MA 7), RNAs (MA 8a) are areas that are set aside to allow for the evolution of natural processes. However, as discussed earlier, the mere presence of a NNIPS is an unnatural occurrence that can negatively affect and negatively alter these natural processes. Therefore, NNIPS should not be accepted in any RNA where the management goals revolve around maintaining a “natural condition.” Currently, only Nandina domestica and Lygodium japonicum are known to occur in any area of MA 8a (specifically, Mill Creek Cove) in the NFGT. If NNIPS infestations are documented in future surveys, efforts should be made to control and eradicate these species in order to revert the area back to where natural processes evolve. For additional NNIPS that may occur within MA 8a on the NFGT see MA 1. NFGT lands must be continually monitored for the arrival of any new infestations of these NNIPS and any populations found must be dealt with swiftly to eradicate them.

Management Area 8b Protected River and Stream Corridors. These areas, which include candidate scenic and recreational rivers, have an emphasis of protection, enhancement, or restoration of unique areas that are recognized as scenic, with outstanding visual quality. The FS Manual (FSM) 2360 defines a scenic area as "a unit of land with outstanding natural beauty that requires special management to preserve this beauty." Significant qualities or characters for each area designated are described with an emphasis on desired condition and management. These areas are to emphasize the protection, enhancement, and promotion of sustainable populations of unique plants or plant communities. These botanical characteristics include plant specimens, plant groups, or plant communities that are significant because of their form, color, occurrence, habitat, location, life history, arrangement, ecology, rarity, or other features. It is unknown at this time if any infestations of NNIPS occur within MA 8b. If any infestations are documented in future surveys, efforts should be made to control and eradicate these species in order to revert the area back to where natural processes evolve.

30 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

These are high use recreational areas, which may further increase the likelihood of an incursion of NNIPS by an unsuspecting public. NNIPS that may occur within MA 8b on the NFGT include: Albizia julibrissin, Melia azedarach, Triadica sebifera, Ligustrum sinense , Bothriochloa ischaemum var. songarica, Sorghum halpense, Rosa multiflora, Imperata cylindrica, Vernicia fordii, Wisteria sinensis, Paulownia tomentosa, Hedera helix, Vinca major/Vinca minor, Lygodium japonicum, and Lespedeza cuneata. See also NNIPS discussion under MA 1.

Management Area 8c Scenic Areas. These areas have an emphasis of protection, enhancement, or restoration of unique areas that are recognized as scenic, with outstanding visual quality. FSM 2360 defines a scenic area as "a unit of land with outstanding natural beauty that requires special management to preserve this beauty." The significant quality or character for which each area was designated will be described with a DC (desired condition) and management emphasis. These areas also have an emphasis to protect, enhance, and promote sustainable populations of unique plants or plant communities. These botanical characteristics include plant specimens, plant groups, or plant communities that are significant because of their form, color, occurrence, habitat, location, life history, arrangement, ecology, rarity, or other features. Containment and eradication of any invasive species found within these rare and sensitive sites are high priority. Due to the extremely high rarity and sensitivity of these sites occurring within MA 8c, the containment and eradication of any NNIPS found within this area should be high priority. NNIPS that do or may occur within MA 8c on the NFGT include: Albizia julibrissin, Melia azedarach, Triadica sebifera, Ligustrum sinense, Bothriochloa ischaemum var. songarica, Sorghum halpense, Rosa multiflora, Imperata cylindrica, Vernicia fordii, Wisteria sinensis, Paulownia tomentosa, Hedera helix, Vinca major/Vinca minor, Lygodium japonicum, and Lespedeza cuneata. See also NNIPS discussion under MA 1.

Management Area 8d Natural Heritage Areas. These areas have an emphasis to protect, enhance, and promote sustainable populations of unique plants or plant communities. FSM 2370 defines botanical areas or areas such as these Texas Natural Heritage Report (TNHR) sites as "a unit of land that contains plant specimens, plant groups, or plant communities that are significant because of their form, color, occurrence, habitat, location, life history, arrangement, ecology, rarity, or other features." Containment and eradication of any invasive species found within these rare and sensitive sites are high priority. High recreation use in the area (primarily hiking) increases the likelihood of introducing invasive species. Due to the extremely high rarity and sensitivity of these micro-sites occurring within MA 8d, the containment and eradication of any invasive species found within this area should be high priority. This area is subject to recreational use (primarily hiking), further increasing the likelihood of an incursion of NNIPS. NNIPS that do or may occur within MA 8d on the NFGT include: Albizia julibrissin, Melia azedarach, Triadica sebifera, Ligustrum sinense, Bothriochloa ischaemum var.

31 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

songarica, Sorghum halpense, Rosa multiflora, Imperata cylindrica, Vernicia fordii, Wisteria sinensis, Paulownia tomentosa, Hedera helix, Vinca major/Vinca minor, Lygodium japonicum, and Lespedeza cuneata. See also NNIPS discussion under MA 1.

Management Area 8e Special Bottomland Areas. These areas have significant riparian or wildlife habitat characteristics where large old trees are maintained for aesthetics and old-growth dependent wildlife. These areas are established to provide a more restrictive management than is found in MA 4 (Streamside and Riparian Areas). A high emphasis is placed on improving and maintaining the riparian characteristics of the bottomland hardwood component for potential old growth characteristics and wildlife habitat values associated with this ecosystem. Minimal surveys for NNIPS have been completed within MA 8e, mostly due to the inaccessibility of the area. If infestations are documented in future surveys, efforts should be made to control and eradicate these species in order allow natural processes to evolve. It is worth noting that this area experiences some recreational use (mostly fishing, canoeing, and hiking). This may further increase the likelihood of an incursion of invasive species by an unsuspecting public. NNIPS that do or may occur within MA 8e on the NFGT include: Albizia julibrissin, Melia azedarach, Triadica sebifera, Ligustrum sinense, Bothriochloa ischaemum var. songarica, Sorghum halpense, Rosa multiflora, Imperata cylindrica, Vernicia fordii, Wisteria sinensis, Paulownia tomentosa, Hedera helix, Vinca major/Vinca minor, Lygodium japonicum, and Lespedeza cuneata. See also NNIPS discussion under MA 1, 4, 5, and 6.

Management Area 8f Archeological and Historic Areas. These units of land possess features, sites, or a concentration of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united historically or prehistorically by plan or physical development, and which have been determined to be significant to our understanding of the prehistoric and historic occupation and utilization of the lands in which they are located. Management emphasis is on protecting, enhancing, and interpreting for public education and recreation, the structures, features and cultural materials associated with the occupation and use of the Aldridge Mill and Mill Town. Minimal surveys have been completed within MA 8e. If infestations are documented in future surveys, efforts should be made to control and eradicate these species to move towards ecosystems that more accurately reflect its original historic state. It is worth noting that this area does experience recreational use (mostly educational/interpretive use and hiking). This may further increase the likelihood of an incursion of NNIPS by an unsuspecting public. NNIPS that do or may occur within MA 8f on the NFGT include: Albizia julibrissin, Melia azedarach, Triadica sebifera, Ligustrum sinense, Bothriochloa ischaemum var. songarica, Sorghum halpense, Rosa multiflora, Imperata cylindrica, Vernicia fordii,

32 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Wisteria sinensis, Paulownia tomentosa, Hedera helix, Vinca major/Vinca minor, Lygodium japonicum, and Lespedeza cuneata. See also NNIPS discussion under MA 1.

Management Area 9a Developed Recreation Sites. These areas and sites are developed with recreational user facilities to enhance camping, picnicking, swimming, boating, and fishing for National Forest visitors. Interpretation and enjoyment of using the Forest and Grassland environments are emphasized. Recreational areas are perhaps the most susceptible to infestations of NNIPS. Recreational users act as vectors spreading any established invasive species already present in MA 9a throughout the MA and into neighboring MAs. Seeds from invasive species can be brought into MA 9a unwittingly by recreationists from other areas outside of Forest boundaries, or from other areas currently infested within the Forest. Seeds can be carried on clothing, pets, shoes, bicycles, vehicles, and boats and spread through waterways and trails. These areas must continually be monitored for any new occurrences of NNIPS and treated quickly. NNIPS occurring within MA 9a on the NFGT include: Albizia julibrissin, Melia azedarach, Triadica sebifera, Tamarix ramosissima, Ligustrum sinense, Bothriochloa ischaemum var. songarica, Sorghum halpense, Rosa multiflora, Wisteria sinensis, Paulownia tomentosa, Hedera helix, Vinca major/Vinca minor, Lygodium japonicum, and Lespedeza cuneata. See also NNIPS discussion under MA 1.

Management Area 9b Minimally Developed Recreation Sites. These are primitive or minimally developed recreation sites for hunters, horseback riders, hikers, boaters, and others. NNIPS occurring within MA 9b on the NFGT include: Albizia julibrissin, Melia azedarach, Triadica sebifera, Tamarix ramosissima, Ligustrum sinense, Bothriochloa ischaemum var. songarica, Sorghum halpense, Rosa multiflora, Wisteria sinensis, Paulownia tomentosa, Hedera helix, Vinca major/Vinca minor, Lygodium japonicum, and Lespedeza cuneata. See also NNIPS discussion under MA 1.

Management Area 10a Administrative Use Sites. These sites are maintained and administered to provide efficient workspace and facilities for the management of the National Forests and Grasslands. Administrative sites are at risk of infestation by NNIPS in much the same way as are recreational sites (MA 9a and MA 9b). Infestations in these are fairly easy to control and eradicate due to accessibility of these sites and the convenience of monitoring and treatment protocols. NNIPS occurring within MA 10a on the NFGT include: Albizia julibrissin, Melia azedarach, Triadica sebifera, Ligustrum sinense, Ligustrum japonicum, Hedera helix, Vinca major/Vinca minor, Ailanthus altissima, Sorghum halpense, Bothriochloa ischaemum var. songarica, Rosa multiflora, Carduus nutans, Lygodium japonicum, and Lespedeza cuneata. These NNIPS could alter community composition and structure if

33 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment allowed to spread, especially in landscaping practices, and in time, they could dominate the adjacent canopy layer and/or understory and even form monospecific stands as evidenced in other southern forests. These changes would translate to a significant decrease in habitat quality. NNIPS would also negatively affect visual quality objective for these sites. Populations of these species currently occur in MA 10a, in somewhat scattered patterns typically along ROWs, culverts, parking areas, and fencerows. Other species not yet found within MA 10a, but found nearby, can pose new threats to the integrity of the forest community, increase fire danger, displace native vegetation, and could decrease habitat quality for the conservation targets. Such NNIPS include Arundo donax, Pueraria montana, Nandina domestica, Phyllostachys aurea, Ligustrum japonicum, Imperata cylindrica, and Solanum viarum. None of these species listed here will be considered for landscape use. NFGT lands must be continually monitored for the arrival of any new infestations of these NNIPS and any populations found must be dealt with swiftly to eradicate them.

Management Area 10b Special Use Permit Sites. On these sites there is an authorization and management of specific uses on National Forests and Grasslands by private parties, companies, public utilities, other agencies or educational institutions for activities beneficial to the public or for exercising basic rights. Special use permit sites (MA 10b) are the primary avenues for non-native invasive plant species to become established in surrounding management areas. MA 10b sites act as “highways” into adjacent forest areas, allowing NNIPS to spread along these ROWs and gaining a new foothold in non-infested areas. High maintenance traffic compounds the problem, where new NNIPS may be unknowingly brought in on equipment that originated in an infested area and are deposited in these predominantly disturbed areas where they quickly become established. Special use permit sites (MA 10b) are the primary avenue for NNIPS to become established in surrounding management areas. NNIPS occurring within MA 10b on the NFGT include: Albizia julibrissin, Melia azedarach, Triadica sebifera, Ligustrum sinense, Bothriochloa ischaemum var. songarica, Sorghum halpense, Rosa multiflora, Wisteria sinensis, Paulownia tomentosa, Hedera helix, Vinca major/Vinca minor, Lygodium japonicum, and Lespedeza cuneata. See also NNIPS discussion under MA 1.

Management Area 11 Stephen F. Austin Experimental Forest. This area is managed for research and educational purposes. Research is primary to assess the impacts of forest management practices on wildlife communities and to provide information for incorporating wildlife habitat needs into forest management practices. Survey efforts have been completed within MA 11. However, if new infestations are documented in future surveys, efforts should be made to control and eradicate these NNIPS so that ecosystems can evolve through natural processes. This area experiences some recreational use (mostly fishing, canoeing, and hiking), which may further increase the likelihood of an infestation of NNIPS by an unsuspecting public.

34 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

NNIPS species that do or may occur within MA 11 on the NFGT include: Albizia julibrissin, Melia azedarach, Triadica sebifera, Ligustrum sinense, Bothriochloa ischaemum var. songarica, Sorghum halpense, Rosa multiflora, Wisteria sinensis, Paulownia tomentosa, Hedera helix, Vinca major/Vinca minor, Lygodium japonicum, and Lespedeza cuneata. See also NNIPS discussion under MA 1.

Other Species to Watch For There are a multitude of NNIPS that have been documented within Texas, but have not as yet been documented on or near the NFGT. Management areas must be continually monitored by all personnel for appearances of these new invaders as well as those species already addressed in this document. Among NNIPS that have been documented in Texas and appear to be spreading are listed in Table 1. If found, these species should be monitored closely. If they are spreading, they should be given a high priority for eradication.

Proposed Action The FS is proposing to site-specifically implement the Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Management Plan for the National Forests and Grasslands in Texas (NFGT) using integrated Pest Management (IPM) and an adaptive management approach. The two actions included in the management plan are: 1) Treatment of existing NNIPS sites 2) Treatment of NNIPS sites found in the future Table 2 displays the preferred priority treatment techniques for NNIPS based on effectiveness and feasibility of treatments. The information used to determine these preferred techniques is detailed in the NNIPS Management Plan.

Integrated Pest Management IPM encompasses the control of diseases, weeds (NNIPS), and any other naturally occurring biological threats. Control and management activities based on IPM principles may include any combination of physical/mechanical, biological, cultural, and chemical techniques. This integrated approach also includes risk assessment, identification of thresholds for action, and planning to reach the most desired outcome. An IPM system for NNIPS is designed around the following components: • Acceptable pest levels: The emphasis is on control, not eradication. IPM holds that wiping out an entire pest population is often impossible, and the attempt can be more costly, environmentally unsafe, and all-round counterproductive than it is worth. It is better to decide on what constitutes acceptable pest levels, and apply controls if those levels are reached. • Monitoring: Regular observation is the cornerstone of IPM. Record-keeping is essential, as is a thorough knowledge of the behavior and reproductive cycles of target pests. • Mechanical controls: Should a pest reach an unacceptable level, mechanical methods are the first options to consider (based on feasibility and effectiveness).

35 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Mechanical controls can include mowing, chopping, disking, piling, and root raking. • Biological controls: Natural biological processes and materials can provide control, with minimal environmental impact, and often at low cost. The main focus here is on promoting beneficial organisms that eat target pests.

Table 2: NNIPS by preferred priority treatment technique based on effectiveness and feasibility 1

Preferred Treatment Technique Based on Effectiveness and Feasibility 1 (most) — 4 (least)

Physical/ NNIPS Mechanical Biological Cultural Chemical Ailanthus altissima 2 4 3 1 Albizia julibrissin 1 4 2 3 Arundo donax 2 4 3 1

Bothriochloa ischaemum var. 3 4 1 2 songarica Carduus nutans 2 4 3 1 Eichhornia crassipes 2 3 4 1 Hedera helix 1 4 3 2 Hydrilla verticillata 3 2 4 1 Imperata cylindrica 3 4 2 1 Lespedeza cuneata 2 4 3 1 Ligustrum japonicum 1 4 3 2 Ligustrum sinense 1 4 3 2 Lygodium japonicum 3 4 1 2 Melia azedarach 2 4 3 1 Myriophyllum spicatum 2 4 3 1 Nandina domestica 1 4 3 2 Paulownia tomentosa 1 4 2 3 Phyllostachys aurea 1 4 3 2 Poncirius trifoliata 1 4 3 2 Pueraria montana 2 4 3 1 Rosa multiflora 2 4 3 1 Salvinia molesta 3 2 4 1 Solanum viarum 2 4 3 1 Sorghum halpense 1 4 2 3 Tamarix ramosissima 1 4 2 3 Triadica sebifera 3 4 2 1 Vernicia fordii 1 4 2 3 Vinca major/Vinca minor 2 4 3 1 Wisteria sinensis 2 4 3 1 1 Priority based on NNIPS Management Plan, pages 73–112.

36 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

• Cultural controls: Cultural controls can include restricting entry to an area, washing vehicles, using weed-free seed, prescribed burning (not in MA 7), and signs. • Chemical controls: Synthetic pesticides may be used when other controls fail or are deemed unlikely to prove effective.

Adaptive Management Adaptive management is a concept for dealing with uncertainty in environmental management. Projects are designed with built-in continuous assessment (monitoring – “If X happens.”) and processes for improvement (“Then the corrective action will be taken.”). It allows us to stay within anticipated impacts and continue to assess and monitor our activities. Adaptive management is used where we are uncertain of any outcome, but fairly certain of the direction we would pursue if a change were necessary.

Monitor > Monitor > change change

NEPA Decision ADAPT ADAPT Includes ’IF > Then‘ statements

Adaptive management works well in a program of IPM. It allows the FS to prescribe one method for the control of a specific NNIPS Æ monitor the outcome Æ and prescribe additional treatments as necessary. Additional treatments would be prescribed based on predictable treatment outcomes. Adaptive management can include implementation of a second or repeated treatment for NNIPS removal, or it can implement a different control method(s) if the first proves ineffective. For example:

NEPA MONITOR: ADAPT: Decision Treatment Then herbicide Prescribed ineffective fire

Adaptive management can also be used to treat new infestations of NNIPS based on the monitoring data for past treatments of NNIPS: Monitoring Æ new infestation of NNIPS Æ treatment based on past monitoring and effectiveness of past treatments for that particular NNIPS in that specific situation.

37 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Treatment Priorities and Schedule of Activities The NNIPS Management Plan has prioritized the NNIPS on the NFGT for treatment as high, medium, or low. Table 3 displays these treatment priorities by species for each MA. The Management Plan also proposes a schedule of activities for control efforts (see Table 12 in the Management Plan).

Table 3. NNIPS treatment priorities by Management Area1

NNIPS Species

a um mum t m

e

a a

u a e rea ic a h ic

ma ma n

ntos t i i i is p

c eata t eata ns s h s s s s s

an au a s

e n n sissima c onic n t e um s s x n i s me n r p ifera n i ti ti e y l l a nt Area i mo ara bris brissin to a a a llum s li li a hloa i nuta dom u u me eza cu eza cu um ja j stach ca seb trum s ge i ed ed num v nthus llo nthus riophy na y eraria mo ndina rduus steria sin ulown godi iad i ila lbizia j rundo dona esp r esp A A A Bothrioc Ca Hedera helix Imperata cylindrica L L Ligus Ly Melia azed Na Pa Ph Pu Rosa multiflor Sola Tamarix r T Vernicia fordii W Eichhornia crassipes Hydrilla verticillata My Salvinia molesta Aila Albizia Ma MA 1 H M H L M H M L M * M H H M H M H H H H H H H H H M MA 2 H M H L M H M L M * M H H M H M H H H H H H H H H M MA 3 H M H M H M H M H M * M H M M H M HH H H H H H M MA 4 H H H L M H M L M * H H M M H HHHHM H H H H H H MA 5 H H H H MA 6 H M H L M H M L M * M H M M H H H H M H H H H H M MA 7 H M H L M H M L M * M H M M H H H H M H H H H H M MA 8a H M H MH M H M HM* MHMMHMHHHHM H H H H H M MA 8b H M H L M H M L M * M H M M H H H H M H H H H H M MA 8c H M H L M H M L M * M H M M H H H H M H H H H H M MA 8d H M H L M H M L M * M H M M H H H H M H H H H H M MA 8e H M H L M H M L M * M H M M H M H H H M H H H H H M MA 8f H M H MH M H M HM* MHMMHMHHHHM H H H H H M MA 9a H M H MH M H M HM* MHMMHMHHHHM H H H H H M MA 9b H M H MH M H M HM* MHMMHMHHHHM H H H H H M MA 10a H M H M H M H M H M * M H M M H M H H H M H H H H H M MA 10b H M H MH M H M HM* MHMMHMHHHHM H H H H H M MA 11 H H H L M H M L M * M H M M H HHHHM H H H H H H 1 L=low; M=medium; H=high; *= site specific.

Types of Actions Considered The agency is directed to determine what types of actions are being proposed: similar, connected, or cumulative actions. • Similar actions, when viewed with other reasonably foreseeable or proposed agency actions, have similarities that provide a basis for evaluating their

38 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

environmental consequences together, such as common timing and geography (40 CFR1508.25(a)(3)). • Connected actions are those that: (1) automatically trigger other actions, (2) cannot or will not proceed unless other actions are taken previously or simultaneously, or (3) are interdependent parts of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification (40 CFR1508.25(a)(1)). • Cumulative actions, when viewed with other proposed actions, have cumulatively significant environmental impacts; and, therefore, should be discussed in the same EIS. While the individual treatment activities differ (physical/mechanical, biological, cultural, and chemical techniques), their purpose is to treat NNIPS. In that respect, the proposed activities constitute similar actions. The actions proposed to treat NNIPS on the NFGT are individual actions designed to treat site-specific infestations of NNIPS. In that regard, they do not meet the definition of connected actions.

Cumulative Effects The four National Forests and two Grasslands that comprise the NFGT are individual units separated by distances of at least 30 miles by non-FS system lands over which the FS has no authority. While the activities on particular units may constitute cumulative actions, the sums of activities on all units are not necessarily cumulative. Cumulative effects consider the effects of past, present, and proposed projects on a landscape-scale across time and space. Boundaries for specific cumulative effects are defined and analyzed under each resource area in Chapter 3.

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities Table 4 displays past NNIPS control efforts that have occurred or have decisions allowing activities on the NFGT.

Decisions To Be Made An environmental analysis will evaluate the site-specific issues the public has with the proposed action, consider alternatives to the proposed action, and analyze effects of the proposed action and alternatives on the environment. Based on the needs identified for the NFGT NNIPS Project, the scope of the project is limited to decisions concerning activities within the NFGT. An environmental analysis will provide the deciding official with the information to make the following decisions with regard to the NFGT NNIPS Project: • Which actions, if any, will be approved (which alternative to implement) to: (1) move the NFGT NNIPS Project area towards the desired condition per Forest Plan direction, and (2) address the needs and issues identified for this project? • Are additional mitigation measures and monitoring requirements needed to protect resources?

39 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Table 4. NNIPS control efforts on NFGT between 2002 and 2008

Davy Crockett NF/ Sabine Angelina Sam Houston Caddo Year Ratcliff Lake NF NF NF NG LBJ NG 2002 [20 acres] Hydrilla verticillata; herbicide 2003 [20 acres] Hydrilla verticillata; herbicide 2004 [20 acres] Hydrilla verticillata herbicide 2005 [20 acres] [20 acres] Hydrilla Lespedeza verticillata; cuneata; herbicide mechanical & herbicide 2006 [30 acres] [55 acres] [5 acres] Hydrilla Lespedeza Tamarix verticillata; cuneata; ramosissima; herbicide mechanical & mechanical herbicide 2007 [40 acres] [5 acres] [130 acres] [5 acres] Hydrilla Bothriochloa Lespedeza Carduus nutans; verticillata; ischaemum var. cuneata; mechanical herbicide songarica; mechanical & cultural herbicide 20081 [40 acres] [5 acres] [25 acres] [30 acres]2 [100 acres] [50 acres] Hydrilla Vinca major, Triadica Eichhornia Lespedeza Lespedeza cuneata, verticillata; Hedera helix; sebifera; crassipes, cuneata; Ailanthus altissima, mechanical & mechanical & Hydrilla mechanical & Carduus nutans; [5 acres] herbicide herbicide verticillata; herbicide mechanical & Triadica herbicide herbicide sebifera; mechanical & [5 acres] [40 acres] herbicide Triadica Hydrilla verticillata; sebifera, Melia herbicide azedarach, Ailanthus altissima; mechanical & herbicide 1 Reasonably foreseeable activities scheduled to be implemented in FY 08 pending approval of the NNIPS EA and NNIPS Management Plan also pending yearly funding. Other activities may be substituted for any of the noted projects, or additional projects may be added. Total annual treatment acres will not exceed 500 acres per forest and 500 acres for both grasslands. 2 Includes acres treated in Lake Conroe through partnership with San Jacinto River Authority.

40 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

• Will a Forest Plan amendment will be needed to implement the NNIPS Management Plan on the NFGT? During scoping it was proposed that a non- significant Forest Plan amendment would be required to implement this project. Upon further consideration, it has been determined that the NNIPS Project and accompanying Plan constitutes a site-specific project. This determination is based on the fact that the surveys for NNIPS on the NFGT identified site-specific NNIPS infestations and treatment areas. Adaptive management is being proposed to determine treatments appropriate for future occurrences of NNIPS located on the NFGT. It is unlikely that this project will require a Forest Plan amendment for implementation. The deciding official will be determined by which alternative is selected. Alternatives 2 (scoped proposal) and 3 (modified proposal) both include using herbicides in Wilderness and would require Region 8, Regional Forester decisions. However, Alternatives 1 (no action), 4 (no herbicide or biological treatment in Wilderness; preferred alternative), and 5 (no herbicide treatment) would require NFGT Forest Supervisor (Fred Salinas) decisions.

Public Involvement On February 12, 2007, the NNIPS Project Scoping Report was mailed to 240 individuals, organizations, and agencies requesting comments on the proposed action. The NFGT received four letters in response to that mailing: • Honorable George Wickliff, United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians • Terry Cole, Tribal Preservation Officer, Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma • Brandt Manchenn, Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, Houston, Texas • James Earl Kennamer, National Wild Turkey Federation

Tribal Consultation The 1992 amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act (1966) require the FS to consult with the State Historic Preservation officer (SHPO) regarding potential affects on historic and archaeological sites. In a broader sense, Executive Orders 13084 and 13175 require that Federal agencies consult with Tribes during planning activities. Consultation with Tribes as per the direction of NHPA and 36CFR800 regulations was conducted in February 2007 by written letter to Tribal chiefs and chairpersons as part of the standard NEPA scoping process. Determinations of No Adverse Effect were received from the United Keetowah Band of Cherokee Indians and from the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma. No correspondence in response to the scoping letter was received from other Tribal entities. Issues The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations require the delineation of issues as detailed in Sec. 1501.7, “…identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3).”

41 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

A full analysis of the comments received during public Scoping can be found in the NNIPS project file located at the Supervisor’s Office, Lufkin, TX. Issues are developed from public comments received during Scoping and are based on public disagreement with the proposed action. Issues are then divided into non-significant (resolved) and significant (unresolved) issues.

Non-significant Issues and Comments Issues are considered non-significant or resolved if they fall in one of the following categories: Outside the scope of the proposed action (i.e., not site-specific) • Opposed to contractors using herbicides. FS employees should do the work because they do a better job than contractors and are public servants. This subject is beyond the scope of this project. The decision to use contractors is decided at the Forest level. • Lake Conroe, Toledo Bend, and Sam Rayburn should be included in the NNIPS Plan. The NFGT does not manage these areas. However, we actively work with our partners (San Jacinto River Authority, Sabine River Authority, and the Angelina and Neches River Authority) to implement control measures, through cost-share agreements, on various invasive species control projects within these bodies of water. These include control efforts at recreation sites, boat ramps, and other facilities managed by the FS. • Best management practices (BMPs) for NNIPS on private lands should be included in the NNIPS Plan. The FS is not responsible for the enforcement of BMPs on private land. The analysis can discuss the potential cumulative effects of NNIPS on private lands, but we have no authority over control of NNIPS on private lands. • The FS needs to work aggressively with its neighbors to remove NNIPS. The FS cannot control NNIPS on private lands, but does work closely with the Texas FS who is our liaison to the private landowner. Each site will be assessed on a case-by- case basis. • FS should include NNIPS animals in this proposal. This project was developed as an invasive plant control project only. Methods for controlling invasive animals are different enough from those to control invasive plants that this problem is better dealt with in different decision. Already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision • The 1989 Coastal Plain-Piedmont Vegetation Management Final Environmental Impact Statement (1989 FEIS & ROD, and 2002 SEIS) is obsolete regarding human health effects and other issues regarding herbicide use due to new scientific information that has been discovered in the past 18 years. Updated risk assessments supplied by Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc., (SERA) and ENSR International will be included in an appendix in the NNIPS Management Plan and full risk assessments will be available in the project record. • The FS has provided a confused description of the Perennial Streams with Floodplain Forests ecosystems, and others, by mixing the terminology of forest

42 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

types with landtype phases. If the Ecological Classification System is going to be the system used to determine and manage ecosystems then the language of ECS should be used at all times. These descriptions come directly from the Forest Plan (USDA-FS 1996 [Forest Plan, page 142 and Appendix A]). Irrelevant to the decision being made • None. Conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence (issues disputing Forest Service findings that are based on opinions and not scientific fact) • Herbicides indirectly, via accelerating mineral export and loss from soils, affect mammal’s ability to accumulate essential trace elements. This statement is not based on scientific fact. Not related to the current proposed action effects • None.

Additional Comments Received During Public Involvement Other comments received during the public involvement period for the NNIPS Project included personal comments (such as, salutations and opinions), requests for analyses or information, and requests for alternatives to the proposed action. • The FS is not using an integrated pest management (IPM) approach to NNIPS control but is focusing on herbicide use. The NNIPS Management Plan does take an integrated management approach, and includes: mechanical, burning, biological, and herbicide treatments. FS control and management activities are based on IPM principles that may include any combination of physical/mechanical, biological, cultural, and chemical techniques. This integrated approach also includes risk assessment, identification of thresholds for action, and planning to reach the most desired outcome (see Proposed Action). • Do not use broadcast treatments of herbicide sprays or pellets by helicopter or tractor mounted application systems. No broadcast treatments are proposed in the NNIPS Plan. • To date there seem to be no NNIPS problem in the five East Texas Wilderness Areas that are so severe that they require the use of herbicides. The purpose of this project is to not only control existing NNIPS infestations, but to manage potential future NNIPS infestations (see Proposed Action). • Herbicide use will impact possible future old-growth areas and streamside areas. The NFGT Forest Plan determined that at least 10 percent of most forest types met potential old growth criteria and were located in MAs "unsuitable for timber production" such as Wilderness. Forest Plan Appendix I, Old Growth, refers to five types of old growth (1) existing old growth, (2) potential old growth, (3) designated old growth, (4) restored old growth, and (5) future old growth. Streamside areas would be further addressed in the analysis and Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines would be implemented. For instance, only herbicides labeled for aquatic use (if deemed necessary for use as part of an IPM approach) will be used within 30 feet of a body of water (see “Appendix 5. Herbicide Use Protocols,” FW-031-

43 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

25). Furthermore, herbicides would not be used within 48 hours of a rain event in these areas and would be applied when streams and ditches are dry if not a perennial source of water. • With regard to herbicides, the analysis must discuss: the impacts on humans; whether it will be inactivated in 48 hours or if it can remain active beyond that time (and what would be the health effects); what type of notification and posting will be used to warn visitors of the NFGT that an area has been treated with herbicides; the potential toxic effects that inert ingredients have in each of the herbicides used; and the carriers that will be used, whether water, diesel oil, mineral oil, vegetable oil, volatile hydrocarbon, or other carrier, and explain the environmental impacts that these liquids have on animals, aquatic plants and animals, soil flora/fauna, and humans. These concerns are addressed in the “FEIS for Vegetation Management in the Coastal Plain/Piedmont” (VMFEIS) (USDA-FS 1989) and updated SERA and ENSR International risk assessment information in “Appendix 9. Herbicide Hazard Quotients and Effects to Human Health” of this document. An example of FS-2100-2, Pesticide use Approval Form, is shown in “Appendix 4. Herbicide Use Protocol Forms” of this document. Versions completed prior to treatment and approved by the Forest Pesticide Use Coordinator will be filed and available in the project record. In addition, full risk assessments will be filed and available in the project record. • The FS must have a NEPA process with public input whenever it wants to implement a proposal for NNIPS control in Wilderness in the NFGT. The NNIPS Management Plan is not sufficient by itself to determine the site-specific conditions and determinations that must be made (minimum requirement and minimum tool) to decide whether any NNIPS proposal in any of the five Wilderness areas in the NFGT is acceptable. NEPA requires this consideration of site specificity. “Appendix 3. Survey Lists/NFGT Invasive Species Distribution Information” of this document includes the site-specific survey lists of known infestations of NNIPS on the NFGT. Information includes the compartment number, species name, area (acres) infested, and specific location. The FS believes that this meets the test of ‘site specificity’ under NEPA. Public involvement was initiated for this project prior to Scoping when the Forest botanist discussed the project with interested parties. A Scoping document, sent to 240 interested parties on February 12, 2007, initiated the formal NEPA process. In addition, the NEPA process requires that the public have an opportunity to comment on the proposed action. That requirement will be fulfilled when the NNIPS Project EA and NNIPS Management Plan are sent to the public for comment prior to a decision being made. In addition, the minimum tool analysis process is not applicable to this proposed action since said action does not propose to include any of the prohibited activities listed in Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act. • The NNIPS Management Plan requires an EIS and does not require a non- significant Forest Plan amendment. Upon further consideration, it has been determined that the NNIPS Project and accompanying NNIPS Management Plan constitutes a site-specific project. This determination is based on the fact that the surveys for NNIPS on the NFGT identified site-specific NNIPS infestations and treatment areas. Adaptive management is being proposed to determine treatments

44 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

appropriate for future occurrences of NNIPS located on the NFGT. The purpose of an EA is to determine whether any of the effects of a proposed action will have significant effects. 40 CFR 1508.27 states: "‘Significantly’ as used in NEPA requires consideration of both context and intensity. . . . In the case of a site- specific action [context], significance would usually depend upon effects in the locale rather than the world as a whole. Both short- and long-term effects are relevant. Intensity refers to the severity of impact." At this time, the FS does not believe that the effects of the proposed action meet either the test for context (CFR 1508.27(a))or intensity (CFR. 1508.27(b)) . If, during analysis, it is determined that an effect of the project meets either test, then an EIS would need to be compiled for this project. • Opposed to the minimal 25-foot buffer zone for soil inactive herbicides from TES species. If the Forest Plan requires 60 feet, then this greater distance buffer zone should be used. The 60-foot buffer applies to ground application of herbicides only. Only soil inactive herbicides, if determined to be necessary as part of a IPM approach, will be used within 25 feet of sensitive or TES vegetation; such vegetation will be covered prior to treatment to avoid impacts from drift. • FS employees and other people using herbicides, as well as recreational users of the forest (such as hikers), must be protected and the FS must assess the dangers to these populations and state what they are in the NNIPS Management Plan. All proper protocols will be strictly adhered to. Only Region 8 approved herbicides (1989 VMFEIS and Forest Plan) will be used. Current SERA and ENSR International risk assessment information will be included in “Appendix 9. Herbicide Hazard Quotients and Effects to Human Health” of this document, and full risk assessments will be filed and are available in the project record. In addition the public would be notificied when and where the herbicide would be applied with signs so people could avoid the area. • Do not use 2-4-D. 2-4-D is not included in Alternatives 3–5. A number of comments were received that were either statements or opinions. All comment letters received can be found in the NNIPS Management Plan project file. Comments that will be considered in the analysis or in the NNIPS Plan: • Cumulative effects • Japanese/glossy privet and Chinese privet should be high priority • Use of herbicide prior to burning • Killing or wounding of non-target species of plant using herbicides • Risk to recreationists from herbicide use • Species of animal, aquatic plants and animal species, soil flora/fauna, at risk as non-target species from the impacts of herbicides • The Lone Star Hiking Trail, increased suburbanization, and oil and gas activities as vectors for spread of NNIPS Requests for Information. • Specifically where, when, how, and how much is the NFGT and SHNF involved with funding, training, and technical assistance to Federal partners, state

45 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

cooperators, and private landowners or organizations? The where, when, how, and how much is the NFGT and SHNF involved with funding, training, and technical assistance to federal partners, state cooperators, and private landowners or organizations is beyond the scope of this project, which proposes an NNIPS Management Plan. • The FS mentioned districts and units. What are these districts and units? Across Region 8, districts and units refer to FS Ranger Districts and/or administrative units. • What prevention and mitigation requirements will be used to ensure that trucks with pesticides do not leak, have an accident during transport of herbicides, or turn over and spill the herbicides? A spill plan is included in “Appendix 7. Emergency Spill Plan.” • What actions will be taken post-treatment to monitor the effectiveness of the proposed NNIPS treatments? The FS should use the best science to determine the efficacy of using herbicides or other ways to reduce, control, or eradicate NNIPS. Only FS employees should monitor the effectiveness of NNIPS control and those employees should be trained in scientific methods to provide the best information on how well control methods are working. All treatments will be monitored annually by the Forest botanist for efficacy. This will be accomplished through site visits before and after treatment and will be based on an ocular observation to estimate percent cover, and the collection of spatial data. Results will be entered into the corporate database (FACTS). • How will the FS involve citizens in detecting infestations on the NFGT? What volunteer opportunities will there be for citizen involvement in the NNIPS program? The Texas Forest Service, through the Ladybird Johnson Wildflower Center, maintains its “Citizen Scientist” program where volunteers are enlisted to survey for NNIPS on private land in Texas. The public is encouraged to join this program or to voluntarily report infestations, including GPS locations, on Federal land to the Forest botanist. • What is meant by "restore or rehabilitate areas degraded by NNIPS." Restoration and rehabilitation will be done using native plants and/or seed in compliance with the Regoin 8 Native Plant Policy. Request for Alternative. In addition to comments on the proposed action, Scoping responses from the public also contained suggestions for alternatives. See the Alternatives section for the disposition of these suggested alternatives (Chapter 2). Expand the list of off-site native species considered NNIPS to include Eastern Red Cedar, Honey Locust, Black Locust, Loblolly Pine, Yaupon Holly, Slash Pine, and Sweetgum or remove them all from the NNIPS list. • The FS should consider the reduction in roads as a way to reduce avenues for NNIPS spread. The FS should allow no NNIPS in roadsides even if they are hard to control (such as, sericea, King Ranch bluestem, and johnsongrass). • Use tools to pull out Chinese, European, and Japanese privet by the roots rather than using herbicides. • Do not use herbicides in the Wilderness.

46 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

• Do not use using grass carp to control aquatic vegetation. • In the Wilderness, use low, impact manual methods (less trammeling1) including girdling, and pulling rather than herbicides to control NNIPS. • Allow NNIPS to remain in the Wilderness. • Use a “step up” approach to NNIPS control in the Wilderness, beginning treatments with the least intrusive method of manipulation for removing NNIPS and then build to the most intrusive. • If herbicide use is considered necessary in the Wilderness, it must be the least toxic, most site-specific applied (for instance, painted or squirted on cut surfaces), and least intrusive (least trammeling). Foliar applications where dripping may occur on non-target plants so that they are harmed or killed must not be allowed and aerial spraying must be prohibited. • Do not use herbicides in any streams, ditches, or other areas where water is normally found.

Significant Issues To be considered a significant or unresolved issue, a public comment must be: • Site specific to the NNIPS Project Area, and • Relevant to the NNIPS Project proposed action and show a disagreement with the proposed action that cannot be resolved except through the development of an alternative to the proposed action. Significant (unresolved) issues are identified through public involvement. Similar issues are combined into one statement where appropriate. Once a significant issue is identified, measures are selected to compare how an alternative responds to the issue. Where possible, measures are quantifiable and are chosen with regard to predictability, responsiveness to the issue, and linked to the cause-and-effect relationship of the issue. A measure describes how the alternatives affect resources. Monitoring and mitigation of the anticipated environmental effects of the project were also designed to respond to significant issues. The following significant (unresolved) issues were developed from public Scoping comments:

Issue 1: Herbicide Use Herbicide use in the control of NNIPS on the NFGT will have an adverse effect on wildlife (amphibians), soil flora/fauna, and ground/surface water quality and recharge areas. Measure: Potential herbicide treatment acres as a percent of total allowable acres (2,500) treated annually on Forests and Grasslands based on the minimum amount of active ingredient (pounds of active ingredient/acre) as analyzed in the current SERA and ENSR assessments, the 1989 VMFEIS, and the Forest Plan.

1 As used in the Wilderness Act, trammeling refers to restraining or impeding free action

47 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Issue 2: NNIPS Treatments in the Wilderness Treatment of NNIPS in the Wilderness will cause excessive/ undue trammeling. Measure: Specific treatment procedures/methods allowed within MA 7 versus specific treatment procedures/methods allowed in all other management areas.

48 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

CHAPTER 2—ALTERNATIVES

Alternatives Eleven alternatives were considered for the NNIPS Project. Eight were eliminated from detailed consideration, two were included in the development of alternatives considered in detail, and three were considered in detail. All alternatives were included in the range of alternatives considered for this project.

Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Consideration The following alternatives were considered, but eliminated from detailed consideration and are not being carried forward. The majority of these alternatives were suggested or requested by the public during Scoping. The FS should consider the reduction in roads as a way to reduce avenues for NNIPS spread. The FS should allow no NNIPS in roadsides even if they are hard to control (sericea, King Ranch bluestem, and johnsongrass). The reduction of roads in the NFGT is beyond the scope of this project. However, roadside infestations (ROWs) are included for treatment in the NNIPS Management Plan. Each site will be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Use tools to pull out Chinese, European, and Japanese privet by the roots rather than using herbicides. Depending on size, privet would be impractical to manually pull by the roots. Additionally, because privet colonizes from root sprouts; mechanical treatment would not be an effective long-term solution. For this reason, this alternative was eliminated from detailed consideration. Do not use use grass carp to control aquatic vegetation. Biological controls are part of an IPM approach to control efforts and should not be discounted as an appropriate control measure. For this reason, this alternative was eliminated from detailed consideration. Use a “step up” approach to NNIPS control in the Wilderness, beginning treatments with the least intrusive method of manipulation for removing NNIPS from Wilderness and then build to the most intrusive. Treatments considered the least intrusive may not be the most effective at reducing or eliminating NNIPS. See IPM discussion and Table 2 (Chapter 1) for the preferred priority treatment technique based on effectiveness and feasibility determination of which control and management methods to use for each species. However, all MAs would be treated equally regarding types of treatments and/or application methods with the exception of MA 7 (Wilderness). Treatments within MA 7 will be prioritized and focused on pathways of infestations (ROWs, trails, and special use sites) in areas directly adjacent to or on the edge of this MA. Any infestations occurring within this MA will be treated with the least intrusive methods that will result in successful control and/or eradication of the NNIPS. These treatments will be limited to manual non-mechanized mechanical (girdling, cutting, and pulling) and, if necessary, manual non-mechanized herbicide (cut stump, stem injection, and directed foliar spray only) treatments.

49 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Alternative Suggestions from the Public Incorporated into the Alternatives Considered in Detail Do not use herbicides in any streams, ditches, or other areas where water is normally found. Only herbicides registered for aquatic use will be used in or near bodies of water. Mitigation and monitoring actions will be discussed in the analysis and have been preliminarily addressed in the Scoping document. Also, see “Appendix 5. Herbicide Use Protocols,” FW-031-22 through FW-031-25. Alternative 4 satisfies the no herbicide use in streams, ditches, or other areas where water is normally found. Expand the list of off-site native species considered NNIPS to include Eastern Red Cedar, Honey Locust, Black Locust, Loblolly Pine, Yaupon Holly, Slash Pine, and Sweetgum or remove them all from the NNIPS list. The control of Eastern red cedar, black locust, and honey locust in MA 3 has been/will be addressed in other projects within the NFGT and will not be addressed as part of this project. Likewise, some areas of loblolly and slash pine conversion to native pines such as longleaf and/or shortleaf pine has been/will be addressed in other projects within the NFGT and will not be addressed as part of this project. This project will focus only on species fitting the definition of “non-native” described earlier. This applies to Alternatives 3–5. Do not use herbicides in the Wilderness. Use low, impact manual methods (less trammeling) including girdling, and pulling rather than herbicides to control NNIPS. See Alternative 4. If herbicide use is considered necessary in the Wilderness, it must be the least toxic, most site specific applied, for instance painted or squirted on cut surfaces, and least intrusive (least trammeling). Foliar applications where dripping may occur on non- target plants so that they are harmed or killed must not be allowed and aerial spraying must be prohibited. Aerial spraying is not proposed in the NNIPS Management Plan. The preferred application method for the treatment of certain species, such as Cogongrass and Japanese climbing fern, is using directed foliar spray if herbicides are chosen as the treatment of choice. Where herbicides are proposed in the Wilderness (Alternatives 2 and 3), manual non-mechanized herbicide (cut stump, stem injection, and directed foliar spray only) treatments are included as application methods in accordance with the IPM approach. See Alternatives 4 and 5 for no herbicide use in the Wilderness.

Alternatives Considered in Detail

Alternative 1—No Action Alternative 1 represents the existing condition. Under Alternative 1, current and on-going management activities would continue, but no new FS activities would occur. Changes might occur through current management direction (such as road maintenance), natural processes, or other management decisions in the future. This alternative provides a foundation for describing and comparing the magnitude of environmental changes associated with the action alternatives against those changes that occur with no new action at this time.

50 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

This alternative would not be consistent with the Forest Plan over the long term as it would not meet the goals and objectives or provide the desired condition for various MAs as described in the Forest Plan.

Alternative 2—Proposed Action Alternative 2 was developed by the interdisciplinary team based on a comparison of the existing conditions in the project area and Forest Plan direction. Alternative 2 is the proposed action that was sent to the public during the public Scoping period. The proposed action prescribes using an IPM and adaptive management approach to the control of NNIPS (see Tables 2 and 3 in Chapter 1) on the NFGT (see accompanying NNIPS Management Plan for specific treatment proposals). IPM treatments can include physical/mechanical, biological, cultural, or chemical techniques or any combination of techniques as appropriate. Refer to Table 2 for the preferred control technique by species (see also NNIPS Management Plan). • Mechanical controls: Should a pest reach an unacceptable level, mechanical methods, which can include mowing, chopping, cutting, pulling, grubbing, disking, piling, and root raking, are the first options to consider if feasible and effective. Although usually not effective by itself, mechanical controls can aid in control efforts of certain species. For example, the most effective and feasible treatment to remove infestations of Nandina domestica is to remove the plant from the soil using a root puller. For other species like Ligustrum sinense or Tamarix ramosissima, the plant may first be pulled from the ground or cut at ground level using a saw or similar piece of equipment. However, these mechanical treatments may require a follow-up herbicide treatment to control resprouting, or to the stump if the individual plant was deemed too large to be extracted from the ground. In this way, less herbicide would be used and on a smaller area after mechanical control was used, thereby reducing both costs and a potential for damage to non-target vegetation. • Biological controls: Natural biological processes and materials can provide control, with minimal environmental impact (by promoting beneficial organisms that eat target pests), and often at low cost. While herbicide is usually the most effective treatment for infestations of Hydrilla verticillata, when chemical treatment is not feasible, the use of Ctenopharyngodon idella, would be the next most effective treatment method. Additionally, Cyrtobagous salviniae, a weevil that is specific to Salvinia molesta, can be effective in controlling populations of this species, but has failed to achieve complete eradication of targeted populations. As in the preceding example, biological controls can be most effective when used in conjunction with other controls within an IPM approach. • Cultural controls: Cultural controls can include restricting entry to an area, washing vehicles, using weed-free seed, prescribed burning (not in MA 7), and signing. Signs would be used in recreation areas to alert the public of measures they could use to prevent spread of NNIPS. The use of native seed may also be used to fill the niche left behind by the removal of NNIPS, reducing the chances that another undesirable species would establish. Prescribed burning (growing season prescribed fire in particular) is an example of a cultural control method and is the

51 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

most effective means of controlling Bothriochloa isheamum var. songarica. Burning would generally include areas of less than 100 acres, but specific treatment areas may be included within larger burn blocks. Burn plans would be developed for each prescribed burn that addresses issues of public safety and smoke. • Chemical controls: Synthetic pesticides may be used when other controls fail or are deemed unlikely to prove effective. Past studies, management abstracts, and recommendations from land stewards have shown (Bugwood.org and texasinvasives.org) that most NNIPS do not respond to control treatments that do not include herbicide as part of an IPM approach ( i.e., Ailanthus altissima, Pueraria montana, Triadica sebifera). For other NNIPS (Tamarix ramosissima and Ligustrum sinense) mechanical treatment alone may not provide adequate control (based on monitoring), and follow-up herbicide treatment may be necessary (adaptive management). See the NNIPS Management Plan for a guide of recommended treatments by individual NNIPS and “Appendix 5. Herbicide Use Protocols,” “Appendix 7. Emergency Spill Plan,” and “Appendix 9. Herbicide Hazard Quotients and Effects to Human Health.” Herbicide application methods: • Directed foliar sprays: herbicide-water sprays aimed at plant foliage to cover all leaves to the point of run off and usually applied with a backpack sprayer (use low pressure, drift retardants, and spray shields to avoid drift). • Stem injection (including hack-and-squirt): herbicide concentrate or herbicide- water mixtures applied into incisions spaced around woody stems made by an ax, hatchet, machete, brush ax, or tree injector. • Girdle-treat: herbicide concentrate or herbicide-water mixtures applied to an encircling band of removed bark around woody stems made by a cutting tool and applied with a spray bottle, wick, or paintbrush. • Cut-treat: herbicide concentrate or herbicide water mixture applied to freshly cut stumps (outer circumference) or stems (entire top surface) with a backpack sprayer, spray bottle, wick, or paintbrush. • Basal sprays: herbicide-oil-penetrant mixture sprayed or daubed onto the lower portion of woody stems usually applied with a backpack sprayer or wick applicator. • Soil spots: application of hexazinone herbicide as metered amounts to the soil surface around target woody stems or in a grid pattern for treating many stems in an area; usually applied with a spotgun or with a backpack sprayer equipped with a straight-stream nozzle. Aerial application of herbicide is not proposed for use.

Adaptive Management Adaptive management would be used as a tool to help control NNIPS. Adaptive management allows a succession of IPM treatments based on the monitoring of past treatments and the predictable outcomes of additional treatments. Adaptive management also allows for the treatments of new infestations of NNIPS based on the monitoring of similar past treatments of NNIPS.

52 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Under adaptive management, monitoring of individual NNIPS treatments would determine the effectiveness of initial treatment. An evaluation would be made as to whether additional treatments would be needed. Additional treatments would be implemented based on the predicted effectiveness of subsequent treatments. Control efforts for NNIPS, as performed under adaptive management, would first involve utilizing the least intrusive method to control and eradicate a NNIPS infestation. Those treatments would be monitored for efficacy, and, if successful, would continue until goals are met. However, if treatments do not seem to be effective, the treatment method would be changed to include new measures (also with predicted outcomes), and, once again, monitored for efficacy. An example would include the treatment of a small Melia azedarach infestation. Initially, it may be determined that the best way to eliminate the infestation would be to manually grub the trees out of the ground. Once this action has occurred, monitoring to determine success would begin. If monitoring reveals that not all of the roots were removed and root sprouts have formed, it may be determined that the next best course of action would be to manually apply a small amount of herbicide as a spot spray to the shoots. Again, this treatment would be monitored to insure success.

Treatment areas Areas to be treated include affected ecosystems, FS Road (FSR) ROWs, and administrative and recreational areas. These areas would be anywhere in the NFGT where these NNIPS are found. It is currently planned to limit all treatments involving biological, mechanical, cultural controls, and chemical applications to an area not to exceed 500 acres per Forest and 500 acres in the Grasslands per year. Table 5 displays specific proposed maximum acres treated versus total unit acres of known infestations (see “Appendix 3. Survey Lists/NFGT Invasive Species Distribution Information”). As additional infestations are discovered, annual acres of treatment could increase above current treatments, but could not exceed the maximum possible annual treatment acres allowed per unit.

Table 5. NNIPS treatment limits per unit per year Maximum Possible Annual % Unit % Unit Acres Acres of Acres Maximum Treated for Total Unit Known Known to Possible Annual Known Forest/Grassland Acres Infestation be Infested Treatment Acres Infestations Angelina NF 153,174 50 0.03 500 0.3 Davy Crockett NF 162,021 76 0.05 500 0.3 Sabine NF 160,609 105 0.07 500 0.3 Sam Houston NF 161,609 28 0.02 500 0.3 Caddo Grassland 17,874 91 0.50 2.8 500 LBJ Grassland 20,313 153 0.80 2.5

53 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Future infestations of NNIPS would: • Require site-specific NEPA prior to treatment • Follow procedures in the NNIPS Management Plan • Use an IPM approach based on adaptive management as analyzed in this EA. All management areas would be treated equally regarding types of treatments and/or application methods with the exception of MA7 (Wilderness). Treatments in MA7 will be prioritized and focused on pathways of infestations (ROWs, trails, and special use sites) in areas directly adjacent to or on the edge of this management area. Any infestations occurring within this management area will be treated with the least intrusive methods that will result in successful control and/or eradication of the NNIPS. These treatments will be limited to manual non-mechanized mechanical (girdling, cutting, and pulling) and, if necessary, manual non-mechanized herbicide (cut stump, stem injection, and directed foliar spray only).

Design Criteria and Additional Mitigation measures Design criteria and mitigations are intended to lessen the effects of the proposed actions such that they remain within established standards that will not lead to significant direct, indirect, and/or cumulative impacts. The proposed action includes a range of design criteria and mitigation measures that can be categorized as: • Standard design criteria to protect soil productivity, water quality, visuals, and other resources in accordance with standards and guides established through forest planning. These include such measures as filter strips along streams. • Mitigations inherent to the project implementation process, contracts, and related activities. For this project, these include activities such as requiring pre- work conferences to ensure that standards are understood. • Mitigations associated with project design and management prescriptions. These include LRMP or legal direction, and locally developed enhancements in excess of LRMP standards. Mitigations in this category may be developed in response to scoping issues. Site-specific mitigations such as protection of a specific sensitive plant or group of plants. For this project, sensitive plants will be protected if found in the project area. This project incorporates all applicable legal requirements and adheres to the Forest-wide standards and guidelines established in the LRMP. Management requirements necessary for achieving goals and objectives are referred to as standards and guidelines. A detailed listing of the LRMP standards and guidelines is inappropriate here, as they are published and established guides. However, mitigations that apply to this project are described in Appendix F for those unfamiliar with the Forest Plan. These standards meet environmental protection requirements found in the State of Texas BMPs. For the proposed action and all action alternatives, the following design criteria (Forest Plan, 1989 VMFEIS, and accompanying NNIPS Management Plan) are incorporated to minimize adverse effects and promote safeguards: • Forest-wide standards and guidelines are designed to minimize adverse effects and promote safeguards (Forest Plan, pages 55–60).

54 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

• BMPs (1989 VMFEIS, Volume 1, Section II, pages 44–64) are designed to minimize adverse effects and promote safeguards. • The proposed herbicides would be used according to the labeling and would not accumulate in water, soils, or organisms, when used in compliance with the Forest- wide guidelines, and BMPs found in the 1989 VMFEIS, the Forest Plan, and the accompanying NNIPS Management Plan (see “Appendix 5. Herbicide Use Protocols”). Herbicide usage in this project follows all standard and guidline design criteria as stated in the 1989 VMFEIS, Volumes I and II. Examples of mitigating activities include: • Only herbicide labeled for aquatic use is ground-applied within 30 horizontal feet, of lakes, wetlands, or perennial or intermittent springs and streams. • No herbicide is applied within 100 horizontal feet of any public or domestic water source. • Herbicide mixing, loading, or cleaning areas in the field are not located within 200 feet of private land, open water or wells, or other sensitive areas. Additional standards and guidelines can be found in the 1989 VMFEIS. In addition, the following mitigation measures would be included as part of implementation. General. Prior to initiating any NNIPS control treatment projects, it would be important to check adjacent activities for activities that produce similar effects and assess whether there could be additional cumulative effects from similar actions. Aquatic Resources. The Following Mitigation measures are applicable to herbicide use. • Diquat, 2,4-D (Aquaclean – aquatic version) (Phenoxy herbicides), Accord, Gly- Pro, and Rodeo brands of glyphosate (aquatic labeled): Implement NNIPS treatments in stages; apply NNIPS treatments during cool weather prior to spawning. • Habitat” brand of Imazapyr- for aquatic use only: Do not use anywhere near non- target plants as target plants can exude toxic levels translocated through roots. Can be persistent in soil; use minimum rate. • Fluridone (Sonar brand for aquatic use): Breakdown influenced by light and temperature, so best used during growing season. Heritage Resources. • After annual review of areas identified for the application of control and/or eradication measures, mitigation of adverse effects upon archeological and historical sites would be achieved by (1) removing the site containing NNIPS from consideration for control/eradication actions; and/or, (2) treating only those NNIPS populations that have spread beyond documented site boundaries. This alternative would be consistent with the Forest Plan over the long term as it would meet the goals and objectives or provide the desired condition for various MAs as described in the Forest Plan.

55 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Alternative 3—Modified Proposed Action Alternative 3 responds to the public request that the NNIPS species list either be expanded to include additional offsite native species or to exclude native offsite species. Alternative 3 is the same as the proposed action, with two exceptions: • The list of NNIPS species is limited to non-native species (Table 1); and • Use of herbicide 2,4D is eliminated (responds to to Issue 1: Herbicide use) There are toxicological concerns (carcinogenicity) with this herbicide, and precluding its use would indirectly eliminate those concerns (see Herbicide Hazard Quotients and Effects to Human Health, Chapter 3).

Design Criteria and Additional Mitigation Measures Same as Alternative 2, except that use of 2,4D is eliminated. This alternative would be consistent with the Forest Plan over the long term as it would meet the goals and objectives or provide the desired condition for various MAs as described in the Forest Plan.

Alternative 4 Alternative 4 is similar to Alternative 3 with the following difference: • Excludes any chemical treatments within MA 7 (Wilderness) and allows for only selective and least intrusive mechanical (pulling, cutting, and girdling by hand; no mechanized equipment would be used) and cultural (signing, prevention, and the use of native seed only) treatments. Alternative 4 responds to Issue 1: Herbicide use, and Issue 2: NNIPS treatments in the Wilderness.

Design Criteria and Additional Mitigation Measures Same as Alternative 2, except that use of 2,4D is eliminated. This alternative would be consistent with the Forest Plan over the long term as it would meet the goals and objectives or provide the desired condition for various MAs as described in the Forest Plan.

Alternative 5 Alternative 5 was developed to respond to Issue 1: No herbicide use, and Issue 2: NNIPS treatments in the Wilderness. No NNIPS control would occur in MA 7 (Wilderness). A modified IPM approach (mechanical and biological controls only) and adaptive management would be used in all other MAs.

Design Criteria and Additional Mitigation Measures The proposed action was designed using Forest Plan standards and guidelines (design criteria) and BMPs. In addition, the following mitigation measures would be included as part of implementation.

56 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Heritage Resources. • After annual review of areas identified for the application of control and/or eradication measures, mitigation of adverse effects upon archeological and historical sites would be achieved by (1) removing the site containing NNIPS from consideration for control/eradication actions; and/or (2) treating only those NNIPS populations that have spread beyond documented site boundaries. This alternative would be consistent with the Forest Plan over the long term as it would meet the goals and objectives or provide the desired condition for various MAs as described in the Forest Plan. Comparison of Alternatives

Comparison of Alternatives by Forest Plan Direction, Needs, and Activities Refer to Table 6 for a comparison of alternatives by Forest Plan direction, needs, and activities.

Comparison of Alternatives by Issues The following significant issues developed from public comment on the proposed action and are compared by alternative in Table 7.

Issue 1: Herbicide Use Herbicide use in the control of NNIPS on the NFGT will have an adverse effect on wildlife (amphibians), soil flora/fauna, and ground/surface water quality and recharge areas. Measure: Potential herbicide treatment acres as a percent of total allowable acres (2,500) treated annually on Forests or Grasslands based on the minimum amount of active ingredient (pounds of active ingredient/acre) as analyzed in the current SERA and ENSR assessments, the 1989 VMFEIS, and the Forest Plan and shown to have no detrimental effect on the environment.

Issue 2: NNIPS Treatments in the Wilderness Treatment of NNIPS in the Wilderness will cause excessive/ undue trammeling. Measure: Specific treatment procedures/methods allowed within MA 7 versus specific treatment procedures/methods allowed in all other management areas.

Comparison of Alternatives by Summary of Resource Effects Tables 8 displays the summary of effects by alternative from the implementation of the NNIPS Project.

57 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Table 6. Comparison of alternatives by activities and needs identified for this project Activity/Need Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 IPM control activities on NFGT (acres) Physical/Mechanical 0 Up to 500 acres combined treatment on Forests Up to 500 acres Up to 500 acres and 500 acres on Grasslands per year. combined treatment on mechanical and cultural Biological Forests and 500 acres treatment on Forests and on Grasslands per year 500 acres on Grasslands Cultural in all MAs except MA 7. per year except MA 7. Treatments in MA 7 No treatments in MA 7. would not include Chemical 0 chemical. Need to control NNIPS on the vegetative communities on the NFGT Aquatic Habitats Aquatic NNIPS would Aquatic NNIPS would Some aquatic NNIPS Overall, aquatic NNIPS Some aquatic NNIPS (Lakes) continue to spread and decrease and native would continue to would decrease and would continue to displace displace native vegetation would displace native native vegetation would native vegetation since the vegetation. Habitat increase, thereby vegetation since the most increase, thereby most effective controls for quality and diversity improving habitat. effective controls improving habitat. them would be unavailable. would decline. (chemical) would be In MA7, some aquatic Natural Wilderness unavailable. NNIPS would continue to character would be displace native negatively affected. vegetation since the most effective controls would be unavailable. Permanent Openings Encroachment of red Acres of quality prairie Encroachment of red cedar and locust in these Encroachment of red cedar cedar, locust, and habitat and other areas would continue. and locust in these areas NNIPS in these areas openings would be would continue. would continue. increased, improved Some NNIPS would and maintained. continue to displace native vegetation in Wilderness since the most effective controls for them would be unavailable.

58 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Table 6. Comparison of alternatives by activities and needs identified for this project Activity/Need Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Roadsides Encroachment of red NNIPS would decrease Encroachment of red cedar and locust from these Encroachment of red cedar cedar and locust in and native vegetation areas would continue, but NNIPS would decrease and locust in these areas these areas would would increase, thereby and native vegetation would increase, thereby would continue. continue. improving habitat. improving habitat. Some NNIPS would NNIPS would continue Encroachment of continue to displace native to spread and displace NNIPS into forested vegetation in Wilderness native vegetation. areas would decline since the most effective Habitat quality and controls for them would be diversity would decline. unavailable. Encroachment of some NNIPS into Wilderness areas would continue to increase. Trails and Trailheads NNIPS would continue NNIPS would decrease NNIPS would decrease and native vegetation Some NNIPS would to spread and displace and native vegetation would increase, thereby improving habitat. continue to displace native Recreation Areas native vegetation. would increase, thereby vegetation in Wilderness Encroachment of NNIPS into forested areas would improving habitat. since the most effective Habitat quality and decline. controls for them would be diversity would decline. Encroachment of Some cedar and locust encroachment could have a unavailable. NNIPS into forested User enjoyment could negative effect in these areas. areas would decline. Encroachment of some be negatively affected. Overall user enjoyment could be positively affected. NNIPS into Wilderness User enjoyment could areas would continue to be positively affected. increase. Some cedar and locust encroachment could have a negative effect in these areas. User enjoyment could be negatively affected.

59 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Table 6. Comparison of alternatives by activities and needs identified for this project Activity/Need Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Utility Corridors NNIPS would continue NNIPS would decrease NNIPS would decrease and native vegetation Some NNIPS would to spread and displace and native vegetation would increase, thereby improving habitat. continue to displace native native vegetation. would increase, thereby vegetation in Wilderness Encroachment of NNIPS into forested areas would Habitat quality and improving habitat. since the most effective decline. diversity would decline. controls for them would be Encroachment of Some cedar and locust encroachment could have a unavailable. NNIPS into forested negative effect in these areas. areas would decline. Some cedar and locust encroachment could have a negative effect in these areas. Encroachment of some NNIPS into Wilderness areas would continue to increase. Special Use Sites NNIPS would continue NNIPS would decrease NNIPS would decrease and native vegetation Some NNIPS would to spread and displace and native vegetation would increase, thereby improving habitat. continue to displace native native vegetation. would increase, thereby vegetation in Wilderness Encroachment of NNIPS into forested areas would improving habitat. since the most effective Habitat quality and decline. controls for them would be diversity would decline. Encroachment of Some cedar and locust encroachment could have a unavailable. NNIPS into forested negative effect in these areas. areas would decline. Encroachment of some NNIPS into Wilderness areas would continue to increase. Some cedar and locust encroachment could have a negative effect in these areas. Range NNIPS would continue NNIPS would decrease Encroachment of red cedar and locust in these Encroachment of red cedar to spread and displace and native vegetation areas would continue. and locust in these areas native vegetation. would increase, thereby would continue. improving habitat and Habitat quality and increasing diversity. diversity would decline.

60 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Table 6. Comparison of alternatives by activities and needs identified for this project Activity/Need Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Mixed Pine-Oak NNIPS would continue NNIPS would decrease NNIPS would decrease and native vegetation Some NNIPS would Woodlands to spread and displace and native vegetation would increase, thereby improving habitat and continue to displace native Mesic Hardwood native vegetation. would increase, thereby increasing diversity. vegetation in Wilderness improving habitat and since the most effective Riparian forests Habitat quality and increasing diversity. controls for them would be diversity would decline. Streamside Zones unavailable. Encroachment of some NNIPS into Wilderness areas would continue to increase.

61 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Table 7. Comparison of alternatives by issues Issue Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 1: Herbicide Use Based on application rates of the minimum amount of active ingredient (lbs a.i./acre) as analyzed in the current SERA and ENSR Measure: Potential assessments, the 1989 VMFEIS, and the Forest Plan, no detrimental effect on the environment is anticipated. herbicide treatment acres [10.2%] [Maximum could be [Maximum could be [Maximum could be [10.2%] as a percent of total No herbicide treatments 100%] 100%] 100%] No herbicide treatments allowable acres (2,500) beyond existing NNIPS Could include the use of Would not include the Would not include the beyond existing NNIPS treated annually on control projects. 2-4D and would include use of 2-4D and would use of 2-4D and would control projects. Forests and Grasslands Treatment areas under existing treatment areas include existing treatment include no use of Treatment areas under based on the minimum existing decisions under existing decisions; areas under existing herbicide treatments in existing decisions amount of active includes 45 acres includes 45 acres decisions; includes 45 the Wilderness (MA 7). includes 45 acres ingredient (lbs a.i/acre) (Ratcliff Lake-Davy (Ratcliff Lake-Davy acres (Ratcliff Lake-Davy (Ratcliff Lake-Davy as analyzed in the Crockett NF) and 210 Crockett NF) and 210 Crockett NF) and 210 Crockett NF) and 210 current SERA and ENSR acres (Caddo/LBJ acres (Caddo/LBJ acres (Caddo/LBJ acres (Caddo/LBJ assessments, the 1989 National Grasslands) National Grasslands) National Grasslands) National Grasslands) VMFEIS, and the Forest forestwide. forestwide. forestwide. forestwide. Plan. 2: NNIPS Treatments in No treatments. IPM treatments can include any combination of IPM treatments can No treatments. Wilderness physical/mechanical, cultural, and chemical include any combination Measure: Specific techniques. These treatments will be limited to of physical/mechanical, treatment manual non-mechanized mechanical (girdling, biological, and cultural. procedures/methods cutting, and pulling) and, if necessary, manual non- These treatments will be allowed within MA 7 vs. mechanized herbicide (cut stump, stem injection, limited to manual non- specific treatment and directed foliar spray only). mechanized mechanical procedures/methods (girdling, cutting, and allowed in all other MAs. pulling).

62 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Table 8. Summary of effects to resources by alternative Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Physical Environment Soils & Water Over an extended period Control of NNIPS species poses little risk to soil and water. Maintaining the Over an extended period of time has the potential vegetative composition at the watershed level would, in the long term, reduce of time, by limiting the to alter the entire potential effects from NNIPS on water yields and geomorphological changes in options to treat NNIPS, vegetative composition of streams. has the potential to alter a given watershed, which the entire vegetative could interrupt the natural composition of a given hydrologic dynamic of watershed, which could these watersheds, interrupt the natural resulting in changes in hydrologic dynamic of water yield and/or these watersheds, geomorphological resulting in changes in changes to streams water yield and/or within these watersheds. geomorphological changes to streams within these watersheds. Air No anticipated effects. By following a burn plan that includes design criteria and meets Forest plan standards and guidelines, prescribed burning would have a direct short-term, localized effect on air quality in the project area. Generally, the effects of one burn activity are completed before another burn activity begins. Therefore, no exceedance of the NAAQS, or contributions to the unhealthy or hazardous AQI, or other adverse cumulative air quality impacts are expected under these alternatives provided mitigation measures outlined in the Forest Plan and herein are implemented. Biological Environment

63 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Table 8. Summary of effects to resources by alternative Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Vegetation NNIPS Species and off- Control of NNIPS species Control of NNIPS species Similar to Alternative 3, Similar to the effects of site natives (locusts & and offsite natives would would maintain and except that no herbicide Alternative 4; in the red cedar) would maintain and restore restore native would be used in Wilderness as all continue to spread native ecosystems. ecosystems. Wilderness. This would herbicide use would be altering native Not treating offsite result in less effective eliminated. ecosystems. natives would continue control of NNIPS that No NNIPS control the encroachment of species for which treatments would occur these species, expecially herbicide is the most in Wilderness, where the in grassland ecosystems feasible and effective effects would be similar and along roadsides. control method. to Alternative 1. Restricting the use of 2,4D eliminates the most effective means of controlling Myriophyllum spicatum and Hydrilla verticillata. Control for these species would have to rely on less effective biological control agents (Ctenopharyngodon idella). Determination for Not likely to adversely effect Botanical Federally Spiranthes parksii Listed Species Effects on Botanical May impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability RFSS Amorpha paniculata, Agrimonia incisa, Bartonia texana, Crataegus warneri, Cyperus grayoides, Cypripedium kentuckiense, Dalea reverchonii, Hisbiscus dasycalyx, Lachnocaulon digynum, Liatris tenuis, Platanthera integra, Prenanthes barbata, Rhynchospora macra, Rudbeckia scabrifolia, Schoenolirion wrightii, Silene subciliata, Streptanthus maculatus, Trillium texanum, Xyris drummondii, Xyris louisianica, Xyris scabrifolia No effect: no suitable habitat/no known occurrences Leavenworthia texana

64 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Table 8. Summary of effects to resources by alternative Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Effects on MIS: Apteria Over time (years), if Treatments for NNIPS infestation in areas of suitable Similar to Alternatives 2 Similar to Alternative 4, aphylla and NNIPS become habitat would be allowed to occur, and some loss of & 3, except would not except that herbicide Tetragonotheca established in any areas individuals may occur, but would be minimized include herbicide use in use is prohibited ludoviciana within the NFGT that do through project surveys designed to determine wildernss, which is the everywhere. Effects contain suitable habitat presence/absence of these species, the use of most effective means of project-wide would be for these two species, minimally invasive NNIPS control techniques in these NNIPS control control for similar to Alternative 1. suitable habitat could be areas, and timing treatments so that they do not many species. Effects in lost. interfere with the growing phase. Wilderness would be similar to Alternative 1. Terrestrial Wildlife Over time (years), if Treatments for NNIPS infestation in areas of suitable Similar to Alternatives 2 Similar to Alternative 4, NNIPS become habitat would be allowed to occur, and some loss of & 3, except would not except that herbicide established, suitable individuals may occur, but would be minimized include herbicide use in use is prohibited habitat could be lost. through project surveys designed to determine wildernss, which is the everywhere. Effects presence/absence of these species, the use of most effective means of project wide would be minimally invasive NNIPS control techniques in these NNIPS control for many similar to Alternative 1. areas. species. Effects in Wilderness would be similar to Alternative 1. Terrestrial Wildlife Over time (years), if Treatments for NNIPS infestation in areas of suitable Similar to Alternatives 2 Similar to Alternative 4, NNIPS become habitat would be allowed to occur, and some loss of & 3, except would not except that herbicide established, suitable individuals may occur, but would be minimized include herbicide use in use is prohibited habitat could be lost. through project surveys designed to determine wildernss, which is the everywhere. Effects presence/absence of these species, the use of most effective means of project wide would be minimally invasive NNIPS control techniques in these NNIPS control for many similar to Alternative 1. areas. species. Effects in Wilderness would be similar to Alternative 1. Determination for No Effect. Picoides borealis, Ursus americanus luteolus: Not likely to adversely affect. Terrestrial Federally Vireo atricapilla, Charadrius melodus, Sterna antillarum, Grus americana, Nicrophorus americanus: No listed Species effect – No suitable habitat/ No known occurrences. Effects on Terrestrial No Effect. Pituophis melanoleucus ruthveni, Lanius ludovicianus migrans, Haliaeetus leucocephalus, Aimophila RFSS aestivalis, Corynorhinus rafinesquii, Somatochlora margarita: May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability. Effects on Terrestrial No Effect. Meleagris gallopavo, Various bird species, Colinus virginianus, Dryocopus pileatus, Icteria virens, Sciurus MIS niger, Sciurus carolinensis, Odocoileus virginianus: May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability.

65 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Table 8. Summary of effects to resources by alternative Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Aquatic Wildlife General impacts of Long- term control of Similar to Alternative 2, Similar to Alternative 3, Similar to Alternative 3, NNIPS would the NNIPS would be to except that use of 2,4D is except that there would except there would be disruption of ecological maintain/increase quality excluded, limiting the be no chemical or no NNIPS treatments in processes and, more aquatic habitat; treatment effectiveness of treating biological NNIPS MA 7, resulting in effects specifically, crowding out of offsite natives could aquatic NNIPS, and treatments in MA 7, similar to Alternative 1 in native species. improve waterflow, offsite natives would not which could reduce the Wilderness; there would Populations of NNIPS especially in times of be treated, and would over all effectiveness of be no chemical would continue to spread drought, enhancing provide no additional flow NNIPS treatments in treatments for NNIPS, in marsh and wetland aquatic habitat. to aquatic habitats. Wilderness, and could the effects would be the areas, displacing native alter habitats. same as in the aquatic vegetation and Wilderness for limiting management Alternatives 4 in MA 7. options for maintaining fish population balance. Determination for Arkansia wheeleri: Not Likely to Adversely Effect. Aquatic Federally listed Species Effects on Aquatic Fusconaia askewi, Fusconaia lananensis, Pleurobema riddellii, Lampsilis satura, Obovaria jacksoniana, Potamilus amphichaenus, RFSS Procambarus nigrocinctus, Procambarus nechesae, Faxonella beyeri, Notropis sabinae: May impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability. Effects on Aquatic MIS Micropterus salmoides, Lepomis species, Ictalurus punctatus, Polyodon spathula, Percina sciera, Ammocrypta vivax, Macro- invertebrates all spp: May impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability. Socioeconomic Environment Heritage No effect. By following the mitigations to protect heritage sites during NNIPS treatment, there would be no direct/indirect effects to heritage sites from the proposed treatments. Recreation/Scenery NNIPS would continue Short-term effects to visuals would be seeing the immediate effects of the treatments, and recreationists Management their spread in all MAs, may go elsewhere for a time; long-term visual effects would be the return of a more natural appearing and thus continue to alter landscape. If fishing improves through treatment of NNIPS, fishing opportunities could increase. the natural environment. This spread could lead to a decrease in recreation quality and participation.

66 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Table 8. Summary of effects to resources by alternative Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Socioeconomics By not implementing the Adaptive management allows a succession of IPM treatments based on the monitoring of past treatments NNIPS Management and the predictable outcomes of additional treatments, and allows for the treatments of new infestations of Plan, NNIPS would NNIPS based on the monitoring of similar past treatments. Would limit all treatments involving biological, continue to spread, mechanical, cultural controls, and chemical applications to an area not to exceed 500 acres per forest and resulting in ever larger 500 acres in the Grasslands per year. Annual monitoring of treated sites would be conducted to assess the acreages of infestation. effectiveness of treatments. An estimated additional 500 acres would be surveyed annually to locate and NNIPS treatments inventory new and currently unknown infestations. At lower levels of treatment (100–200 acres annually), a implemented in the future portion of the currently inventoried acres would not be treated within the life of the project. This would allow would require an further spread of the existing infestations and a need for more extensive treatments into the future. increasingly larger Therefore, at lower annual treatment levels, the long-term costs would be much higher. investment of funds to At the maximum level of annual treatment potentially At the maximum level of At the maximum level of cover associated allowed under this alternative, the 5-year discounted annual treatment annual treatment treatment costs. In the cost is estimated at $1,775,560. potentially allowed under potentially allowed under long term (time), losses this alternative, the 5- this alternative, the 5- to ecosystem services, year discounted cost is year discounted cost is biodiversity, and estimated at $1,778,380. estimated at $2,142,230. aesthetic values are expected to increase.

67 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

68 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

CHAPTER 3—DIRECT/INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Detailed Analysis Introduction The analysis section displays the current condition of the resources within the project area and the analysis of direct/indirect and cumulative effects of alternatives for the NNIPS Project. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of alternatives summarized above. Methodologies used for analysis of individual resources that follow in this chapter can be found in their respective specialist reports in the NNIPS project file.

Alternative 1—No Action Under the no-action alternative, no new Federal actions would take place during this planning cycle. All scheduled activities from previous decisions wouldl take place, as would routine maintenance activities at facilities and on roads.

References to Direct/Indirect and Cumulative Effects This EA is tiered to the Forest Plan (USDA-FS 1996) and the Forest Service Southern Regional Framework for Non-Native Invasive Plant Species (USDA-FS 2005a). Discussions of resources and potential effects use existing information included in the Forest Plan and other sources as indicated. Information and analyses in the following documents were used in this environmental assessment and are incorporated by reference: • Forest Service Southern Regional Framework for Non-Native Invasive Plant Species (USDA-FS 2005a). • Vegetation Management in the Coastal Plain/Piedmont, USDA Forest Service, Southern Region, January 1989. Management Bulletin R8-MB-23. (Note: This EA tiers to this FEIS; the effects analysis for various vegetation management techniques including prescribed burning and mechanical treatment is found in Chapter 3 of this document.) The following documents were reviewed and are incorporated by reference in this environmental assessment: • Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan, Second Revision (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2003). • Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Management of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker and its Habitat on National Forests in the Southern Region (USDA-FS 1995). • Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the National Forests and Grasslands in Texas (Forest Plan) (USDA-FS 1996). The following risk assessments were reviewed: • Fluridone Ecological Risk Assessment, ENSR International, November 2005. Bureau of Land Management Contract No. NAD010156, ENSR Document Number 09090-020-650.

69 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

• Diquat Ecological Risk Assessment, ENSR International, November 2005. Bureau of Land Management Contract No. NAD010156, ENSR Document Number 09090- 020-650. • ENSR International, November 2005. Diquat Ecological Risk Assessment, Bureau of Land Management Contract No. NAD010156, ENSR Document Number 09090- 020-650. • _____. November 2005. Fluridone Ecological Risk Assessment. Bureau of Land Management Contract No. NAD010156, ENSR Document Number 09090-020- 650. • SERA (Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc.). 2003a. Glyphosate - Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment. Final Report. March 1, 2003. SERA TR-02-43-09-04ac. 281 pages. • _____. 2003b. Triclopyr - Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment. Final Report. March 15, 2003. SERA TR-02-43-13-03b. 264 pages. • _____. 2003c. Picloram - Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment. Final Report. June 30, 2003. SERA TR-03-43-16-01b. 133 pages. • _____. 2004a. Clopyralid - Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment. Final Report. December 5, 2004. SERA TR-04-43-17-03c. 154 pages. • _____. 2004b. Imazapic - Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment. Final Report. December 23, 2004. SERA TR-04-43-17-04b. 110 pages. • _____. 2004c. Imazapyr - Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment. Final Report. December 18, 2004. SERA TR-04-43-17-05b. 149 pages. • _____. 2004d. Dicamba - Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment. Final Report. November 24, 2004. SERA TR-04-43-17-06d. 179 pages. • _____. 2004e. Metsulfuron Methyl - Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment. Final Report. December 9, 2004. SERA TR-04-43-17-01b. 152 pages. • _____. 2004f. Sulfumeturon Methyl - Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment. Final Report. December 14, 2004. SERA TR-04-43-17-02c. 163 pages. • _____. 2005. Hexazinone - Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment. Final Report. October 25, 2005. SERA TR-05-43-20-03d. 281 pages. • Also reviewed were NFGT TES records and field evaluation of habitat conditions in and adjacent to the treatment areas.

General Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects consider the effects of past, present, and proposed projects on a landscape scale across time and space. Cumulative effects analysis examines the effects of other activities on NF System and private lands that may occur across the landscape, but may not be readily apparent at a smaller scale. Cumulative effects are analyzed under each resource area, and the reason for choosing specific cumulative effects criteria will be explained in the individual cumulative effects analyses. Areas proposed for treatment include affected ecosystems, FS Road (FSR) ROWs, and administrative and recreational areas. These areas would be anywhere in the NFGT

70 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment where these NNIPS are found. It is currently planned to limit all treatments involving biological, mechanical, cultural controls, and chemical applications to an area not to exceed 500 acres per Forest and 500 acres in the Grasslands per year. NNIPS control treatments would vary in size from a single individual plant to over 100 acres; for example: • Mechanical removal of a single tree. • Cutting and herbicide stump treatment of a single tree. • 5 acres Bothriochloa ischaemum var. songarica cultural (prescribed fire). • 130 acres Lespedeza cuneata mechanical (mowing) and herbicide. Regardless of the acres of infestation identified, and the need for multiple treatments on the same acres, the annual total treatment acres could not exceed the 500 acres per Forest and 500 acres in the Grasslands per year limits. Table 9 displays the ongoing and reasonably foreseeable NNIPS projects already covered by decisions.

Table 9. Planned NNIPS projects on the NFGT

Davy Crockett NF/ Sabine Angelina Sam Houston Caddo LBJ Year Ratcliff Lake NF NF NF NG NG 2007 [40 acres] [5 acres] [130 acres] [5 acres] Hydrilla Bothriochloa Lespedeza Carduus verticillata; ischaemum var. cuneata; nutans; herbicide songarica; mechanical & mechanical cultural herbicide 2 20081 [40 acres] [5 acres] [25 acres] [30 Ac ] [100 acres] [50 acres] Hydrilla Vinca major & Triadica Eichhornia Lespedeza Lespedeza verticillata; Hedera helix; sebifera; crassipes & cuneata; cuneata, mechanical & mechanical & Hydrilla mechanical & Ailanthus [5 acres] herbicide herbicide verticillata; herbicide altissima, Triadica herbicide Carduus sebifera; nutans; mechanical & [5 acres] mechanical & herbicide Triadica herbicide sebifera, Melia azedarach, [40 acres] Ailanthus Hydrilla altissima; verticillata; mechanical & herbicide herbicide 1 Reasonably foreseeable activities scheduled to be implemented in FY 08 pending approval of the NNIPS EA and NNIPS Management Plan also pending yearly funding. Other activities may be substituted for any of the noted projects, or additional projects may be added. Total annual treatment acres will not exceed 500 acres per forest and 500 acres for both grasslands. 2 Includes acres treated in Lake Conroe through partnership with San Jacinto River Authority.

Table 10 displays specific proposed maximum acres treated versus total unit acres of known infestations (“Appendix 3. Survey Lists/NFGT Invasive Species Distribution Information”). As additional infestations are discovered, annual acres of treatment could

71 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

increase above current treatment levels, but could not exceed the maximum possible annual treatment acres allowed per unit.

Table 10. Comparison of known NNIPS infestation sites on the NFGT and maximum NNIPS possible treatment per unit/year Maximum Possible Maximum Known % Unit Annual Possible Annual Total Unit Acres of Acres Treatment % Unit Acres 1 Forest/Grassland Acres Infestation Infested Acres Treated Angelina NF 153,174 50 0.03 500 0.33 Davy Crockett NF 162,021 76 0.05 500 0.30 Sabine NF 160,609 105 0.07 500 0.31 Sam Houston NF 161,609 28 0.02 500 0.30 Caddo Grassland 17,874 91 0.50 500 2.80 LBJ Grassland 20,313 153 0.80 2.50 1 Based on survey results for known NNIPS infestations. Actual acres of existing infestation are assumed to be higher. Does not include potential yearly infestations in the future.

The general time span for the cumulative effects analysis is 5 years into the future (unless noted differently under an individual resource). The rational for this time span includes several considerations involving the current inventory of infestations on the NFGT. These include: • Currently, there are less than 500 acres of NNIPS infestations on all units. Within 5 years of implementation of the NNIPS Management Plan, these known infestations would have been treated and controlled and/or eradicated including any multiple retreatments. • Control of NNIPS includes IPM and adaptive management, monitoring and multiple treatments that may take several years to accomplish. In addition to being a site-specific document, this analysis also includes proposals for NNIPS treatments in the programmatic NNIPS Management Plan. After 5 years, it would be appropriate review the document to see if there is new information that may alter the decision. • Multiple treatments on these infested sites to control and/or eradicate the infestations are assumed to consist of up to three treatments per site. It is assumed that these known sites would be controlled and/or eradicated after three successive annual treatments. • Uncertainty of budgets from year to year. • Availability of personnel licensed for herbicide application. The boundary for cumulative effects is generally the individual units of the NFGT. These units are separated by at least 30 miles, and each unit has annual treatment limits. Other similar activities that occur on Forest System lands and contribute similar effects to the treatments proposed for NNIPS treatments include:

72 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

• Mechanical – Other FS activities that disturb soils include road construction and maintenance, timber harvesting, mechanical site-preparation, trail construction and maintenance, and oil and gas development. These projects follow FS design criteria in the Forest Plan and also include all pertinent BMPs. As with the design of the treatments proposed in this project all these activities are designed to prevent adverse effects to soil (erosion and sedimentation) and therefore, water quality. • Cultural –Other prescribed fires may occur within the project area. These treatments would have incidental effects on limiting the spread of NNIPS. Unless the target species was one that has been shown to be controlled primarily with prescribed fire (for example, Bothriochloa ischaemum var. songarica), those effects would be temporary and would require additional NNIPS treatments to be fully effective. • Chemical – Historically, less than 100 acres of herbicide has been prescribed across the NFGT for site preparation/release and in recreation areas for routine vegetative control (generally less than 100 acres per year; 77 acres of glyphosate on the Sam Houston NF in FY 06, and 20 acres on the Sabine for FY 08). On FS lands currently under a special use operating permit and/or a ROW easement (such as oil and gas operation areas), there is very limited use of herbicides (currently less than 1 acre per year) to maintain vegetation around wellheads and other equipment. Any herbicide application, whether for silvicultural purposes, vegetative control in recreation areas, or NNIPS control, is limited to the minimum amount of active ingredient (pounds of active ingredient/acre) as analyzed in the current SERA and ENSR assessments, the 1989 VMFEIS, and the Forest Plan. All safety precautions during application would be followed in any application of chemical materials. By following all guidelines and safety procedures, there would be no adverse effects from herbicide applications. Cumulative impacts include the use of herbicides on both FS System lands and non-FS System lands located within the administrative boundary of each unit in the NFGT as follows: • Highway ROWs by Texas Department of Transportation, • Some oil and gas companies use herbicides to treat small areas of vegetation around equipment on well pads, and • Some utility companies may include the use of herbicide to maintain vegetation in utility corridors. In aquatic areas on private land, the San Jacinto River Authority uses biological and chemical treatments to control Hydrilla verticillata on Lake Conroe annually, and the Sabine River Authority uses a combination of biological and chemical controls to treat Salvinia molesta in Toledo Bend Reservoir also on an annual basis. Because both the activities proposed to treat NNIPS and those of other projects on individual units of the NFGT will be implemented following Forest Plan design criteria (standards and guidelines) and BMPs to mitigate direct/indirect effects, it is not anticipated that there would be cumulative effects from implementing these projects on the NFGT. Prior to initiating any NNIPS control treatment projects, it would be important

73 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

to check adjacent activities for activities that produce similar effects and assess whether there could be additional cumulative effects from similar actions. Issues from Public Scoping and Associated Resource Analysis Two significant (unresolved) issues were developed from public Scoping comments: (1) herbicide use, and (2) NNIPS treatments in the Wilderness. The following section displays analysis of potential resource effects relevant to these two issues.

Issue 1: Herbicide use Herbicide use in the control of NNIPS on the NFGT will have an adverse effect on wildlife (amphibians), flora/fauna, and ground/surface water quality and recharge areas. Measure: Potential herbicide treatment acres as a percent of total allowable acres (2,500) treated annually on Forests and Grasslands based on the minimum amount of active ingredient (pounds of active ingredient /acre) as analyzed in the current SERA and ENSR assessments, the 1989 VMFEIS, and the Forest Plan.

Soils and Hydrology Resources

Soils and Hydrology Affected Environment Surface Water. Annual precipitation on the National Forests averages about 47 inches, amounting to about 550,000 acre-feet of runoff. On the National Grasslands, the annual precipitation averages about 30 inches, amounting to about 31,600 acre-feet of runoff. Precipitation is unevenly distributed throughout the year causing alternate periods of droughts and excess. Surface waters can be generally defined as perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams, which usually exhibit a dendritic2 pattern with a palustrine3 element on the National Forest. This palustrine element is not commonly found on the National Grasslands, as a majority of the streams is intermittent or ephemeral. Wetlands, bogs, ephemeral ponds, lakes and reservoirs are other components of the surface waters of the NFGT. Management Areas 4 and 5 encompass these surface waters. The demand for surface water has been increasing in recent years as groundwater supplies are diminished or depleted. Groundwater. Groundwater quality in the National Forests is highly variable, but is generally good and suitable for most purposes. The groundwater on the National Grasslands is not as variable and is generally good and suitable for most purposes. Soils. There are approximately 100 soil series on the National Forest and Grasslands in Texas. The parent material of the majority of these soils is sedimentary except those soils found on the floodplains and terraces which are derived from alluvial deposits. The physical and chemical composition of these soils is highly varied, ranging from clays that are at or near the surface to deep sands, with reactions ranging from strongly acid to alkaline. All soils on the NFGT are relatively low in available nutrients, especially phosphorus and potassium. Due to the relatively flat topography of the NFGT, soil

2 Dendritic: Of a branching form 3 Palustrine: Of, pertaining to, or living in, a marsh or swamp; marshy.

74 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

stability is not generally a problem, but soils with thick sandy or silty surfaces with slopes over 15 percent are subject to erosion.

Soils and Hydrology Direct/Indirect Effects Alternative 1—No Action. The no-action alternative would have no effect on the soil resource, and little effect on the current status of water quality. However, the water resource will continue to be affected by NNIPS. Alternative 2—Proposed Action. The proposed action seeks to treat existing NNIPS sites and sites found in the future. Treatments of these areas are based on IPM and adaptive management approaches. All treatments (cultural, biological, physical/mechanical, and chemical) would be limited to a maximum of 500 acres per National Forest and 500 acres combined for both National Grasslands. Biological. Biological controls or using natural biological processes and materials to provide control of NNIPS has little potential to affect the soil and water resources, except when areas are intentionally overgrazed. Mechanical. Mechanical controls have the potential to affect both the soil and water resources through erosion and sedimentation, respectively. Soils may also be compacted by the use of heavy equipment for mowing, chopping, disking, piling, and root raking. Erosion caused by the use of heavy equipment can be mitigated by limiting operations to slopes less than 40 percent and re-vegetating disturbed areas with native or non-persistent seed mixes. Compaction can be effectively mitigated by eliminating and/or restricting the use of heavy equipment on hydric soils and/or soils that are seasonally saturated. Heavy equipment specifically designed for use on these soils (low psi) can also be an effective strategy for mitigation of compaction. Cultural. Cultural controls, including restricting entry to an area, washing vehicles, and using weed-free seed, pose little threat to the soil or water resources. Included in cultural controls is prescribed burning. Under normal conditions prescribed burning has little impact on the soil and water resources; however, intense prescribed burning can result in hydrophobicity4 and erosion. Chemical. Chemical controls will be used when other controls fail or are deemed unlikely to prove effective. Water pollution by herbicides can occur during storage, transport, application, clean up, and/or container disposal. Direct effects of herbicide application are potential chemical contamination of surface waters and ground waters (Neary, Bush, Michael, 1993; 1989 VMFEIS, page IV-103). Indirect effects are potential increases in sediment and water yield (1989 VMFEIS, page IV-103). Slight increases in stream nutrients, particularly nitrate (Neary et al. 1993), may also occur as an indirect effect. Herbicides may affect soil productivity through biotic impacts, soil erosion, and nutrient leaching (1989 VMFEIS, page IV-90). Resulting changes in soil organisms are due more to physical than chemical effects (Mayack et al. 1982). Where adverse effects have been observed, herbicide concentrations exceeded those measured under actual operational conditions (Fletcher and Friedman 1986). There is, however, a consensus that herbicide

4 Hydrophobicity: Repelling, tending not to combine with, or incapable of dissolving in water.

75 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment usage at normal forestry rates does not reduce the activity of soil microorganisms. There is no evidence that the herbicides currently used in forest management in the South produce any adverse effects on site and soil productivity. Herbicides do not disturb the soil surface, thus the soil erosion is limited to natural processes or to the method of application. Existing organic layer(s) are left intact after herbicide use that mitigates rainfall impact and promotes water infiltration. Herbicide application methods: • Directed foliar sprays: herbicide-water sprays aimed at plant foliage to cover all leaves to the point of runoff and usually applied with a backpack sprayer (use low pressure, drift retardants, and spray shields to avoid drift). • Stem injection (including hack-and-squirt): herbicide concentrate or herbicide- water mixtures applied into incisions spaced around woody stems made by an ax, hatchet, machete, brush ax, or tree injector. • Girdle-treat: herbicide concentrate or herbicide-water mixtures applied to an encircling band of removed bark around woody stems made by a cutting tool and applied with a spray bottle, wick, or paintbrush. • Cut-treat: herbicide concentrate or herbicide water mixture applied to freshly cut stumps (outer circumference) or stems (entire top surface) with a backpack sprayer, spray bottle, wick, or paintbrush. • Basal sprays: herbicide-oil-penetrant mixture sprayed or daubed onto the lower portion of woody stems usually applied with a backpack sprayer or wick applicator. • Soil spots: application of hexazinone herbicide as metered amounts to the soil surface around target woody stems or in a grid pattern for treating many stems in an area; usually applied with a spotgun or with a backpack sprayer equipped with a straight-stream nozzle. Direct/indirect Effects of Herbicides to be used: • 2,4-D • Solubility: Soluble. • Potential for Leaching into Groundwater: This chemical is labeled for aquatic use. Soil active. Amine formulations are readily mobile in soil if percolating water is present. The ester formulations are less mobile. • Surface Waters: This chemical is labeled for aquatic use. This is a granular formulation which sinks to the bottom of treated water areas. It is absorbed primarily through plant roots. • Soils: Soil active. Has a short half life, generally 1 to 4 weeks. Breakdown is by microbial action. • Diquat • Solubility: Diquat is highly soluble in water. • Potential For Leaching Into Groundwater: Soil capacity for adsorption of diquat is so high in comparison to the rates at which it is applied that there is little possibility that leaching or groundwater contamination will occur.

76 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

• Surface Waters: Since Diquat is purposely applied to water to control the growth of aquatic weeds, its ability to last as an effective residue has been studied carefully. These studies suggest that Diquat is not persistent in water. When applied to open water, it disappears rapidly because it binds to suspended particles in the water. These particles are then taken up by plants. Diquat half-life, or the period of time that it usually takes for half of the amount of the material to be broken down by natural processes, is less than 48 hours in water. • Soils: When Diquat comes in contact with soil, it becomes strongly adsorbed to clay particles or organic matter in the soil for long periods of time. The strong chemical bonds formed by Diquat adsorption to soil particles make the herbicide biologically and chemically inactive. Traces, or residues, of diquat have been found to persist in soil for many years with very little degradation. • Clopyralid • Solubility: Highly soluble. • Potential for Leaching into Groundwater: Clopyralid does not bind tightly to soil and thus would seem to have a high potential for leaching. While there is little doubt that Clopyralid will leach under conditions that favor leaching—sandy soil, a sparse microbial population, and high rainfall—the potential for leaching or runoff is functionally reduced by the relatively rapid degradation of clopyralid in soil. A number of field lysimeter studies and a long-term field study indicate that leaching and subsequent contamination of ground water are likely to be minimal. This conclusion is also consistent with a monitoring study of Clopyralid in surface water after aerial application. • Surface Waters: Surface waters may be contaminated if Clopyralid is applied to areas where runoff is likely to occur. The half-life in water is 261 days. • Soils: Clopyralid is very mobile in the soil, it is considered persistent in soil with a half-life of up to 11 months according to EPA. • Dicamba • Solubility: Dicamba is readily soluble in water; its transport through soil is influenced substantially by precipitation. • Potential for Leaching into Groundwater: There is a potential for Dicamba to leach into groundwater. • Surface Waters: There is a potential for Dicamba to be transported to surface waters. • Soils: Dicamba is easily transported through soil and does not readily bind to soils. • Fluridone • Solubility: Fluridone is soluble in water. • Potential for Leaching into Groundwater: Fluridone has the potential to leach into groundwater via surface waters and/or hydrosoils. • Surface Waters: Fluridone is applied to surface waters to control submerged and emerged aquatic plants. It is moderately persistent in water with a half-life of 21 days.

77 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

• Soils: Fluridone is strongly adsorbed to organic matter in soil. Microorganisms appear to be the major factor responsible for the degradation of fluridone in terrestrial soils. The half-life in hydrosoil is 90 days. • Fosamine Ammonium • Solubility: Fosamine Ammonium is highly soluble in water. • Potential for Leaching into Groundwater: Fosamine Ammonium should not pose a threat to groundwater or surface water because it rapidly degrades in aerobic and anaerobic environments. • Surface Waters: Fosamine Ammonium may be transported to surface waters either through runoff or wind blown soil particles. Fosamine Ammonium should not pose a threat to groundwater or surface water because it rapidly degrades in aerobic and anaerobic environments. • Soils: Fosamine Ammonium is not very persistent in aerobic or anaerobic conditions and degrades rapidly in most soils. It is rapidly degraded through microbial mediation. It is mobile in various soils. • Glyphosate: • Solubility: Glyphosate dissolves easily in water. • Potential for Leaching into Groundwater: The potential for leaching is low. Glyphosate and the surfactant in Roundup are strongly adsorbed to soil particles. Tests show that the half-life for glyphosate in water ranges from 35 to 63 days. The surfactant half-life ranges from 3 to 4 weeks. • Surface Waters: Studies (Wan 1989) examined glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA) residues in surface water after forest application in British Columbia with and without no-spray streamside zones. With a no-spray streamside zone, very low concentrations were sometimes found in water and sediment after the first heavy rain. Where Glyphosate was sprayed over the stream, higher peak concentrations in water always occurred following heavy rain, up to 3 weeks after application. Glyphosate and AMPA residues peaked later in stream sediments, where they persisted for over 1 year. These residues were not easily released back into the water. • Soils: Glyphosate is not soil active or soil mobile, it is rapidly broken down by soil microbes. • Hexazinone • Solubility: Powder and granule formulations dissolve well in water. The liquid formulation disperses in water. • Potential for Leaching into Groundwater: Hexazinone is persistent and mobile in soils and therefore could contaminate groundwater. It is not likely to leach beyond the root zone, however. • Surface Waters: Hexazinone does have some potential to move through buffer zones and into surface streams; however, it degrades rapidly in natural waters. • Soils: Hexazinone is soil active with soil mobility being relatively low, it can remain active in the soil from 1 to 6 months after application. Hexazinone is broken down primarily by soil organisms and may be degraded from exposure to light.

78 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

• Imazapic • Solubility: Imazapic is slightly soluble in water. • Potential for Leaching into Groundwater: Imazapic has a low potential for leaching into groundwater. • Surface Waters: Surface waters may be contaminated Imazapic is used in areas near streams or small ponds in acreages in excess of 10 acres. The half-life of Imazapic in water is about 30 hours. • Soils: Similar to Imazapyr except Imazapic has a soil half-life of 106 to 113 days. • Imazapyr • Solubility: Imazapyr is soluble in water. • Potential for Leaching into Groundwater: Imazapyr has a low potential for leaching into groundwater. • Surface Waters: Imazapyr may move from treated areas in streams. Most movement of Imazapyr was found in runoff from storms. Use of a streamside management zone can significantly reduce the amount of offsite movement of Imazapyr in stormflow. The half-life of Imazapyr in water is about 4 days. • Additional Mitigation: Do not apply on irrigation ditches. Do not apply where runoff water may flow onto agricultural land. Do not apply to water or wetlands. • Soils: Imazapyr is strongly absorbed by the soil, usually only found in the top few inches. It is soil active with soil mobility being relatively low. Imazapyr can remain in the soil from 6 months to as long as 2 years. Exposure to sunlight assists with breakdown in soil as well as soil microorganisms. • Metsulfuron Methyl • Solubility: Metsulfuron Methyl dissolves easily in water. • Potential for Leaching into Groundwater: Metsulfuron Methyl has the potential to contaminate ground water at very low concentration. Metsulfuron Methyl leaches through silt loam and sand soils. • Surface Waters: Because Metsulfuron Methyl is soluble in water, there is a potential for surface waters to be contaminated if metsulfuron is applied directly to bodies of water or wetlands. Tests show that the half-life in water, when exposed to artificial sunlight, ranges from 1 to 8 days. • Soils: Metsulfuron Methyl is soil active. Unlike Sulfometuron Methyl, it is not strongly absorbed by acidic soils. • Picloram • Solubility: Highly soluble. • Potential for Leaching into Groundwater: Hexachlorobenzene is a contaminant found in technical grade Picloram with an average concentration of 8 ppm and a maximum concentration of 50 ppm. Because Hexachlorobenzene binds tightly to and is relatively immobile in soils, it is unlikely to percolate through soils and directly contaminate ground water. • Surface Waters: Surface waters may be contaminated either through runoff or by volatilization with subsequent redeposition in rainwater. It can also be transferred

79 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

to surface waters via runoff over contaminated soils. The half-life in water is 1,553 days. • Soils: Hexachlorobenzene the contaminant found in Picloram binds tightly to and is relatively immobile in soils. The half-life of this contaminant in soil ranges from 3 to 6 years. • Sulfometuron Methyl • Solubility: Sulfometuron Methyl is practically insoluble in water. In Oust, Sulfometuron Methyl is formulated as dispersible granules which are easily suspended in water. Agitation is needed to keep Oust suspended. • Potential for Leaching Into Groundwater: The potential for Sulfometuron Methyl to leach into ground water depends on soil conditions such as organic matter content, moisture, and soil pH. In acidic soil, it has little potential for movement into ground water. However, when applied to water-saturated alkaline soil, considerable movement of sulfometuron methyl may occur. • Surface Waters: Surface waters may be contaminated if Sulfometuron Methyl is applied to areas where runoff is likely to occur. • Soils: Sulfometuron Methyl is soil active and is strongly absorbed by acidic soils and to soils with high organic content. It has a half-life of 1 month, but under bright light conditions the half-life can be as short as 1 to 3 days. • Tebuthiuron • Solubility: Highly soluble. • Potential for Leaching into Groundwater: Soil active. It is generally reported to show very little lateral or vertical movement (it may, however, be highly mobile where water percolates through soil). • Surface Waters: Not labeled for aquatic use. Off-site damage can occur where this chemical reaches flowing water. • Soils: Soil active. Very persistent. The half-life may be 5-7 years in drier soils. In the Southeast (with 40-60 inches of rain per year) the half life is 12-15 months. The method of breakdown is not known, but it is quite slow. • Approval for use would normally be given only in areas where risk of contamination of surface and ground water was negligible or where revegetation of an area was not a high priority. • May be used on Region 8 National Forest Land only with Regional Forester approval. • Triclopyr • Solubility: Moderate to low • Potential for Leaching into Groundwater: The potential for leaching depends on the soil type, acidity and rainfall conditions. Triclopyr should not be a leaching problem under normal conditions since it binds to clay and organic matter in soil. Triclopyr may leach from light soils if rainfall is very heavy. • Surface Waters: Sunlight rapidly breaks down Triclopyr in water. The half-life in water is less than 24 hours.

80 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

• Soils: Triclopyr is not highly mobile in soil. It is rapidly broken down by soil organisms. • Additional Mitigation: According to the label, this product is not for use in or around irrigation ditches or near water used for irrigation or domestic uses. Alternative 3—Modified Proposed Action. The modified proposed action seeks to treat existing NNIPS sites and sites found in the future. Treatments of these areas are based on IPM and adaptive management approaches. All treatments (cultural, biological, physical/mechanical, and chemical) would be limited to a maximum of 500 acres per National Forest and 500 acres combined for both National Grasslands. Alternative 3 is the same as the proposed action, except the list of NNIPS is limited to true non-native species. The direct and indirect effects of this alternative will be very similar to the proposed alternatives. A slight decrease in water yield can be expected due to the increased encroachment of offsite native species on the National Grasslands. Alternative 4. Alternative 4 is the same as Alternative 3, except that NNIPS control in MA 7 (Wilderness) would include a modified IPM approach using only non-mechanized controls and adaptive management. Direct and indirect effects including erosion, sedimentation, and compaction would be slightly decreased in this alternative, but only in the Wilderness. Alternative 5. This alternative is essentially a no herbicide alternative. Mechanical and biological control along with adaptive management would be used to address NNIPS. NNIPS would not be addressed at all in the Wilderness. Direct and indirect effects including erosion, sedimentation, and compaction could be expected to increase under this alternative because of increased use of mechanical treatments. In addition, the potential risk of soil and water contamination from herbicides would be eliminated.

Soils and Hydrology Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects for soils are changes in productivity. The analysis area for the cumulative effects for soils is limited to those soils found on National Forest and Grasslands in Texas because the effects of the proposed management activities on soil productivity is in situ (on the site) or has very limited potential for vertical and/or horizontal expansion. The cumulative effects for water are changes in water quality. The analysis area for the cumulative effects for water is the groundwater and the watersheds for those surface waters found on the National Forest and Grasslands in Texas and the downstream designated uses thereof. The temporal boundary for the cumulative effects for both soil and water is the duration of this EA. However; the cumulative effects for water should be revisited every 5 years to capture changes in designated uses, watershed conditions, and evolving information about pesticides and their applications. Evaluation of the alternatives has resulted in the determination that they all pose little risk to the soil and water resources. However, it is very difficult to determine the cumulative effects of the continued propagation of NNIPS under Alternative 1 and 5. Alternatives 1 and 5 either do nothing to control or severely limit the potential to successfully control

81 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

NNIPS. NNIPS have the potential over an extended period to alter the entire vegetative composition of a given watershed. Alteration of the vegetative composition at the watershed level will interrupt the natural hydrologic dynamic of these watersheds, resulting in changes in water yield and/or geomorphological changes to streams within these watersheds. There is no expected long-term loss of soil productivity and soil loss from erosion is expected to be temporary. Increased sedimentation is expected to be minimal and temporary. The potential for water pollution is considered slight, provided all mitigations and management strategies are followed. When compared to other activities across the NFGT that may affect soils and hydrology (such as road maintenance and construction, timber harvesting, and trail construction and maintenance), the effects from treating NNIPS across the Forest would pose little cumulative risk to soils and water. Overall, the potential cumulative effects incurred in the management of NNIPS are minimal and should pose no risk to the soil and water resources. Weighing the potential risks to the soil and water resources from a complete IPM approach, Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 will accomplish the goals of controlling NNIPS with minimal risk, while Alternatives 1 and 5 will not.

Vegetation Resources

General Vegetation Affected Environment The primary plant communities likely to be affected by NNIPS treatments can be found in all MAs within the NFGT and are displayed in Table 11. Table 11 definitions include: • Forbs ~ a broad-leaved herb (as opposed to a grass), especially one growing in a field, prairie, or meadow. • Graminoids ~ grasses, sedges, and rushes. • Subshrub ~ a plant consisting of a woody, perennial base with annual, herbaceous shoots. • Overstory ~ the uppermost layer of foliage that forms a forest canopy. • Midstory ~ the layer of young trees and shrubs that are shaded by taller trees in a forest. • Understory ~ an underlying layer of vegetation, especially the plants that grow beneath a forest's canopy.

82 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Table 11. Primary plant communities found on the NFGT

Community Characteristic Vegetation Associated NNIPS Permanent Openings Typical of wildlife food plots maintained by mowing in an open Openings are susceptible to infestations from NNIPS that do condition. This area will typically be dominated by native forbs and well in full sunlight, including graminoids such as Bothriochloa graminoids although there may be some desirable non-intrusive ischaemum var. songarica, Imperata cylindrical and Sorghum non-native species present (such as annual millet) that were added halpense. Other NNIPS found in these areas include as a food source for wildlife. Lespedeza cuneata, Carduus nutans, and Solanum viarum. These species would displace beneficial vegetation and decrease resources available to wildlife. Special Use Sites Areas around equipment are generally kept free of vegetation. Because of traffic volume to and from these sites and the (oil and gas Areas surrounding the sites are allowed to revegetated naturally disturbed nature of the soils around these areas, NNIPS often operational areas and with native forbs, shrubs, and woody vegetation; or a mix of native become established within and around special use sites. other easements and desirable non-native annual species (such as rye or millet) Species include the graminoids Bothriochloa ischaemum var. granted for the public) may be planted to control erosion. songarica and Sorghum halpense. Lespedeza cuneata, another NNIPS, is a frequent invader of these sites. Roadsides Usually dominated by native forbs and graminoids that are mowed Roadsides are primary pathways for most NNIPS infestations. and kept low in order to ensure good visual distance perception. As a result, most NNIPS can be found along roadsides and just on the forest edges adjacent to the areas mowed for maintenance. Most NNIPS are scattered, but some, like Ligustrum sinense and Rosa multiflora, can form hedgerows along road edges. Aquatic Areas A mix of native submerged and emerged herbaceous vegetation Includes (but not limited to) Hydrilla verticillata, Myriophyllum within water bodies as well as associated native wetland forbs, spicatum, Salvinia molesta, and Eichhornia crassipes within graminoids, shrubs, subshrubs, and woody vegetation along the bodies of water and Tamarix ramosissima and Triadica sebifera shoreline. along the shorelines. Sometimes found in monotypic stands and displacing native vegetation. Trails and Trailheads Vegetation found in or adjacent to these areas would typically be NNIPS found at trails and trailheads are most often represented by the surrounding native vegetation and would be a unknowingly introduced into the area by the public. The NNIPS mix of all native species found in that particular habitat. are brought in as seed from other areas on recreational equipment, pets, and shoes.. The most common NNIPS found in this area includes Lygodium japonicum, which spreads through the release of millions of tiny spores. Mixed Pine-Oak These areas include native vegetation of all types, including native Any and all NNIPS may be found in this forest community. Most Woodlands and overstory species, midstory vegetation, and understory infestations are scattered and localized, probably the result of Forests herbaceous vegetation. seed transported by birds or wind dispersed seeds or spores. Japanese climbing fern, Melia azedarach, and Nandina domestica are sometimes found as localized infestations within forest stands, but almost any NNIPS could be present.

83 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Table 11. Primary plant communities found on the NFGT

Community Characteristic Vegetation Associated NNIPS Utility Corridors Utility corridors are generally mowed by the permit holder annually Utility corridors, like roadsides, are primary pathways for most for maintenance purposes. As a result, native vegetation found in NNIPS infestations. As a result, most NNIPS can be found these areas are generally low forbs, graminoids, shrubs, and anywhere in this area and just on the forest edges adjacent to subshrubs. Little woody vegetation is present as these species the areas mowed for maintenance. Most NNIPS are scattered, would interfere with overhead powerlines and maintenance but some, like Melia azerdarach and Albizia julibrissin, can equipment. grow quickly and outpace maintenance efforts. These species can grow into powerlines and cause a hazard. Mesic Hardwood Plant communities found in these areas would resemble those Any and all NNIPS may be found in this forest community. Most and/or Riparian found in streamside zones. Native forbs, graminoids, shrubs, and infestations are scattered and localized, probably the result of Forests woody species would occur together throughout. seed transported by birds, water, or wind dispersed spores. Triadica sebifera is a water loving NNIPS that has formed monocultures along streams, rivers, lakes, and other riparian habitats. Other NNIPS can also be found as localized infestations within this area. Recreation Areas Recreation areas include aquatic habitat and surrounding forest NNIPS found at recreation areas, like trails and trailheads, are communities. Those communities will vary depending on the most often unknowingly introduced into the area by the public. location of the recreation site. Typical plant communities would The NNIPS are brought in as seed from other areas on include a mixture of native aquatic and terrestrial vegetation such recreational equipment, pets, and shoes. NNIPS such as as forbs, graminoids, shrubs, subshrubs, woody species, mosses, Hydrilla verticillata, Myriophyllum spicatum, Salvinia molesta, and ferns. and Eichhornia crassipes can be brought into lakes in these areas in boats or on fishing equipment. Once established, these NNIPS will displace native vegetation and decrease the enjoyment of the recreational user. These species have been known to become so numerous that they necessitate the closure of swimming areas. Any NNIPS can be found scattered in these sites. Streamside Zones A mix of native riparian vegetation would be present, including Any and all NNIPS may be found in this forest community. Most native forbs, graminoids, shrubs, subshrubs, woody species, infestations are scattered and localized, probably the result of mosses, and ferns. Often, these species will appear at waters seed transported by birds, water, or wind dispersed spores. edge and would change in composition toward more xeric (dry) Triadica sebifera is a water loving NNIPS that has formed areas away from the stream. monocultures along streams, rivers, lakes, and other riparian habitats. Many other NNIPS, such as Albizia julibrissin, the already mentioned Triadica sebifera and Lygodium japonicum are often found near roads at stream crossings where a culvert is present. The stream acts as a highway for the infestation to spread into the forest.

84 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Table 11. Primary plant communities found on the NFGT

Community Characteristic Vegetation Associated NNIPS Range These areas are dominated by native forbs and graminoids with Range, like openings, is susceptible to infestations from NNIPS (all areas managed some isolated/scattered inclusions of low native subshrubs and that do well in full sunlight, including graminoids such as under the guidelines of shrubs. It would not be uncommon to observe a random native Bothriochloa ischaemum var. songarica and Sorghum MA 3 such as remnant tree(s) in small pockets throughout this area, but as a general rule, halpense. Other NNIPS found in these areas include Blackland prairies, this area is mostly open and maintained by grazing. Lespedeza cuneata, Arundo donax, Carduus nutans, Tamarix Tallgrass prairies of ramosissima, which severely affects other vegetation by using the Western Cross large amounts of water thereby limiting this resource to plants, Timbers, and the wildlife, and people. These species would displace beneficial maintenance of active vegetation and decrease resources available to wildlife. Woody grazing allotments) NNIPS such as Rosa multiflora form dense hedgerows along roads and forest margins and Ailanthus altissima forms dense thickets.

85 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

General V eget ation Direct/Indirect Effects Alternative 1 — No Action. Under Alternative 1, no activities would occur to reduce NNIPS on the NFGT. Populations of NNIPS would continue to spread thereby altering community composition and structure. In the long term (years), they could dominate the canopy layer and/or understory and even form mono-specific stands as evidenced in other southern forests. These long-term changes would translate to a decrease in habitat quality and can pose new threats to the integrity of the forest community, increase fire danger, and displace native vegetation. Actions Common to Alternatives 2–5. NNIPS treatments would occur over no more than 500 acres per Forest and 500 acres in both Grasslands per year (see Table 8 for comparison of affected acres versus total acres). All of the NNIPS addressed in this proposal and in the NNIPS Management Plan are currently displacing or have the potential to displace native plant species habitats. Effects Common to Alternatives 2–5. Indirectly, there may be inadvertent, but unavoidable, loss of non-target vegetation from uprooting surrounding vegetation if using a mechanical removal technique or, if using herbicides, from herbicide drift. The effect of herbicide drift would be controlled using drift control agents added to the herbicides. Over time, these inadvertent effects would diminish as the overall populations of NNIPS are reduced , a nd N NIPS treatments become less necessary. Indirectly, as populations of NNIPS decline, the diversity of native species that fill in gaps left behind by the eradication of NNIPS would increase. See Table 8 summary of effects to the vegetative ecosystems on the NFGT following implementation of the NNIPS Management Plan. Alternative 2—Proposed Action. Alternative 2 would result in an overall decrease of NNIPS (including offsite natives such as Juniperus virginiana, Gleditsia triacanthos, and Robinia pseudoacacia) across the forest landscape and a resulting increase in native plant species diversity. Biological. Biological controls are specific to targeted species. When used as part of an IPM approach, biological controls would have the direct effect of decreasing current populations of targeted NNIPS. Cyrtobagous salviniae is specific to Salvinia molesta. One exception to the specificity of treatment includes the use of Ctenopharyngodon idella to control Hydrilla verticillata. Use may be an option in areas with extremely dense initial infestations and with adequate control structures (metal grates over spillways and/or barriers placed in exit channels) to ensure retention of released fish. Texas Parks and Wildlife would need to approve these measures on a site-specific basis. Ctenopharyngodon idella eat a variety of vegetation including native species, so sites with grass carp intro ductions should be revegetated with natives. Ctenopharyngodon idella are an option only in areas where impact to all of the vegetation is acceptable. Mechanical. The direct e ffect of mechanical treatments include hand pulling/digging, collecting propagules5, mowing, girdling, cutting, and grubbing NNIPS plants. Indirectly,

5 Any of various structures that can give rise to a new individual organism, especially parts of a plant that serve as means of vegetative reproduction, such as corms, tubers, offsets, or runners. Seeds and spores are also propagules

86 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

small and localized increases in fuel loading (anywhere from 0.001 acre to 0.1 acre, mostly from the cutting of individual trees or small clumps of trees) may result from the top-killing (killing the portion of the plant above ground by cutting or girdling) of NNIPS. Short-term (less than 12 months) fuel loading would also occur as a direct result of leaving NNIPS in place after pulling them from the ground. There may also be inadvertent, but unavoidable, loss of non-target vegetation as some native species are uprooted from the ground along with the NNIPS. However, these effects would lessen over time as the populations of NNIPS are reduced and, regularly scheduled prescribed fire operations minimize overall available fuels. Cultural. Cultural controls include revegetating treated areas with native species, removing NNIPS from seed mixes used in revegetation and erosion control projects, and prevention and education tactics such as signing at recreation areas, and the installation of bootbrush stations at trailheads. These controls are generally used in combination with other methods such as mechanical and chemical treatments to successfully control most NNIPS. The installation of bootbrush stations, wash stations at trailheads and boat ramps, and the elimination of NNIPS from seed mixtures would directly reduce the coverage of NNIPS by eliminating unintentional introductions. Through education measures (signing), NNIPS could indirectly be reduced by creating an informed public who would utilize all available prevention measures. Another cultural control is the use of prescribed fire. The direct effect of any prescribed fire would be to kill plants and temporarily blacken the landscape. This could appear unsightly to Forest visitors. However, these burned areas quickly revegetate with propagules and seeds from the surrounding species and from seeds present in the seedbank and, after 30 to 45 days, little evidence of a burn treatment would be apparent. Top-killing NNIPS with fire would act to prevent more NNIPS seed from being deposited in the seedbank. As most native species would resprout from the roots, target plants would generally not be eradicated. This occurs more often with the application of dormant season fire, as the fire is rarely hot enough to penetrate deep enough into the soil and destroy root systems. Some NNIPS respond favorably to the application of prescribed fire by causing seed to germinate or to cause roots to sprout suckers. Prescribed fire is generally used in combination with other follow-up control methods such as mechanical and chemical treatments to successfully control most NNIPS. The most notable exception is the control of Bothriochloa ischaemum, which is most successfully controlled by using prescribed fire during the growing season. Chemical. Herbicide application has the direct effect of killing plants. Selective treatment techniques (directed foliar sprays, girdle treat, stem injection (including hack-and-squirt), cut treat, basal sprays, and soil spots), as described in this document and the NNIPS Managemet Plan, would minimize damage to non-target species. With Alternative 2, repeat herbicide applications, if deemed to be the most effective and feasible treatment, may be necessary. As populations of NNIPS decrease and populations of desirable native vegetation increases, it is anticipated that, on a yearly basis (or as populations of NNIPS decrease), these applications would decrease both in volume of acreage treated and the amount of chemicals used. This would be determined through yearly monitoring of all treatment sites by the Forest botanist. Because the herbicides selected for use do not accumulate permanently in soils or water, there would be no indirect effects to new

87 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

vegetation on the application site (see Soils Specialist Report). Only herbicides labeled for aquatic use (see Table 8 in the NNIPS Management Plan) would be used in or near water sources, thereby mitigating any indirect effects to aquatic resources. Soil-active herbicides would not be ground applied within 60 feet of TES (Region 8-TESP) plant sites, thereby mitigating any indirect negative effects to TESP. Alternative 3—Modified Proposed Action. The effects of Alternative 3 are similar to the effects of Alternative 2, with the following differences: • The exclusion of the aquatic herbicide 2, 4-D: Precluding the use of this herbicide could result in an exponential6 increase of certain aquatic NNIPS Myriophyllum spicatum and Hydrilla verticillata. However, there are toxicological concerns with this herbicide, and precluding its use would indirectly eliminate those concerns (see “Appendix 9. Herbicide Hazard Quotients and Effects to Human Health”). • The exclusion of any treatments to off-site natives such as Juniperus virginiana, Gleditsia triacanthos, and Robinia pseudoacacia in grassland ecosystems: The indirect effect of excluding treatment of these species could result in a long-term (over the course of several years) exponential decrease in acres of tallgrass and Blackland prairies within the NFGT due to encroachment by these species. This exclusion and would limit IPM treatments in this ecosystem to “true” NNIPS as defined in Executive Order 131127, but would also indirectly allow for natural succession in these areas not already included in other existing or proposed restoration projects. Alternative 4. Alternative 4 is similar to Alternative 3, with the following difference: • Excludes any chemical treatments within MA 7 (Wilderness) and allows for only selective and least intrusive mechanical (pulling, cutting, and girdling by hand-no mechanized equipment would be used) and cultural (signing, prevention, and the use of native seed only) treatments. Some NNIPS are not easily controlled by either mechanical and/or cultural methods since they spread by rhizomes and readily resprout when pulled. Excluding the use of chemical treatments in Wilderness could lead to a decrease of certain NNIPS that respond to mechanical and cultural treatments and an increase in other NNIPS that do not. For example, Ailanthus altissima and Imperata cylindrical are two NNIPS that readily resprout from roots and rhizomes. The former would from dense thickets from resprouting if not all of the root system is removed, and the latter would spread from remaining rhizomes left in the soil. In fact, cogongrass would actually be stimulated to grow from any mechanical soil disturbance. On the other hand, species such as Nandina domestica can usually be pulled entire from the ground quite easily. Those species that do not respond well to mechanical treatment, such as Imperata cylindrical, Ailanthus altissima, Triadica sebifera, and Lygodium japonica, among others, would continue to

6 A quantity that grows exponentially is one that grows at a rate proportional to its size. This does not mean merely that for any exponentially growing quantity, the larger the quantity gets, the faster it grows. It implies that the relationship between the size of the dependent variable and its rate of growth is governed by a strict law, of the simplest kind: direct proportion 7 Executive Order 13112: It is not native (i.e., alien) to the ecosystem under consideration, and its introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.

88 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

spread and displace native vegetation because the most effective IPM treatment protocols would not be utilized. Over the course of several years, this could lead to monocultures of certain NNIPS developing within Wilderness areas, causing unnatural conditions, altering soil chemistry, and promoting fire hazard (as in Imperata cylindrica). Alternative 5. Alternative 5 is similar to Alternative 4 with the following differences: • Wilderness areas (MA 7) Forest-wide would be excluded from all NNIPS treatments. The effects on Wilderness would be the same as the effects of Alternative 1. • In all other MAs on the NFGT, Alternative 5 would eliminate herbicide treatments from the IPM toolbox. The only approved treatments for all NNIPS (all MAs except MA 7) would include mechanical, biological, and cultural methods only. The effects would be the same as those listed in Alternative 4 for Wilderness (MA 7).

General Vegetation Cumulative Effects Information pertaining to cumulative effects for vegetation is contained in General Cumulative Effects at the beginning of this chapter. Alternative 1—No Action. Where NNIPS treatments are ongoing or planned for the future on FS System and non-system lands, there would be some reduction in NNIPS infestations on that unit. Currently, the few areas being treated for NNIPS infestations appear to be responding positively, with a minimum of no further loss of acres in those areas to a decrease in surface acres infested, as has been seen in the hydrilla control project occurring in Ratcliff Lake on the Davy Crockett NF. Otherwise, NNIPS would continue to occupy an increasing proportion of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems within the NFGT. NNIPS would also spread onto adjacent non-FS System lands and vice versa, continuing negatively to affect native vegetative diversity, fire regimes, recreational use, and overall forest health. In addition, infestations of NNIPS not previously known to occur within or adjacent to the NFGT and future infestations of NNIPS may be discovered. This includes a whole range of NNIPS found in other geographical areas outside of Texas and spreading across the landscape. Alternatives 2–5. Where treatments are planned for units of the NFGT, the annual per unit treatment restrictions would apply. When planning NNIPS treatments on individual FS units, additional treatments could not exceed the 500-acre yearly treatment limits. Since the FS cannot control nor dictate to state and private agencies what, where, and how any NNIPS treatments would occur on those lands under their control it is possible that the overall cumulative treatments could exceed the 500 acre restrictions on NFGT lands when considering all lands within the NFGT administrative boundaries. However, if more NNIPS control projects occur on inholdings within NFGT administrative unit boundaries, this would provide additional reductions to overall NNIPS infestations. Conversely, NNIPS would generally continue to increase on private lands where there is little financial incentive to control them beyond current partnerships between state, Federal, and private individuals. Where NNIPS are uncontrolled on adjacent non-FS lands, NNIPS would continue to spread to FS System lands.

89 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Because there would be annual NNIPS control treatments on FS system lands in each administrative unit, it is likely there would be the steady annual reduction in the populations of NNIPS similar to those effects discussed under direct/indirect effects of Alternatives 2 through 5 above. On those units having current or future planned NNIPS control projects, there would be an overall cumulative control of NNIPS on NFGT lands, not to exceed the 500 acre per year limit. If treatments to control NNIPS occur on inholdings, the annual cumulative control would increase. However, as NNIPS continue to be introduced across all units of the NFGT and on inholdings, the overall cumulative effects on NNIPS would depend on whether control measures to eliminate known NNIPS infestations could occur faster than new infestations could spread.

Summary of Effects to General Vegetation Under no action, NNIPS would continue to spread and adversely affect the various vegetative ecosystems found on the NFGT. Treating NNIPS through IPM and adaptive management would decrease the adverse effects on the various vegetative ecosystems found on the NFGT. Decreasing NNIPS across the Forest would allow the reestablishment of native vegetation. Table 12 displays the various vegetative ecosystems across the NFGT and the effects of NNIPS treatments by alternative.

90 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Table 12. General summary of effects to the vegetative ecosystems on the NFGT following implementation of the NNIPS Management Plan Alternative Community 1 2 3 4 5 Aquatic Aquatic NNIPS would Aquatic NNIPS would Some aquatic NNIPS may continue to displace native Some aquatic NNIPS Habitats (lakes) continue to spread and decrease and native vegetation since one of the most effective controls would continue to displace displace native vegetation. vegetation would increase, (2,4D) would be unavailable. native vegetation since the Habitat quality and thereby improving habitat. most effective controls diversity would decline. (2,4D) would be unavailable.

Natural Wilderness character would be negatively affected Permanent Encroachment of Juniperus Acres of quality prairie Encroachment of Juniperus Encroachment of Juniperus Encroachment of Juniperus Openings virginiana, Gleditsia habitat and other openings virginiana, Gleditsia virginiana, Gleditsia virginiana, Gleditsia triacanthos, Robinia would be increased, triacanthos, and Robinia triacanthos, and Robinia triacanthos, and Robinia pseudoacacia, and NNIPS improved and maintained pseudoacacia in these pseudoacacia in these pseudoacacia in these in these areas would areas would continue. areas would continue. areas would continue. continue. Some NNIPS would Some NNIPS would continue to displace native continue to displace native vegetation in Wilderness vegetation since the most since the most effective effective controls for them controls for them would be would be unavailable. unavailable. Natural Wilderness character would be negatively affected.

91 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Table 12. General summary of effects to the vegetative ecosystems on the NFGT following implementation of the NNIPS Management Plan Alternative Community 1 2 3 4 5 Roadsides Encroachment of Juniperus NNIPS would decrease Encroachment of Juniperus Encroachment of Juniperus Encroachment of Juniperus virginiana, Gleditsia and native vegetation virginiana, Gleditsia virginiana, Gleditsia virginiana, Gleditsia triacanthos, and Robinia would increase, thereby triacanthos, and Robinia triacanthos, and Robinia triacanthos, and Robinia pseudoacacia in these improving habitat. pseudoacacia from these pseudoacacia in these pseudoacacia in these areas would continue. areas would continue, but areas would continue. areas would continue. Encroachment of NNIPS NNIPS would decrease NNIPS would continue to into forested areas would and native vegetation Some NNIPS would Some NNIPS would spread and displace native decline. would increase, thereby continue to displace native continue to displace native vegetation. Habitat quality improving habitat. vegetation in Wilderness vegetation since the most and diversity would since the most effective effective controls for them decline. controls would be would be unavailable. unavailable. Natural Wilderness Encroachment of some character would be NNIPS into Wilderness negatively affected. areas would continue to Encroachment of NNIPS increase. into forested areas would increase.

92 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Table 12. General summary of effects to the vegetative ecosystems on the NFGT following implementation of the NNIPS Management Plan Alternative Community 1 2 3 4 5 Trails and NNIPS would continue to NNIPS would decrease NNIPS would decrease Some NNIPS would Some NNIPS would Trailheads spread and displace native and native vegetation and native vegetation continue to displace native continue to displace native vegetation. would increase, thereby would increase, thereby vegetation in Wilderness vegetation since the most Recreation improving habitat. improving habitat. since the most effective effective controls for them Areas Habitat quality and controls for them would be would be unavailable. diversity would decline. Encroachment of NNIPS Encroachment of NNIPS unavailable. into forested areas would into forested areas would Natural Wilderness User enjoyment could be decline. decline. Encroachment of some character would be negatively affected. NNIPS into Wilderness negatively affected. User enjoyment could be Some Juniperus virginiana, areas would continue to positively affected. Gleditsia triacanthos, and increase. Some Juniperus virginiana, Robinia pseudoacacia Gleditsia triacanthos, and encroachment could have Some Juniperus virginiana, Robinia pseudoacacia a negative effect in these Gleditsia triacanthos, and encroachment could have areas. Robinia pseudoacacia a negative effect in these encroachment could have areas. Overall user enjoyment a negative effect in these could be positively areas. Encroachment of NNIPS affected. into forested areas would User enjoyment could be increase. negatively affected. User enjoyment could be negatively affected.

93 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Table 12. General summary of effects to the vegetative ecosystems on the NFGT following implementation of the NNIPS Management Plan Alternative Community 1 2 3 4 5 Utility NNIPS would continue to NNIPS would decrease NNIPS would decrease Some NNIPS would Some NNIPS would Corridors spread and displace native and native vegetation and native vegetation continue to displace native continue to displace native vegetation. Habitat quality would increase, thereby would increase, thereby vegetation in Wilderness vegetation since the most and diversity would improving habitat. improving habitat. since the most effective effective controls for them decline. controls for them would be would be unavailable. Encroachment of NNIPS Encroachment of NNIPS unavailable. into forested areas would into forested areas would Some Juniperus virginiana, decline. decline. Some Juniperus virginiana, Gleditsia triacanthos, and Gleditsia triacanthos, and Robinia pseudoacacia Some Juniperus virginiana, Robinia pseudoacacia encroachment could have Gleditsia triacanthos, and encroachment could have a negative effect in these Robinia pseudoacacia a negative effect in these areas. encroachment could have areas. a negative effect in these Natural Wilderness areas. Encroachment of some character would be NNIPS into Wilderness negatively affected. areas would continue to increase. Encroachment of NNIPS into forested areas would increase.

94 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Table 12. General summary of effects to the vegetative ecosystems on the NFGT following implementation of the NNIPS Management Plan Alternative Community 1 2 3 4 5 Special Use NNIPS would continue to NNIPS would decrease NNIPS would decrease Some NNIPS would Some NNIPS would Sites spread and displace native and native vegetation and native vegetation continue to displace native continue to displace native vegetation. would increase, thereby would increase, thereby vegetation in Wilderness vegetation since the most improving habitat. improving habitat. since the most effective effective controls for them Habitat quality and controls for them would be would be unavailable. diversity would decline Encroachment of NNIPS Encroachment of NNIPS unavailable. into forested areas would into forested areas would Natural Wilderness decline. decline. Encroachment of some character would be NNIPS into Wilderness negatively affected. Some Juniperus virginiana, areas would continue to Gleditsia triacanthos, and increase. Encroachment of NNIPS Robinia pseudoacacia into forested areas would encroachment could have Some Juniperus virginiana, increase. a negative effect in these Gleditsia triacanthos, and areas. Robinia pseudoacacia Some Juniperus virginiana, encroachment could have Gleditsia triacanthos, and a negative effect in these Robinia pseudoacacia areas. encroachment could have a negative effect in these areas. Range NNIPS would continue to NNIPS would decrease Encroachment of Juniperus Encroachment of Juniperus Some NNIPS would spread and displace native and native vegetation virginiana, Gleditsia virginiana, Gleditsia continue to displace native vegetation. would increase, thereby triacanthos, and Robinia triacanthos, and Robinia vegetation since the most improving habitat and pseudoacacia in these pseudoacacia in these effective controls for them Habitat quality and increasing diversity. areas would continue. areas would continue. would be unavailable. diversity would decline. Encroachment of NNIPS into forested areas would increase.

Encroachment of Juniperus virginiana, Gleditsia triacanthos, and Robinia pseudoacacia in these areas would continue.

95 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Table 12. General summary of effects to the vegetative ecosystems on the NFGT following implementation of the NNIPS Management Plan Alternative Community 1 2 3 4 5 Mixed Pine-Oak NNIPS would continue to NNIPS would decrease NNIPS would decrease Some NNIPS would Some NNIPS would Woodlands spread and displace native and native vegetation and native vegetation continue to displace native continue to displace native vegetation. would increase, thereby would increase, thereby vegetation in Wilderness vegetation since the most Mesic improving habitat and improving habitat and since the most effective effective controls for them Hardwood Habitat quality and increasing diversity. increasing diversity. controls for them would be would be unavailable. diversity would decline. unavailable. Riparian Natural Wilderness Forests Encroachment of some character would be NNIPS into Wilderness negatively affected. Streamside areas would continue to Zones increase. Encroachment of NNIPS into forested areas would increase.

96 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plant Species

Federally Listed Species Table 13 displays the federally listed plant species known to occur in and/or adjacent to various units of the NFGT.

Table 13. Federally listed plant species known to occur and/or adjacent to various units of the NFGT Individual NFGT Units Species Known Is Suitable Species NFGT Dist ribution and Habitat To Occur Habitat Present Lesquerella pallida Weches formation Not on any NFGT units Geocarpon minimum Saline glades and barrens Hymenoxys texana Spiranthes parksii Catahoula pine barrens Angelina NF Yes

Determinati o n o f Effects: The only federally listed plant species found on the NFGT is the Spiranthes parksi i. The proposed action is “Not likely to adversely effect”. For complete analysis of determinations, see “Appendix 10. Biological Evaluation.”

Region 8 Sensitive Plant Species All Region 8 sensitive plant species and other target plant species occurring in the NFGT were considered in the evaluation. Suitable habitat—defined as habitat that meets the requirements of a spe cies—exists on the NFGT for several Region 8 sensitive plant species. Different species have different requirements, and habitat may exhibit varying degrees of quality, and be suitable, but unoccupied. Based on the most current information and professional judgment, species with habitat preferences differing from habitat types present on the NFGT are not analyzed in the effects analysis portion of this document. Table 14 summarizes Region 8 sensitive plant species known to occur on the individual NFGT units, those having suitable habitat in the project area, and those s pecies with habitat preferences differing from habitats present within on the NFGT. These species a re m onitored through ground surveys. Annual surveys are conducted for new populations of these species by FS personnel, partners, and contractors. These surveys may be species specific or may be conducted as part of a broader survey effort in support of Forest planning. Information on new populations is recorded via GPS and entered into the Forest GIS database. Information from all surveys conducted within the NFGT is used in the analysis.

97 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Table 14. Regional Forester sensitive plant species known to occur and/or having suitable habitat on various units of the NFGT Individual NFGT Units Is Species Suitable Known Habitat Species NFGT Distribution and Habitat to Occur Present? Amorpha paniculata Angelina NF in bogs and baygalls Yes Agrimonia incisa Angelina NF in sandy longleaf savanna Yes Bartonia texana Angelina and Sam Houston NF in baygalls Yes Crataegus warneri Davy Crockett NF in deep sandy soils Yes Cyperus grayoides Angelina and Sabine NF in xeric sandylands Yes Cypripedium kentuckiense Angelina and Sabine NF in beech-white oak Yes ravines Dalea reverchonii LBJ Grasslands on goodland limestone soils Yes Hibiscus dasycalyx Davy Crockett NF in sloughs and marshes Yes Lachnocaulon digynum Angelina and Sabine NF in hillside seepage slope No Yes bogs Leavenworthia texana Weches formation No Liatris tenuis Angelina and Sabine NF in sandy longleaf pine Yes savanna Platanthera integra Angelina NF in hillside seepage slope bogs Yes Prenanthes barbata Angelina and Sabine NF in beech-white oak Yes ravines Rhynchospora macra Angelina NF in hillside seepage slope bogs Yes Rudbeckia scabrifolia Angelina and Sabine NF in hillside seepage slope Yes bogs and baygalls Schoenolirion wrightii Angelina NF in catahoula pine barrens Yes Silene subciliata Sabine NF on sandy post oak hillsides Yes Streptanthus maculatus Sabine NF where glauconite is present Yes Trillium texanum Angelina NF in baygall ecotones Yes Xyris drummondii Angelina NF in hillside seepage slope bogs Yes Xyris louisianica Angelina NF in hillside seepage slope bogs Yes Xyris scabrifolia Angelina and Sabine NF in hillside seepage slope Yes bogs

Region 8 Sensitive Plants Known to Occur: Twenty Region 8 sensitive plant species are known to occur within the NNIPS project area. However, there would be no anticipated negative direct, indirect, and cumulative effects due to the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures set in place to protect populations of these species. These include the implementation checklist as shown in “Appendix 6. Implementation Checklist for Invasive Plant Control” and the forest-wide guidelines as shown in “Appendix 5. Herbicide Use Protocols,” (specifically FW-031-21). There may be some negative direct, indirect, and cumulative effects if no action is taken to control and eradicate NNIPS due to a subsequent loss of habitat for Region 8 sensitive plants. It is anticipated that there would be beneficial direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to these species as populations of NNIPS decrease (if present), thereby improving available

98 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment existing habitat and/or making more suitable habitat available in which these sensitive plant species would occur. Determination of Effects: Table 15 displays the determination of effects, by alternative, to Region 8 sensitive plant species occurring or having suitable habitat on the NFGT. For a detailed analysis of the determinations for the Region 8 sensitive plant species see “Appendix 10. Biological Evaluation.”

Table 15. Determination of effects, by alternative, to Region 8 sensitive plant species having suitable habitat on the NFGT

Species Determination for Alternative 1 Determination for Alternatives 2–5 Amorpha paniculata May impact individuals but not likely to May impact individuals, but not likely to Agrimonia incisa cause a trend to Federal listing or a cause a trend to Federal listing or a loss Bartonia texana loss of viability. of viability. Crataegus warneri Cyperus grayoides Cypripedium kentuckiense Dalea reverchonii Hibiscus dasycalyx Lachnocaulon digynum

Leavenworthia texana No effect: no suitable habitat/no known No effect: no suitable habitat/no known occurrences. occurrences.

Liatris tenuis May impact individuals but not likely to May impact individuals, but not likely to Platanthera integra cause a trend to Federal listing or a cause a trend to Federal listing or a loss Prenanthes barbata loss of viability. of viability. Rhynchospora macra Rudbeckia scabrifolia Schoenolirion wrightii

Silene subciliata May impact individuals but not likely to May impact individuals, but not likely to Streptanthus cause a trend to Federal listing or a cause a trend to Federal listing or a loss maculatus loss of viability. of viability. Trillium texanum Xyris drummondii Xyris louisianica Xyris scabrifolia

Management Indicator Species (MIS) Plants Management indicator species (MIS) can be used to indicate the welfare of other species with similar habitat needs. These species are designated as surrogates for other species with similar life histories or habitat requirements in order to assess the effects of management activities. Associations of plant species related primarily to grass/forb/shrub stage (early forest succession) or mature and old growth stages (late forest succession) were selected for analysis. Other MIS plants are also threatened and endangered species and/or Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species (RFSS) and will be assessed in the biological evaluation found in “Appendix 10. Biological Evaluation.”

99 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Table 16 lists MIS plants for the Forest, as provided in the Forest Plan. Each species was evaluated for its potential to be affected by a proposed project. Species without suitable habitat present in the project area were not evaluated further.

Table 16. Management indicator species Species Habitat Analyzed in this Management Indicator Present? Present? document? Species (MIS) (Yes/No) Habitat Represented (Yes/No) (Yes/No) Baygalls and acidic Apteria aphylla Yes Yes Yes woods Longleaf pine and/or Tetragonotheca ludoviciana Yes Yes Yes bluejack oak sandhills

Apteria aphylla—Affected Environment This species was selected as a MIS for bay-shrub wetland habitat due to its having a preferred habitat within MA 4. MA 4 is classified in the 1996 LRMP as streamside habitat and is generally excluded from project planning by the establishment of an Streamside management Zone (SMZ). This species does not respond well to disturbance and was chosen to determine the effectiveness of MA 4 exclusions from project plans as well as to determine the quality of undisturbed and well-developed sweetbay-magnolia plant communities. The TNHP Report noted five locations of this species on the NFGT, three on the Angelina NF, and two on the Sabine NF. Additional sites have been found on the Sabine NF in the baygall west of Highway 147 in Compartments 51 and 90. Houston Sierra Club volunteers located Apteria aphylla on six sites in three compartments (Compartments 90, 91, and 94) on the east side of the Sam Houston NF (all of which were confirmed by a FS biologist). A hillside seepage slope bog floristic survey conducted between August 8–11, 2006, resulted in the documentation of four additional populations of Apteria aphylla on the southern Angelina NF. In addition, species-specific surveys for this plant on September 23–30, 2006, resulted in the discovery of two more new populations on the Angelina NF and the relocation of four populations on the Sam Houston NF. The Forest Plan’s baseline is seven populations. There are currently 21 sites on the southern Angelina NF, with an estimated several thousand plants. The latest population estimate for the NFGT is approximately 27 sites. Surveys for this species are generally conducted in the fall. Survey data suggests that Apteria aphylla is common if baygall habitat is present. When found, populations number in the hundreds to millions of plants. The fact that the known extant populations continue to increase also suggests that current management practices for this species and the community type where it is found is successful. This species is present within the project area.

Tetragonotheca ludoviciana—Affected Environment This species has been recorded in 19 east Texas counties and in western Louisiana and extreme southwestern Arkansas (according to the TNHP report). Known populations are small in number of individuals (Evans, R.; personal communication, 1994), and occur on

100 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

the Davy Crockett and Angelina NFs. Infrequent fires should help maintain this species. The global status of the species is classified as G4-Apparently Secure, and S3-Vulnerable for the State of Texas (NatureServe 2006). Tetragonotheca ludoviciana is restricted to sandy soils in sandhill woods and xeric sandhills in longleaf pine savannas. It was selected to monitor management effects on these habitats by analyzing the population trends and number of extant occurrences of this species. Management practices that would disturb the deep sandy soil would be detrimental. Periodic prescribed burning would retard woody invasion, thereby maintaining open sandy areas with little competition. The baseline in the Forest Plan was five populations, which included two locations that were reported by TNHP, both occurring on the Angelina NF. Inventories and monitoring following the February 10, 1998, windstorm blowdown, found an additional population on the northern Angelina NF. The current known populations are estimated at 18. The short-term objective in the Forest Plan is 20 populations and the long-term objective is 25. A hillside seepage slope bog floristic survey conducted between August 8–11, 2008, resulted in the inadvertent documentation of one additional population of this species in C-92 of the Angelina NF. As more southern pine habitat is restored and fire frequency is increased, potential increases in sites with this plant may be possible. Tetragonotheca ludoviciana is found in deep sandy soils of southern pine sandhills and bluejack oak/post oak sandhills, as well as within road ROWs. It is a fire-adapted species and appears to respond well to any fire intensity, as was documented following the wildfire in C-77 of the Angelina NF where this species was seen to flourish as the result of that very intense fire. In addition, the numbers of individuals found within road ROWs suggests that this species does well when there is a lack of woody competition. Forest- wide populations seem to be stable, and new populations are being discovered as additional surveys are completed within suitable habitat.

Apteria aphylla and Tetragonotheca ludoviciana —Direct/Indirect Effects Alternative 1—No action. There would be no direct effects because no activities would occur within areas of suitable habitat for these species. Potential indirect effects could include a loss of suitable habitat over time (years) if NNIPS become established in any areas within the NFGT that do contain suitable habitat for these two species. This is especially true of Triadica sebifera, which has been shown to establish itself in habitat favored by Apteria aphylla. Once established, Triadica sebifera generally out competes all native vegetation, alters soil chemistry through allelopathic8 means, and forms monotypic stands. Alternative 2–3. Under this alternative, treatments for NNIPS infestation in areas of suitable habitat would be allowed. These treatments could include a combination of mechanical, cultural, biological, and chemical means depending on the specific NNIPS being targeted, and all treatment strategies would apply an IPM approach. Direct effects under these alternatives could include some inadvertent disturbance surrounding plant sites if NNIPS are controlled by mechanical means (especially if NNIPS are uprooted

8 Allelopathic: Capable of suppressing plant growth by a toxin released from a nearby plant of the same or another species.

101 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment from the surrounding soil) and some loss of individuals may occur if herbicides are used on nearby NNIPS through incidental contact. This would be minimized through project surveys designed to determine presence/absence of these species, the use of minimally invasive NNIPS control techniques in these areas, and timing treatments so that they do not interfere with the growing phase of Apteria aphylla and Tetragonotheca ludoviciana. Negative effects of treatment would be limited since Apteria aphylla does appear to be quite abundant where it occurs and Tetragonotheca ludoviciana is quite large and easily avoided. Any negative effects would be minimal compared to the gross negative effects resulting from no action and the subsequent loss of habitat. Soil-active herbicides would not be ground applied within 60 feet of MIS plant sites, thereby mitigating any indirect negative effects to this species. Alternative 4. This alternative is identical to Alternatives 2 and 3, except no herbicides or biological controls would be used in Wilderness areas. As such, the direct effects of this alternative on this species would be the same as those discussed under Alternatives 2 and 3, with the exception that populations of this species found within Wilderness areas that are being threatened by NNIPS infestations would not benefit from every available means of treatment under and IPM approach. This could result in a loss of suitable habitat for Apteria aphylla (if NNIPS are present) in these areas since the most effective treatment method (depending on the particular NNIPS being present) would be unavailable for use. Indirect effects could include a loss of diversity in Wilderness areas if NNIPS cannot be controlled by means other than chemical. Alternative 5. This alternative is identical to Alternative 4, except that it expands no treatments of any kind within Wilderness areas and no use of herbicide in all other areas within the NFGT. As such, the direct and indirect effects would be the same as Alternative 4, except that the effects would be expanded to include all areas within the NFGT and not just Wilderness areas.

Apteria aphylla and Tetragonotheca ludoviciana —Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area for Apteria aphylla is any streamside habitat (MA 4) within the project area. These areas were selected because Apteria aphylla is associated with these areas as well as acidic woods and baygalls. The time span for the cumulative effects analysis is 5 years into the future since new information, techniques, and survey results may alter currently accepted rationale regarding these species and treatment of NNIPS within these habitats. The cumulative effects analysis area for Tetragonotheca ludoviciana is any southern pine sandhill or bluejack/post oak sandhill. These habitats could occur in any MA within the NFGT except MAs 3, 4, and 5, and 10a. These areas were selected because Tetragonotheca ludoviciana is found in these xeric fire-dependent habitats in deep sandy soil. The time span for the cumulative effects analysis is 5 years into the future since new information, techniques, and survey results may alter currently accepted rationale regarding these species and treatment of NNIPS within these habitats. Alternative 1—No Action. There is currently no authorized NNIPS treatments either being performed or planned to be performed within areas of suitable habitat for these two species. Table 4 displays past NNIPS control efforts that have occurred or have decisions allowing activities on the NFGT. A project being analyzed, with no decision date yet, is

102 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment the Gum Branch Red-cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) Habitat Restoration Project in Compartment 52 on SHNF. NNIPS infestations would continue to spread across the landscape and would eventually (years) displace native vegetation found in these habitats. Populations of these two species would potentially decline where NNIPS infestations occur or become established. Alternatives 2–5. If NNIPS are present within suitable habitat for these two species and treatment occurs there would be beneficial cumulative effects. As NNIPS are controlled and reduced, habitat for these two species would improve and could result in increasing numbers of individuals. If NNIPS occur adjacent to suitable habitat for these two species and treatment of NNIPS occurs there would be positive beneficial cumulative effects as these species habitats would remain free of NNIPS and would not be disturbed, thereby allowing these species to perpetuate. Likewise, if NNIPS are present within or adjacent to areas of suitable habitat and treatment does not occur, that habitat would slowly degrade over time as NNIPS displace these species, numbers of individuals of Apteria aphylla and Tetragonotheca ludoviciana would decline, and whole populations may be lost.

Terrestrial Wildlife Resources The NFGT established standards and guidelines in its LRMP for the management and protection of wildlife and fish. These standards and guidelines contain direction such as where, when, and how the work will be accomplished, including design criteria to ensure disturbance to any species (such as red-cockaded woodpecker clusters) is minimized. The LRMP identifies standards and guidelines to maintain viable populations of all existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species within the planning area by focusing on MIS, Federal TES species (ESA), and FS sensitive species (FSM 2670). Management requirements for these indicator species listed in the LRMP standards and guidelines (and more directly in specific management prescriptions for approved projects) provide design criteria, habitat special components, and diversity concerns. However, for TES, which are federally designated because low population levels and loss of habitat may eventually render them extinct, standards and guidelines focus on enhancement of present population levels, as required by the ESA. The FS must manage habitat to achieve recovery levels of TES. The biological evaluation (BE) for wildlife and fish prepared for this project (located in the project file) documents the effects of the proposed action on TES. FS sensitive species are those species that need special management emphasis to ensure their viability and to preclude trends toward endangerment that would result in their Federal listing. The sensitive species are taken from the most current Southern Region (Region 8) Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species list. The BE for wildlife and fish prepared for this project documents the effects of the proposed action on sensitive species. On January 10, 2001, President Clinton signed Executive Order (EO) 13186 requiring Federal agencies to promote the conservation of migratory birds. The EO requires Federal agencies to incorporate migratory bird habitat and population management objectives and recommendations into all phases of agency planning processes as appropriate. In order to do so, the FS identifies management practices that may affect

103 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

populations of migratory birds and develops management objectives or recommendations that avoid or minimize these impacts through the land management planning process. The terrestrial wildlife section summarizes the wildlife hazard analysis and environmental consequences sections found in the FEIS for Vegetation Management in the Coastal Plain/Piedmont (USDA-FS 1989), the Risk Assessments and associated pesticide worksheets prepared by Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. (SERA) for the FS, and incorporates information from the pesticide Material Safety Data Sheets, and pesticide labels which are all located in the planning record and are hereby incorporated by reference.

Terrestrial Affected Environment The NFGT is home to more than 450 species of wildlife and fish that utilize a wide variety of different or combinations of habitats. Six major terrestrial wildlife habitat types are found on the NFGT and include: • Longleaf pine woodlands; • Xeric pine and pine-oak dry forests; • Dry mesic oak-pine mixed loblolly-hardwood forests; • Mesic hardwood forests; • Bottomland forests and streamsides; and • Tallgrass prairie. Historically 161 species of mammals inhabited north and east Texas with approximately 52 of these species dependent on habitat found within the administrative boundaries of the NFGT. Over 70 species of insectivores9, bats, and rodents, have been recorded in east Texas. Larger mammals on the NFGT include bobcats, coyotes, and whitetail deer. The NFGT historically supported the Louisiana black bear, which requires extensive areas of bottomland forests. Currently, viable populations remain only on large tracts of forests in eastern Louisiana; although there have been occasional reports of this species in and around the NFGT. Some 550 species of birds, including extinct, extirpated, and accidental in occurrence, have been recorded in Texas. Just over 300 species have been recorded in the pineywoods of east Texas, and approximately 163 species are those that are known to occur within the administrative boundaries of the NFs in Texas. In the Grasslands, 273 species of birds are known or expected to occur on one or both of the Grasslands. There are 249 species common to both of the Grasslands. There have been 148 species and subspecies of reptiles and 62 species and subspecies of amphibians recorded in Texas (east of the 100th Meridian). Of these, 59 reptiles and 30 amphibians are found in the pineywoods of east Texas. On the Grasslands, 70 reptiles and 22 amphibians are found on one or both of the Grasslands.

9 Insectivores: Any of various small, usually nocturnal mammals of the order Insectivora that feed on insects and other invertebrates. Insectivores have long snouts and resemble rodents, but lack gnawing incisors. Moles, shrews, hedgehogs, and tenrecs are insectivores.

104 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Countless species of invertebrates have and continue to exist on the NFGT. Some specific species such as the Somatochlora margarita, the Nicrophorus americanus, and a number of bivalves10 and gastropods11 are a concern. Their status and relationship to potential habitat that may be found on the NFGT is being investigated. Some specific species of invertebrates are identified in the MIS list.

General Direct and Indirect Effects to Terrestrial Wildlife Species Alternative 1—No Action. Under Alternative 1, the no-action alternative, non-native invasive plants would continue to spread within and adjacent to the areas proposed for control. Although no direct effects of no action are anticipated, indirect effects of the spread of non-native invasive plants may result in the continual degradation (decrease of biodiversity, alteration of natural ecosystem processes) of habitats for TES, MIS, sensitive species, and other terrestrial wildlife. Alternative 2—Proposed Action. Direct and indirect effects to general wildlife (i.e., not TES, MIS, or sensitive species) are described below under each method of NNIPS control involved in an IPM approach in implementing the NNIPS Management Plan on the NFGT. Biological. Biological controls are specific to targeted species and include the introduction of a biological control agent that targets a NNIPS and thus decreases the populations of the targeted NNIPS. The direct effects to terrestrial wildlife would include an increased quality of aquatic habitat (see Aquatic section for more detail). Indirect effects related to using Ctenopharyngodon idella to control Hydrilla verticillata include competition for native aquatic vegetation that serve as food and cover sources for aquatic species as Ctenopharyngodon idella will also eat other non-target aquatic vegetation. Any use of biological control methods, such as Ctenopharyngodon idella, would be approved by the appropriate Federal and State governmental officials and would employ containment structures (grates to restrict Ctenopharyngodon idella from entering untargeted water bodies). Mechanical. Mechanical treatments include hand pulling/digging, collecting and disposing of propagules, mowing, girdling, cutting, and grubbing. Direct effects to terrestrial wildlife due to mechanical treatments for all MAs include disturbance to wildlife due to noise and equipment used in mechanical control methods. Displaced wildlife will find suitable habitat nearby as noxious weed infestations are patchy in their distribution; hence, habitat will be available to these displaced individuals nearby. This direct effect is short term (days) as the disturbance will cease when treatments at a site are complete. Furthermore, sites to be treated are less than 0.1 acre in size, and in many cases are individual plants (i.e., Triadica sebifera trees). Therefore, the direct effects are limited to the small area of infestation and treatment. A direct or indirect effect to wildlife from dead and uprooted vegetation includes displacement of individuals. Again, areas of treatment are small (less than 0.1 acre), and re-vegetation by native plants is expected to occur rapidly (weeks to months) in areas where NNIPS have been removed. Long-term

10 Bivalves: A mollusk, such as an oyster or a clam, that has a shell consisting of two hinged valves. 11 Gastropods: Any of various mollusks of the class Gastropoda, such as the snail, slug, cowrie, or limpet, characteristically having a single, usually coiled shell or no shell at all, a ventral muscular foot for locomotion, and eyes and feelers located on a distinct head.

105 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

(over 10 years) indirect effects include increased habitat quality as areas that are infested with NNIPS are converted to a more natural state. Cultural. Cultural control methods include prescribed burning (not in MA 7), revegetating treated areas with native species, and prevention and education techniques such as signing at recreation areas and the installation of bootbrush stations at trailheads. Direct effects due to prescribed burning could include death when treatments are applied to a site when animals are present. Because most animals in the coastal plain/piedmont are adapted to periodic fires of natural and human origin, direct mortality from prescribed fire has a negligible effect upon animal populations. Less mobile species such as shedding diamondback rattlesnakes or frogs may occasionally be killed. Most observers indicate this is rare (Komarek 1969), and that mortality is not normally associated with slow-moving prescribed fires. Larger animals such as deer and coyotes usually move calmly away from advancing fires. There is no evidence that wildlife is harmed by smoke (USDA-FS 1989). An indirect effect of prescribed burning is improved wildlife habitat over the long term as fire is introduced back into the ecosystem. Short-term effects (weeks to months) to habitat include an increase in the amount, availability, and palatability of forage; changes in production of soft mast; changes in invertebrate populations; and the creation and destruction of snags (Van Lear and Johnson 1983). Prescribed burning on the NFGT has successfully been used to improve habitat for red-cockaded woodpecker, turkey, and other terrestrial wildlife species and has been used to return fire to a fire-maintained ecosystem (USDA-FS 2005b, 2002b, 2002c, 2000). Chemical. Terrestrial animals may be exposed to any applied herbicide from direct spray, the ingestion of contaminated media (vegetation, prey species, or water), grooming activities, or indirect contact with contaminated vegetation. The EPA standard for evaluating risk from herbicides and other chemicals to terrestrial wildlife is the comparison of actual dosage with the LD50. (Lethal Dose 50 is the amount of chemical which kills [Lethal Dose] one half [50 percent] of the test animal population in an acute toxicity test [median concentration of a toxicant that will kill 50 percent of the test animals within a designated period]). If the probable dose is less than one-fifth the LD50, it is considered to pose an acceptable level of risk for terrestrial wildlife. Any dose greater than one-fifth the LD50 is considered to pose unacceptable risk for terrestrial animals (EPA 1986). The wildlife risk assessment presented in the 1989 VMFEIS (USDA-FS 1989) and the Risk Assessments and associated pesticide worksheets prepared by Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. (SERA) present the full evaluation of wildlife risk from herbicides applied at normal and extreme rates. A broad spectrum of animals was evaluated including birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, domestic animals, and invertebrates. Results indicate that all herbicides selected for use in this project applied at typical rates pose less risk than allowed under the EPA standard for wildlife and aquatic animals. Therefore, when these herbicides are applied at typical rates, risk is at a low (“no risk”) level according to EPA standards for terrestrial animals.

General Discussion of Effects of Selected Herbicides on Terrestrial Wildlife

106 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

The following section provides general information about the effects of selected herbicides on different terrestrial wildlife species. This information was obtained from the SERA reports and pesticide worksheets (found on the FS website www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide) as well as from the VMFEIS (USFS 1989). • 2,4-D – Over the range of 2,4-D acid/salt application rates used in FS programs (0.5 to 4 pounds active ingredient/acre), adverse effects on fish, amphibians, and aquatic invertebrates are likely only in the event of an accidental spill. However, with regard to 2,4-D esters, adverse effects on aquatic animals (fish, invertebrates, amphibians) are plausible in association with runoff (all application rates) and would be expected with direct application for weed control and in cases of relatively large accidental spills. Over the range of application rates used in FS programs, adverse effects are plausible in mammals that consume contaminated vegetation and insects after 2,4-D is applied at the typical and maximum rates, but at the lower rate. There is no indication that substantial numbers of mammals would be subject to lethal exposure to 2,4-D. Consequently, adverse effects such as weight loss and reproductive impairment could occur, but might not be readily apparent or easy to detect. Based on reproduction studies, birds appear to more tolerant than mammals to 2,4-D, and no effects appear to be plausible based on the longer-term exposures of birds to 2,4-D (SERA 2006). Adverse effects in birds due to the acute toxicity of 2,4-D are a concern, but the plausibility of adverse in birds is much less compelling than in mammals. In addition to the direct effects mentioned above, both terrestrial and aquatic animals could be impacted secondarily by the adverse effects of 2,4-D on vegetation (SERA 2006). These secondary effects associated with the depletion of vegetation would be likely to vary over time and among different animal species. Certain effects might be detrimental for some species (i.e., a reduction in the supply of preferred food or a degradation of habitat), yet beneficial to others (i.e., an increase in food or prey availability or an enhancement of habitat). • Clopyralid – Herbicides labeled as Reclaim, Stinger, and Transline contain approximately 41 percent clopyralid, and 59 percent inert ingredients. Clopyralid is of low toxicity to birds and mammals. Clopyralid caused slight skin irritation and eye irritation in rabbits. Rats showed no adverse effects after 4 hours of exposure to concentrations of 1.3 mg/L in air (SERA 2004a). Clopyralid showed no evidence of oncogenicity12 in a 2- year feeding study in mice or rats at the highest dose tested. It showed no evidence of developmental toxicity in mice and rabbits at the highest dosage tested. No effects on reproduction were observed in study of two generations of rats at the highest dose tested. No evidence of mutagenicity13 was observed in a number of laboratory studies on mice and rats. Based on the results of these animal studies, clopyralid is not classified as a carcinogen, teratogen14, mutagen, or reproductive inhibitor (SERA, 2004a).

12 Oncogenicity: The capability of inducing tumor formation. 13 Mutagenicity: Capable of inducing mutation or increasing its rate. 14 Teratogen: Drug or other substance capable of interfering with the development of a fetus, causing birth defects.

107 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

• Dicamba – Dicamba is the active ingredient in Banvel formulations. Dicamba is slightly to moderately toxic to mammals and slightly toxic to birds (SERA, 2004d). According to the fact sheet, it is slightly toxic to mammals and practically non- toxic to birds. Based on results of animal studies Dicamba does not cause birth defects, cancer, or genetic damage, and has little or no effect on fertility and reproduction (SERA, 2004d). Heifers given Dicamba at 20,000 ppm in feed showed no ill effects (Edson and Sanderson, 1965). • Diquat – Diquat is a nonselective contact herbicide for the control of broad-leaf aquatic weeds post-emergence. This herbicide is a cell membrane disrupter that is activated by exposure to sunlight to form oxygen compounds that damage cell membranes. Based on the ecological risk assessment conducted for diquat (ENSR 2005a), there is the potential for risk to ecological receptors from exposure to herbicides under specific conditions. Table 8-1 (in the ecological risk assessment, ENSR 2005a) summarizes the relative magnitude of risk predicted for ecological receptors for each route of exposure. This was accomplished by comparing the risk quotients (RQs) against the most conservative level of concern (LOC), and ranking the results for each receptor-exposure route combination from ‘no potential’ to ‘high potential’ for risk. As expected due to the mode of action of herbicides, the highest risk is predicted for nontarget terrestrial and aquatic plant species, generally under accidental exposure scenarios (i.e., direct spray and accidental spills). Minimal risk was predicted for terrestrial animals. Risk to fish and aquatic invertebrates was predicted in the direct spray and spill scenarios presented in the ecological risk assessment (ENSR 2005a). The following bullets further summarize the risk assessment findings for Diquat under these conditions: Direct Spray – Risks were predicted for pollinating insects due to direct spray and indirect contact with contaminated foliage. Acute risks were predicted for 5 of 10 wildlife scenarios, and chronic risks were predicted for 9 of 10 wildlife scenarios (risk is somewhat lower at the typical application rate versus the maximum rate). Risk to terrestrial and aquatic non-target plants, fish, and aquatic invertebrates is likely when waterbodies are accidentally or intentionally (pond applications) sprayed. No risks were predicted for piscivorous wildlife. Off-Site Drift to Non-Target Terrestrial Plants – Risks to typical and rare, threatened, or endangered terrestrial plant species were predicted within 900 feet of all aerial applications at both the typical and maximum application rates. RQs were also elevated for typical and rare, and TES plant species within 100 feet of ground applications (low and high booms). Accidental Spill to Pond – Risk to fish, aquatic invertebrates, and non-target aquatic plants is likely when herbicides are spilled directly into the pond. In addition, species that depend on non-target species for habitat, cover, and/or food may be indirectly impacted by a possible reduction in terrestrial or aquatic vegetation, particularly in accidental direct spray and spill scenarios. Based on the results of the ecological risk assessment (ENSR, 2005a), it is unlikely that rare, or TES species would be harmed by appropriate use of the herbicide diquat. Although non-target terrestrial plants have the potential to be adversely affected by

108 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

off-site drift of diquat, adherence to certain application guidelines (e.g., defined application rates, equipment, herbicide mixture, and downwind distance to potentially sensitive habitat) would minimize the potential effects on non-target plants and associated indirect effects on species that depend on those plants for food, habitat, and cover. • Fluridone – Fluridone is a systemic herbicide that kills the entire plant and is generally non-selective since most submersed plants will be killed or affected by a whole lake treatment. Fluridone inhibits the formation of carotene (pigment) in growing plants. In the absence of carotene, chlorophyll is degraded by sunlight. Because this is a slow process and the plants can “grow out” of this if fluridone is removed, the contact time between the plant and chemical needs to be maintained for many weeks. Acute RQs for terrestrial animals were below the most conservative LOC of 0.1 (acute endangered species) for all scenarios. Only one chronic exposure scenario exceeded the terrestrial animal chronic LOC. At the maximum application rate, the small mammalian herbivore had an RQ of 2.22, all other RQs were well below the LOC of 1.These results indicate that accidental direct spray impacts are not likely to pose a risk to insects, birds, or mammals under most conditions (ENSR, 2005b). Risk to fish-eating birds was assessed by evaluating impacts from consumption of fish from a pond impacted by normal application of fluridone. RQs for the fish- eating bird were all well below the most conservative terrestrial animal LOC (0.1), indicating that this scenario is not likely to pose a risk to fish-eating birds (ENSR, 2005b).

• Fosamine – Fosamine is very slightly toxic to mammals and birds based on LD50 values of 24,000 mg/kg in rats; 7,380 mg/kg in guinea pigs, and greater than 15,000 mg/kg in dogs (Dupont 1983, as cited in USDA-FS 1989; USDA, 1984), and LD50 values greater than 5,000 mg/kg in mallard ducks and bobwhite quail (Schneider and Kaplan 1983, as cited in USDA, 1984). Based on effects observed in honeybees, Fosamine appears to be only slightly toxic to insects. The contact LC50 was greater than 10,000 ppm when bees were sprayed with a 42 percent formulation of Fosamine ammonium salt (USDA, 1984). The LD50 was greater than 200 µg/bee when fosamine was dissolved in solvent and applied directly to bees (O’Neal 1987, as cited in USDA-FS, 1989). • Glyphosate – Glyphosate itself is an acid, but it is commonly used in the isopropylamine salt form. Glyphosate is reported to be moderately to slightly toxic to birds and mammals (SERA 2003a). The herbicide fact sheet says it is practically non-toxic to birds and mammals, and studies of Glyphosate lasting up to 2 years have been conducted with rats, mice, dogs, and rabbits, and with few exceptions, no effects were observed (SERA 2003a). Some tests have shown that reproductive effects may occur at high doses (over 150 mg/kg/day), but there have been little to no reports of mutagenic or developmental effects. There is little information on carcinogenic effects. • Hexazinone – Hexazinone is slightly to practically non-toxic to birds and is moderately toxic to mammals. The fact sheet states that there is minimal toxicity to mammals. Rats given moderate doses of Hexazinone in their food for 2 weeks

109 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

showed no evidence of cumulative toxicity (SERA 2005). Rats fed high doses of the compound for 90 days showed only slight decreased body weights, and caused only increased liver weights in mice. It is generally not considered a reproductive, mutagenic, or carcinogenic compound based on chronic toxicological studies (SERA 2005). • Imazapic – Larger mammals, such as dogs and rabbits, may be more sensitive to Imazapic than smaller mammals such as mice and rats. Essentially no toxic effects have been observed in rats and mice even at very high dietary concentrations of Imazapic over prolonged periods of time (SERA 2004b). The chronic toxicity of Imazapic to birds is comparable to that in dogs with a NOAEL (no observed adverse effect level) of 113 mg/kg body weight/day and a LOAEL (lowest observed adverse effect level) of 170 mg/kg body weight/day. Only one bioassay is 15 available on terrestrial invertebrates (i.e., the honeybee with an acute LD50 of greater than 1,075 mg/kg body weight). While Imazapic has been tested in only a limited number of animal species and under conditions that may not well-represent populations of free-ranging non-target animals, the available data are sufficient to assert that no adverse effects on animals are anticipated (SERA 2004b).

• Imazapyr – Imazapyr is slightly toxic to mammals based on acute oral LD50 ranging from greater than 2,000 mg/kg in mice to greater than 5,000 mg/kg in rats (EPA 1985; American Cyanamid Company 1985; both as cited in USFS 1989). No teratogenic effects were observed in rats or rabbits (American Cyanamid Company 1985; as cited in USDA-FS 1989). Imazapyr is rapidly eliminated in the urine and feces and does not appear to accumulate in animal tissues (EPA 1985, as cited in USDA-FS, 1989). Imazapyr is characterized by EPA (1985, as cited in USDA-FS 1989) as practically nontoxic to avian species. Acute oral LD50s of technical Imazapyr and the Arsenal formulation are greater than 2,150 mg/kg in bobwhite quail and mallards (EPA 1985, as cited in USDA-FS 1989). Dietary LC50s for formulated and unformulated Imazapyr are greater than 5,000 ppm for mallards and bobwhites (American Cyanamid Company 1984, as cited in USDA-FS 1989). No adverse effects were observed at any of these doses.

Imazapyr appears to be relatively nontoxic to insects. The LD50s for honey bees of technical Imazapyr are greater than 100µg/bee, and the Arsenal formulation is greater than 25 µg/bee (American Cyanamid Company 1984, as cited in USDA-FS 1989). No effects were observed at either of these doses. Adverse effects in terrestrial and aquatics do not appear to be likely. The weight of evidence suggests that no adverse effects in these organisms are plausible using typical or worst-case exposure assumptions at the typical application rate of 0.45 lb/acre or the maximum application rate of 1.25 lb/acre (SERA 2004c). • Metsulfuron Methyl – The mammalian toxicity of Metsulfuron Methyl is relatively well characterized in experimental mammals; however, there is relatively little

15 LD50: Lethal Dose 50 is the amount of chemical which kills (Lethal Dose) one half (50 percent) of the test animal population in an acute toxicity test (median concentration of a toxicant that will kill 50 percent of the test animals within a designated period).

110 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

information regarding non-target wildlife species. It seems reasonable to assume the most sensitive effects in wildlife mammalian species will be the same as those in experimental mammals (i.e., decreased body weight gain). Several acute toxicity studies and two reproduction studies are available on the toxicity of Metsulfuron Methyl to birds. These studies indicate that birds appear to be no more sensitive than experimental mammals to the toxic effects of Metsulfuron Methyl, with the major effect again being decrease body weight gain. There are also several acute assays on the honeybee indicating that bees are no more sensitive than either mammals or birds to Metsulfuron Methyl. At exposure rates that exceed the highest recommended application rate by about a factor of three, Metsulfuron Methyl appears to be somewhat toxic to the Rove beetle, Aleochara bilineata, causing a 15 percent decrease in egg hatching (SERA 2004e). • Picloram – The toxicity of Picloram is relatively well characterized in experimental mammals, but few wildlife species have been assayed relative to the large number of non-target species that might be potentially affected by its use. It appears, however, to be relatively non-toxic to terrestrial animals, but is moderately toxic to aquatic animals, particularly fish (SERA 2003c). Acute oral LD50 values for Picloram are in the range of 3,000 to 5,000 mg/kg body weight and NOAEL from chronic studies range from 7 mg/kg/day to 20 mg/kg/day (SERA 2003c). Some additional studies are available on birds, bees, and snails that generally support the characterization of Picloram as relatively non-toxic to terrestrial animals. This assessment is supported by field studies that reported no detectable effects on mammalian or avian diversity after its application (SERA 2003c).

Picloram is relatively nontoxic to insects based on an acute contact LD50 of greater than 14 µg/bee in honeybees (Kenaga 1979). Furthermore, honeybees given 1,000- ppm picloram in a 60 percent sucrose syrup showed no toxic effects after 14 days and no increase in mortality compared to the control group after 60 days (USDA, 1984). • Sulfumeturon Methyl – The mammalian toxicity of Sulfumeturon Methyl is relatively well characterized in experimental mammals; however, there is relatively little information regarding non-target wildlife species. In standard experimental toxicity studies, Sulfumeturon Methyl has low acute and chronic oral toxicity (SERA 2004f). Sulfumeturon Methyl is very slightly toxic to birds and mammals based on acute oral LD50 values of greater than 5,000 mg/kg in the rat and mallard duck (EPA 1984; Dupont 1983; both as cited in USDA-FS 1989). No teratogenic effects have been observed in rats and rabbits exposed to the compound (EPA 1984, as cited in USDA- FS 1989); however, lower maternal body weights and decreased numbers of offspring were observed at 250 mg/kg/day in a reproduction study in rats (Dupont 1986, as cited in USDA-FS 1989). It seems reasonable to assume the most sensitive effects in wildlife mammalian species will be the same as those in experimental mammals (i.e., changes to blood and decreased body weight gain). Results of acute exposure studies in birds indicate that avian species appear no more sensitive than experimental mammals to the toxic effects of Sulfumeturon Methyl (SERA 2004f). Results of two acute exposure

111 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

studies in honeybees indicate that bees are no more sensitive than either mammals or birds to Sulfumeturon Methyl (SERA 2004f). However, the available data are not sufficient to determine whether this apparent low level of toxicity can be generalized to other species of terrestrial invertebrates. • Tebuthiuron – Tebuthiuron is moderately to slightly toxic to mammals and birds and appears to be of relatively low toxicity to terrestrial invertebrates (USDA 1989). In mammals and birds, this is based on acute LD50 values ranging from 186 mg/kg in rabbits to greater than 2,000 mg/kg in mallards and bobwhites (EPA 1986; USDA,1986; both as cited in USDA-FS 1989). Tebuthiuron was readily metabolized and eliminated in the urine of tested animals (USDA 1986, as cited in USDA-FS 1989). For terrestrial invertebrates, honey bees sprayed with 30,000 ppm tebuthiuron did not differ in survival from bees sprayed with water whereas bees sprayed with 120,000 ppm, equivalent to an application rate of 20 pounds/acre, had significantly higher mortality than controls (USDA, 1984). • Triclopyr (acid and ester) – According to the fact sheet, this herbicide is slightly toxic to mammals. It is excreted unchanged in the urine, and has a very low toxicity to birds and is non-toxic to bees. Studies summarized in SERA (2003b) indicated that Triclopyr does not pose a carcinogenic, reproductive, mutagenic, developmental risk to animals at doses anticipated for this project. McMurray et al. (1993) found that woodrat population density was the highest on areas treated with Triclopyr and postulated that there was an increase in forage and nest-building material, which supported the higher numbers of animals. These authors also found that there was no difference reproductive activity, mean body weight, or animal condition on between sites that had been treated with herbicides and those sites that had not. The long-term (over 10 years) indirect effect to wildlife from herbicide use results from returning the landscape to a more natural state by altering vegetative species composition and structure. Depending on the vegetation targeted for treatment, effects can include an increase in snag availability; and a reduction or increase in hard mast production, soft mast production, ground vegetation (forbs, grasses), and foliage height diversity. These direct effects occur over the short term (weeks to months). Alternative 3—Modified Proposed Action. The effects of Alternative 3 are similar to the effects of Alternative 2 with the following differences: • The exclusion of the aquatic herbicide 2, 4-D: Precluding the use of this herbicide could result in an exponential16 increase of aquatic NNIPS Myriophyllum spicatum and Hydrilla verticillata. This increase in these aquatic NNIPS can reduce the quality of aquatic habitats. However, there are toxicological concerns (carcinogenicity) with this herbicide, and precluding its use would indirectly

16 A quantity that grows exponentially is one that grows at a rate proportional to its size. This does not mean merely that for any exponentially growing quantity, the larger the quantity gets, the faster it grows. Exponential implies that the relationship between the size of the dependent variable and its rate of growth is governed by a strict law, of the simplest kind: direct proportion. A graph of such a rate would appear not as a straight line, but as a curve that continually becomes steeper or shallower.

112 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

eliminate those concerns (see Herbicide Hazard Quotients and Effects to Human Healthin Chapter 3). • The exclusion of any treatments to offsite natives such as Juniperus virginiana, Gleditsia triacanthos, and Robinia pseudoacacia in grassland ecosystems: The indirect effect of excluding treatment of these species includes a loss of habitat for grassland-dependent wildlife over the long term (over 10 years) as offsite natives continue their encroachment of grasslands and prairie habitats. Alternative 4. Alternative 4 is similar to Alternative 3, with the following difference: • Excludes any chemical treatments within MA 7 (Wilderness) and allows for only selective and least intrusive mechanical (pulling, cutting, and girdling by hand; no mechanized equipment would be used) and cultural (signing, prevention, and the use of native seed only) treatments. Therefore, the effects to terrestrial wildlife in MA 7 are similar to the effects described under Alternative 2, mechanical and cultural treatments. Alternative 5. Alternative 5 is similar to Alternative 4 with the following differences: • Wilderness areas (MA 7) Forest-wide would be excluded from all NNIPS treatments. The effects on Wilderness would be the same as the effects of Alternative 1. • In all other MAs on the NFGT, Alternative 5 would eliminate herbicide treatments from the IPM toolbox. The only approved treatments for all NNIPS (all MAs except MA 7) would include mechanical, biological, and cultural methods only. The effects would be the same as those listed in Alternative 4 for Wilderness (MA 7).

Cumulative Effects for Terrestrial Wildlife Species Information pertaining to cumulative effects for terrestrial wildlife is contained in General Cumulative Effects at the beginning of this chapter. Alternative 1—No Action. If infestations go untreated under the no-action alternative, it is also likely that native plant and wildlife habitat would continue to decrease in quality. It is likely that invasive plant species would continue to be introduced into plant and wildlife habitat, the existing infestations would spread and new infestations would be likely. The cumulative impact may result in a long-term decrease in the qualities of the native plant community, thus decreasing wildlife habitat (which would decrease or displace affected wildlife). Alternatives 2–5. Few cumulative effects are expected to terrestrial wildlife species under Alternatives 2–5. Standards and guidelines in both the Forest Plan and those associated with this proposal are designed to mitigate, minimize, or eliminate the potential for impacts to terrestrial wildlife species. Areas targeted for control are likely to receive three treatments within 5 years. None of the herbicides proposed for use would bioaccumulate in animal tissues or has lengthy half-lives in the environment. Cumulative impacts of prescribed burning on the NFGT include a continued restoration of the fire regime in a fire-maintained ecosystem, and thus a long-term (years) increase in quality of

113 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

wildlife habitat. The direct effects to wildlife described previously are of short duration (days to months) and would not add cumulatively to effects to wildlife from other activities in areas treated for NNIPS. For example, disturbance to wildlife related to NNIPS treatment ceases once treatment is complete (hours to days) and displaced wildlife would return to their normal activity patterns. Thus, this direct effect does not add to cumulative effects due to its duration. The State and counties are currently treating invasive plant species on some of their lands and will continue treating invasive plant species. This has been described in the Vegetation section (this chapter) as treatments currently occur on highway ROWs. It is likely that urban development will continue to increase over time and allow opportunities for the introduction of new or additional invasive species. Therefore, it is necessary to treat invasive plant species across the Forest in order to prevent any further decline in quality native plant and animal habitat. The greatest potential for an adverse cumulative effect to wildlife would be the continued degradation of habitat if NNIPS are not controlled through an IPM program.

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Terrestrial Wildlife Species

Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species Affected Environment Table 17 displays the federally listed terrestrial wildlife species known to occur in and/or adjacent to various units of the NFGT. Determination of Effects for Federally listed Threatened and Endangered Terrestrial Wildlife Species: Effects determinations for federally listed terrestrial wildlife species (Table 18) are based on the effects analysis presented above and are listed in the tables below. For a detailed analysis of the determinations, please see “Appendix 10. Biological Evaluation.”

Sensitive Species Table 19 displays the terrestrial wildlife sensitive species from the RFSS list for the NFGT. Ursus americanus luteolus is also a candidate species for listing. All Region 8 sensitive terrestrial wildlife species were considered in the evaluation. Suitable habitat, defined as habitat that meets the requirements of a species, exists on the NFGT for all Region 8 sensitive terrestrial wildlife species. Different species have different requirements and habitat may exhibit varying degrees of quality, and be suitable but unoccupied.

114 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Table 17. Federally listed threatened and endangered terrestrial wildlife species in and/or adjacent to the NFGT

Individual NFGT Units Suitable Habitat Requirements for High Potential Species Known Habitat Species Group Habitat to Occur Present Open, fire-maintained, mature pine stands Angelina NF with forb- and or grass-dominated ground Davy Crockett NF Picoides borealis Bird cover and a midstory relatively devoid of Yes Sabine NF hardwoods (Jackson 1994; Conner et al. Sam Houston NF 2001; USFWS 2003). Coastal areas, and around large bodies of Angelina NF water such as reservoirs, lakes, and rivers Davy Crockett NF Haliaeetus (USFWS 1995). Nests and associated pilot Sabine NF Bird Yes leucocephalus trees are typically located in large trees Sam Houston NF within 2 miles of open water. LBJ NG Caddo NG Rangelands with scattered clumps of shrubs separated by open grassland are Vireo atricapilla Bird preferred habitat for the black-capped vireo. Open, sparsely vegetated sand or gravel Charadrius beaches adjacent to alkali wetlands, and Bird melodus on beaches, sand bars, and dredged Not on any NFGT No material islands of major river systems. Units Terns use barren to sparsely vegetated Sterna antillarum Bird sandbars along rivers, sand and gravel pits, or lake and reservoir shorelines. Highly productive wetland ecosystems for Grus americana Bird nesting, over-wintering, and migratory stopover. Extensive forests (at least 2,500 acres) dominated by mature hardwoods; river Sabine NF Ursus americanus basin bottomland hardwood forests. Needs Angelina NF Mammal Yes luteolus areas with minimal human disturbance and Davy Crockett NF low open road density (Texas Parks and Sam Houston NF Wildlife Department 2005). Nicrophorus Occurs in a variety of habitats, including Not on any NFGT Invert No americanus sandy grassland and oak-pine woodlands. Units

115 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Table 18. Effects determinations for terrestrial federally listed threatened and endangered species

Alternative Species Group 1 2 3 4 5 Picoides borealis Bird No effect Not likely to adversely affect Haliaeetus Bird leucocephalus Vireo atricapilla Bird No effect: No suitable habitat/No known occurrences Charadrius melodus Bird

Sterna antillarum Bird

Grus americana Bird

Ursus americanus Mammal Not likely to adversely affect luteolus Nicrophorus Invert No effect: No known occurrences americanus

116 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Table 19. Wildlife sensitive species for the NFGT

Individual NFGT Units Suitable Habitat Requirements for High Potential Species Known Habitat Species Group Habitat to Occur Present Aimophila Bird Open, frequently burned pine forests with SabineNF Yes aestivalis a dense bunchgrass ground cover and Angelina NF minimal woody understory (Hamel 1992; Sam Houston NF Burt and Allen 2004). Davy Crockett NF Corynorhinus Mammal Roosts within mature bottomland SabineNF Yes rafinesquii hardwood communities within 1 km of Angelina NF water, showing a preference for large, Davy Crockett NF hollow black gum trees with large Sam Houston NF triangular basal openings; may also use abandoned buildings (Mirowsky and Horner 1997). Lanius Bird Breeding habitat is varied, but must Sabine NF Yes ludovicianus include open grassland areas with Angelina NF migrans scattered trees or shrubs. Shrikes are Sam Houston NF generally absent from closed canopy Davy Crockett NF forests and grasslands without trees or LBJ NG shrubs. Historic habitat included open Caddo NG pine-grasslands; however, pastures and hayfields are considered suitable (USFWS 2000). Myotis Mammal Associated with aquatic habitats, such as SabineNF Yes austroriparius ponds and streams. Roosts within mature Angelina NF bottomland hardwood communities within Davy Crockett NF 1 km of water, showing a preference for Sam Houston NF large, hollow black gum trees with large triangular basal openings (Mirowsky and Horner 1997). Pituophis Reptile Open, frequently burned pine forests with SabineNF Yes ruthveni little midstory vegetation, a well- Angelina NF developed understory of grasses and forbs, sandy, well-drained soils, and the presence of pocket gophers (Rudolph and Burgdorf 1997). Somatochlora Invert Larvae associated with small, clear, sandy- SabineNF Yes margarita bottomed streams and boggy seeps within Angelina NF loblolly and longleaf pine stands Davy Crockett NF (NatureServe 2006). Adults forage for Sam Houston NF insects at canopy level over mature forest and over gravel roads and small openings (Price et al. 1989).

117 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Determination of Effects for NFGT Terrestrial Wildlife Sensitive Species: Effects determinations for MIS NFGT terrestrial wildlife sensitive species (Table 20) are based on the effects analysis presented above. For a detailed analysis of the determinations, please see “Appendix 10. Biological Evaluation.”

Management Indicator Species Table 21 displays the terrestrial wildlife management indicator species for the NFGT. Determination of Effects for NFGT Terrestrial Wildlife MIS: Effects determinations for MIS NFGT terrestrial wildlife sensitive species (Table 22) are based on the effects analysis presented above. For a detailed analysis of the determinations, please see “Appendix 10. Biological Evaluation.”

Table 20. Effects determinations for NFGT terrestrial wildlife sensitive species

Alternative Species Group 1 2 3 4 5 Pituophis ruthveni Reptile No Effect May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to Federal listing or a loss of Lanius ludovicianus migrans Bird viability

Aimophila aestivalis Bird

Corynorhinus rafinesquii Mammal

Myotis austroriparius Mammal

Somatochlora margarita Invert

118 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Table 21. Terrestrial wildlife management indicator species for the NFGT

Individual NFGT Units Suitable Habitat Requirements for High Potential Species Known Habitat Species Group Habitat to Occur Present Meleagris Bird Optimum wild turkey habitat is described SabineNF Yes gallopavo as a variety of forest stands of mature Angelina NF hardwoods with abundant oaks for fall Sam Houston NF acorn crops, with open understories Davy Crockett NF interspersed with openings in close proximity to water and remote form human disturbance (Dickson 2001). Various Bird This group of birds described in the LRMP SabineNF Yes species as the guild of neo-tropical birds is Angelina NF described as Acadian flycatcher, yellow- Sam Houston NF throated vireo, and wood thrush. Key Davy Crockett NF habitat requirements are moist deciduous forests with a moderate understory, generally near a stream (Hamel 1992). Colinus Bird Inhabit a wide variety of vegetation types, LBJ NG Yes virginianus particularly early successional stages, Caddo NG grasslands, grass-brush rangelands, open pinelands, open mixed pine-hardwood forests, and habitat mosaics. Dryocopus Bird Pileated woodpeckers are birds of the SabineNF Yes pileatus forest preferring large diameter Angelina NF snags/trees, and needing up to 200 acres Sam Houston NF of foraging habitat per nesting pair. Davy Crockett NF Pileated woodpeckers have demonstrated the ability to adapt to human habitation and are common in managed forests, as well as rural, suburban, and urban park- like settings (Conner 1978; Hamel 1992). Icteria Bird The NFGT is used by this species primarily SabineNF Yes virens as breeding habitat and is seldom seen Angelina NF during the winter seasons. Breeding Sam Houston NF habitat typically consists of second growth, Davy Crockett NF shrubby old pastures, thickets, and woodland margins, bushy areas, scrub, woodland undergrowth, and fencerows including low wet places near streams, or swamps; thickets with few tall trees; early successional stages of forest regeneration; commonly in sites close to human habitation. Sciurus Mammal Optimum habitat for these species consists SabineNF Yes niger of mature deciduous and mixed forests Angelina NF with abundant supplies of mast (e.g., Sam Houston NF acorns, hickory nuts) with availability of Davy Crockett NF permanent water. Sciurus Mammal SabineNF Yes carolinensis Angelina NF Sam Houston NF Davy Crockett NF

119 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Table 21. Terrestrial wildlife management indicator species for the NFGT

Individual NFGT Units Suitable Habitat Requirements for High Potential Species Known Habitat Species Group Habitat to Occur Present Odocoileus Mammal Ideal whitetail deer habitat would contain SabineNF Yes virginianus dense thickets (in which to hide and move Angelina NF about) and edges (which furnish food). Sam Houston NF Davy Crockett NF LBJ NG Caddo NG

Table 22. Effects determinations for NFGT terrestrial management indicator species

Alternative Species Group 1 2 3 4 5 Meleagris gallopavo Bird No Effect May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to Federal listing or a loss of Various species Bird viability

Colinus virginianus Bird

Dryocopus pileatus Bird

Icteria virens Bird

Sciurus niger Mammal

Sciurus carolinensis Mammal

Odocoileus virginianus Mammal

Aquatic Resources

Aquatic Affected Environment Aquatic life is richest and most abundant in lake shallows or the littoral zone. Aquatic NNIPS compete with native aquatic plants. Once infestations become extensive, forming large mats, there is high decomposition of biomass resulting in loading of phosphorus, nitrogen, oxygen depletion, pH changes, and increasing temperature. These conditions can eventually lead to a lake becoming eutrophic17, creating an abundance of nutrients and decay along with dominance by algae and phytoplankton species, leaving little open water. Under such conditions the fishery is usually considered lost. Additionally, infestations of NNIPS tend to reduce open water habitat or the limnetic18 zone. This is critical to open water fishes and surface feeders, as well as waterfowl and other aquatic-dependent wildlife that need open water (see Terrestrial Wildlife Specialist Report).

17 Eutrophic: (of a lake) Characterized by an abundant accumulation of nutrients that support a dense growth of algae and other organisms, the decay of which depletes the shallow waters of oxygen in summer. 18 Limnetic: pertaining to or living in the open water of a freshwater pond or lake.

120 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Table 23 displays the aquatic MIS, TES, and RFSS found on the NFGT.

Table 23. Aquatic MIS, threatened and endangered, and RFSS in and/or adjacent to the NFGT

Individual NFGT Units Suitable Habitat Requirements for High Potential Species Known Habitat Species Group Habitat to Occur Present Management Indicator Species Micropterus Fish Lakes and deeper reaches of rivers and Angelina NF Yes salmoides streams. Davy Crockett NF Sam Houston NF Sabine NF LBJ NG Caddo NG Lepomis species Fish Lakes and deeper reaches of rivers and Angelina NF Yes streams. Davy Crockett NF Sam Houston NF Sabine NF LBJ NG Caddo NG Ictalurus Fish Lakes and major streams. Angelina NF Yes punctatus Davy Crockett NF Sam Houston NF Sabine NF LBJ NG Caddo NG Polyodon Fish Large rivers with intermittently flooded, Angelina NF No1 spathula gravel-bottomed backwaters. Davy Crockett NF Sabine NF Caddo NG Percina sciera Fish Creeks/small rivers with low gradient, clear Angelina NF Yes water and permanent current. Davy Crockett NF Sam Houston NF Sabine NF Ammocrypta vivax Fish Medium rivers to large streams in moderate Angelina NF Yes current over sandy bottoms. Davy Crockett NF Sam Houston NF Sabine NF All species Macro- All flowing waters and amongst structure. Angelina NF Yes invertebr Davy Crockett NF ates Sam Houston NF Sabine NF LBJ NG Caddo NG Endangered Species Arkansia wheeleri Mollusk Backwater tributaries of the Red River near Caddo NG Yes Lamar County with clean or vegetated sand/gravel/cobble bars. Shallow waters/pools on sand or mud with little or no current (NatureServe 2006). Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species Fusconaia askewi Mollusk Large and medium rivers over mud, sand Sabine NF Yes and fine gravel in protected areas (Howells Sam Houston NF et al. 1996). Fusconaia Mollusk In or near Attoyac Bayou over mud, sand Angelina NF Yes lananensis and fine gravel (Howells et al. 1996).

121 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Pleurobema Mollusk Streams to moderate rivers in flow over Angelina NF Yes riddellii mud, sand or gravel; rare. Lampsilis satura Mollusk Small to large rivers over sand/gravel Angelina NF Yes bottom; rare. Sabine NF Obovaria Mollusk Rivers and creeks with moderate current, Angelina NF Yes jacksoniana often over gravel (Oesch 1984). Davy Crockett NF Sabine NF Potamilus Mollusk Small to medium rivers and reservoirs over Angelina NF Yes amphichaenus sand or mud (Howells 1996). Davy Crockett NF Sam Houston NF Sabine NF LBJ NG Caddo NG Procambarus Crayfish Streams with sandy or rocky bottoms Angelina NF Yes nigrocinctus amongst debris. Davy Crockett NF Procambarus Crayfish Simple burrows in roadside pools or stream Angelina NF Yes nechesae backwaters. Davy Crockett NF Faxonella beyeri Crayfish Intermittently inundated roadside ditches. Angelina NF Yes Davy Crockett NF Notropis sabinae Fish Varying stream habitats. Minimum 13 mi Angelina NF Yes unimpeded migration necessary for annual Davy Crockett NF life cycle (Williams 2003). Sam Houston NF Sabine NF 1 Texas Parks and Wildlife stocking program has ceased due to determination that suitable habitat is not present. Some individuals may be present, but prognosos for future viability is negative.

Table 24 displays the primary aquatic communities on the NFGT with the associated NNIPS and TES species.

Table 24. Primary aquatic communities, associated NNIPS species, and aquatic TES species on the NFGT Associated Aquatic Community Characteristic Vegetation Associated NNIPS Species Stream– Magnolia virginiana Triadica sebifera Gambusia affinis ephemeral Persea palustris Lygodium japonicum Erimyzon oblongus Acer rubrum Sorghum halpense Ameiurus natalis Vaccinium fuscatum Ligustrum spp. Itea virginiana Tamarix ramossissima Toxicodendron vernix Albizia julibrissin Viburnum nudum (and other species) Quercus nigra Quercus phellos Trillium gracile Osmunda spp. Chasmanthium spp. (and other species)

122 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Stream– Magnolia virginiana Triadica sebifera Notriopis atrocaudalis intermittent Persea palustris Lygodium japonicum Lepomis cyanellus Acer rubrum Sorghum halpense Uniomerus declivis Vaccinium fuscatum Ligustrum spp. Procambarus acutus Itea virginiana Tamarix ramossissima Toxicodendron vernix, Albizia julibrissin Viburnum nudum (and other species) Quercus nigra Quercus phellos, Trillium gracile Osmunda spp. Chasmanthium spp. (and other species) Stream– Magnolia virginiana Triadica sebifera Semotilus atromaculatus perennial/ Persea palustris Lygodium japonicum Campostoma anomalum riverine Acer rubrum Sorghum halpense Potamilus amphichaenus Vaccinium fuscatum Ligustrum spp. Procambarus nigrocinctus Itea virginiana Tamarix ramossissima Toxicodendron vernix, Albizia julibrissin Viburnum nudum (and other species) Quercus nigra Quercus phellos Trillium gracile Osmunda spp. Chasmanthium spp. (and other species) Lakes– Typha spp. Myriophyllum species Etheostoma fusiforme natural Ceratophyllum spp. Hydrilla verticillata Amia calva Najas guadalupensis Salvinia molesta Ictiobus bubalus Potamogeton spp. Eichhornia crassipes Procambarus nechesae Cephalanthus occidentalis Triadica sebifera Salix spp. Lemna spp. Sagittaria spp. Nuphar spp. Nelumbo lutea Nymphaea spp. Polygonum spp. (and other species) Lakes/Ponds Typha spp. Myriophyllum species Micropterus salmoides –impounded Ceratophyllum spp. Hydrilla verticillata Lepomis microlophus Najas guadalupensis Salvinia molesta Erimyzon succetta Potamogeton spp. Eichhornia crassipes Cephalanthus occidentalis Triadica sebifera Salix spp. Lemna spp. Sagittaria spp. Nuphar spp. Nelumbo lutea Nymphaea spp. Polygonum spp. (and other species)

123 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Hillside Magnolia virginiana Triadica sebifera Cambarus diogenes Seepage Persea palustris Lygodium japonicum Slope Bogs Smilax laurifolia Sorghum halpense Morella cerifica Ligustrum spp. Osmunda spp. Tamarix ramossissima Xyris spp. Albizia julibrissin Carex spp. (and other species) Rhynchospora spp. Scleria spp. Sarracenia alata Platanthera spp. Calopogon spp. Pogonia spp. (and other species) Wetlands/ Quercus michauxii Triadica sebifera Faxonella beyeri Swamps/ Quercus lyrata Lygodium japonicum Bottomlands Fraxinus pennsylvanica Sorghum halpense Nyssa sylvatica Ligustrum spp. Ilex deciduas Tamarix ramossissima Planera aquatica Albizia julibrissin Sebastiana fruticosa (and other species) Cephalanthus occidentalis Osmunda spp. Chasmanthium spp. Saururus cernuus (and other species)

Aquatic Mitigation Measures Refer to mitigation measure in Table 25.

Aquatic Direct/Indirect Effects Alternative 1—No Action. Under the no-action alternative, there would be no actions to control NNIPS on the NFGT. General impacts of NNIPS would the disruption of ecological processes and, more specifically, crowding out native species and increasing erosion by reducing soil cover. This results when NNIPS infestations, which are typically monocultures, shade out native plants, which occur in more diverse assemblages of species. Mature, seeding NNIPS could spread throughout a watershed within a growing season and remain in perpetuity. Most of the lakes on the NFGT are artificial systems formed by impounding streams and stocked with selected fish species. Emergent and submergent NNIPS can provide added cover for hatchling and juvenile fish, thereby increasing their survival in the absence of native plants. However, aquatic NNIPS provide poor quality cover when they displace native plants, because they tend to occur in monocultures without structural diversity that provides cover at varying depths. Population balance would be hard to maintain, and, in the long term, infested lakes could eventually take on more of a “swampy” character with low productivity and a prevalence of “rough” fish species. These, along with invaders like carp, are generally scavenger species that anglers do not prefer. Populations of NNIPS would continue to spread in marsh and wetland areas, displacing native aquatic vegetation and limiting management options for maintaining fish population balance in recreation area lakes. Typical NNIPS would include Myriophyllum

124 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment species, Hydrilla verticillata, Salvinia molesta and Eichhornia crassipes. Other issues may arise with ecosystem balance including habitat degradation for contributing species such as fish-eating birds and aquatic-dependent amphibians and reptiles (See Terrestrial Wildlife Specialist Report). Alternative 2—Proposed Action. Biological. Under the appropriate circumstances, two biological agents are proposed to treat NNIPS in aquatic habitats: • Ctenopharyngodon idella – This fish is native to large rivers in China, typically reaching weights of 65 to 80 pounds. Triploid Ctenopharyngodon idella or those with an extra set of chromosomes are required by the State because they are functionally sterile and will not reproduce to levels that would cause a large negative impact to native vegetation should they escape into outflow streams. As such, they are only used in lakes where they can be contained at prescribed levels. Ctenopharyngodon idella can greatly reduce certain NNIPS such as Hydrilla verticillata, but are not effective on some emergent species like Eichhornia crassipes. Such emergent invaders cannot be controlled effectively with Ctenopharyngodon idella. Reducing or controlling Hydrilla verticillata with Ctenopharyngodon idella allows the recovery of open substrates for species like Uniomerus declivis or restoration of native submergents that provide better diversity of cover for the young of various fish species and bottom cover for ambush predators such as Esox niger. Eliminating NNIPS with Ctenopharyngodon idella could have a adverse effect on the aquatic ecosystem if not employed properly. The classic example would be the case of overstocking of Ctenopharyngodon idella in Lake Conroe (Texas) to control Hydrilla verticillata, which they did along with all native submergent vegetation for years. The lake became notorious for poor fishing due to the lack of vegetative structure necessary to support the ecosystem. The use of Ctenopharyngodon idella is closely regulated by the State, requiring a permit and an approved barrier to prevent spillway escape. • Cyrtobagous salviniae – Specific to Salvinia molesta and Salvinia minima. This insect is native to Brazil and Argentina. Effects to the ecosystem would be renewed light penetration for re-emrergence of native plants and reduction in the biomass that large thick mats of salvinia can occupy, thereby allowing a shift back toward a normal open-water ecosystem that supports a variety of species. Cultural. Treatments by fire are generally compatible with fisheries. Prescribed fire will be implemented in a sensitive manner (employing design criteria that limiting conditions to low intensity fires) to prevent potential ecosystem effects. In an attempt to raise awareness of NNIPS (what they look like and how they are spread), signs have been and will be used at ingress/egress areas for boats. This educational effort is a requisite part of any NNIPS program where the vector must be identified and limited to protect aquatic ecosystems from NNIPS spread and reoccurrence. Mechanical. Mechanical removal of large infestations of Gleditsia triacanthos, Robinia pseudoacacia, and Juniperus virginiana would theoretically increase water infiltration to streams and lakes as is typical of a grass-dominant versus forested watersheds. This would be a desired condition for aquatic species endemic to these areas such as Typha

125 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment spp., Potamogeton pedctinatus, Ceratophyllum spp., Najas guadalupensis, Potamogeton diversifolius, Cephalanthus occidentalis, Salix nigra, and Polygonum spp., particularly during seasonal droughts. During these drought periods, many fish, crayfish, and mussel species are forced to survive in pools when streams stop flowing. Any factor that would allow more water to reach these habitats would have a positive effect on these species. Forested watersheds dominated by conifers are also typically lower in pH and would be artificially so in grassland habitats dominated by cedar. This trend has been observed in the heavily cedar-infested Lake Fannin watershed where atypical low pH (6.4, alkalinity 10 ppm as CaCO3) has required lime buffering over the years (Peterson, USDA Forest Service, personal observation, 1999). Cedar, treated by any means and left in place, could lower pH further during decomposition, but would likely never be in a suitable volume to have a significant aquatic effect on fish or plants. The mechanical treatment of woody NNIPS could potentially create an influx of woody material in adjacent streams. While McLean (1992) found that the influx of woody material washing into streams following a timber harvest resulted in a species shift that favored madtoms, while other species declined for up to 5 years, the effect of woody NNIPS treatments would be very localized and not significant in terms of reducing aquatic species ranges or overall population trends. This effect could even be considered positive as Noturus spp. are lacking from these treatment areas, even though they are within the known range. Addition of woody material has long been a staple of fisheries habitat improvement in both lakes and streams. Addition of these complex substrates adds to habitat diversity, and, therefore, species diversity within the ecosystem. Chemical. The effects of treating large infestations of locust and cedar and woody NNIPS would be the same as described under Mechanical above. Reduction or elimination of NNIPS by any of the chemical methods would move aquatic ecosystems in the direction of greater diversity of native plants and aquatic organisms. One of the basic ecological tenets is that the highest diversity of species occurs in ecotones or areas where several habitat types come together in an “edge” effect. An edge is where habitat types meet, and many qualities are available in one area so species do not have to travel far to meet their needs. This is especially characteristic of aquatic habitats where water meets shoreline. Moving away from monoculture-induced infestations of NNIPS would allow the natural layering and divergence of habitats that support the greatest diversity of fish and other aquatic species in an ecosystem. Table 25 displays the proposed chemical applications, accompanying mitigations, potential use, and potential direct effects to aquatic animal species under Alternative2.

126 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Table 25. Proposed chemical applications, accompanying mitigations, potential use, and potential direct effects to aquatic animal species under Alternative2 Herbicide Mitigation Use Potential effect Diquat Implement NNIPS Controlling most Rapidly absorbed by vegetation, but not readily translocated. It is rapidly treatments in stages submerged plants like deactivated by muddy water and degraded by low pH, which is the norm for to avoid excessive hydrilla. the majority of NFGT watersheds. The lethal concentration (50% [LC50]) for oxygen depletion. Not effective in waters Ameiurus melas is 170 mg/l (Ictalurus punctatus similar) and Lepomis Apply NNIPS with high pH or calcium macrochirus 245 mg/l (Micropterus spp. and Percina spp. similar) at 53.6 treatments during contents; therefore, not degrees F, respectively (USDI 1980). Increasing pH to 9.5 doubled toxicity in cool weather prior to appropriate for use in both these species. However, the pH of water bodies on the NFGT is normally spawning. grassland impoundments. above 7.0, or they are typically acidic. LC50 for Periclimenes spp., which would be representative of crayfish, is 10,000 ug/L. Application rates of 4 pounds/2 gallons per surface acre should not present a problem for these species; however, the preferred alternative nullifies such predictions since this chemical is not considered. 2,4-D; Aquaclean, Implement NNIPS Primarily recommended LC50 toxicities in Lepomis macrochirus ranged from 0.6 to 168 mg/l for the aquatic version treatments in stages for control of water various formulations. The amine form is very toxic to Pimephales promelas at (Phenoxy herbicides) to avoid excessive milfoil or stargrass in 8.5 versus 6.5 pH, which is makes the acidic waters of the NFGT less risky than oxygen depletion. impoundments. waters with ah higher pH. However, this amine form is readily mobile in soil if Apply NNIPS water is present. As such, 2,4-D is not recommended and would occur as an treatments during option only under Alternative 2, which is not the preferred alternative. cool weather prior to spawning. Accord, Gly-Pro, and Implement NNIPS Not effective on Glyphosate is twice as toxic to Lepomis macrochirus at 80.6 degrees than at Rodeo brands of treatments in stages submerged plants. 44.6 degrees. Toxicity increased 24 times in 0.9 to 0.7 (g) size range bluegills. glyphosate; aquatic to avoid excessive Given that spawning is typically initiated when water reaches 80 degrees, it labeled oxygen depletion appears the risks could be greatly mitigated with early season applications at Apply NNIPS lower water temperatures prior to spawning. Glyphosate is also not mobile in treatments during soil and deactivates rapidly in muddy water or water with a high calcium cool weather prior to content, which would include most of our National Forest waters and those on spawning. our Grasslands (high calcium).

127 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Table 25. Proposed chemical applications, accompanying mitigations, potential use, and potential direct effects to aquatic animal species under Alternative2 Herbicide Mitigation Use Potential effect Habitat brand of Implement NNIPS Woody shoreline and Various formulations of Imazapyr had 96 hr LC50s from >100 mg/l to >1,000 Imazapyr; for aquatic treatments in stages emergent aquatic mg/l which is considered low toxicity in terms of fish response. This herbicide use only to avoid excessive species. could provide a safe means of treating terrestrial NNIPS near water where oxygen depletion incidental contact with surface water is unavoidable. One drawback may be its Do not use anywhere non-specificity in killing monocots as well as dicots. This could mean some near non-target accidental mortality of wetland sedges and rushes. plants as target plants can exude toxic levels translocated through roots. Can be persistent in soil; use minimum rate. Fluridone; Sonar Breakdown Submerged plants such as LC50s in fish range from 11.7,14.3, and 10.0 mg/L in rainbow trout, bluegill brand for aquatic use influenced by light hydrilla. Not effective on and channel catfish, respectively. These levels are considered slightly to and temperature so algae or “floaters” such moderately toxic. This chemical is a feasible alternative to 2,4-D/Diquat for best used during as giant salvinia. use on submergents like water milfoil. Its lack of effect on reeds and sedges growing season. would also make it more compatible with shoreline habitats that are important for fish and wildlife.

128 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Alternative 3—Modified Proposed Action. Alternative 3 is similar to Alternative 2, but eliminates: • The use of 2,4-D in aquatic systems: Eliminating the use of this herbicide from this alternative may limit the tools available for controlling some submergent invasives, such as water milfoil or stargrass. These species are a problem in several lakes, such as Rhodes Lake on the LBJ Grassland. • Does not control offsite native species (locust and cedar): Lack of cedar or locust control may have a negative trickle-down effect on aquatics in that it effects large- scale habitat chan ge, including decreased wate r infiltration and a change in the community of aquatic-dependent vertebrates. Other effects of Alternative 3 are as described for Alternative 2. Alternative 4. Alternative 4 is similar to Alternative 3, but e liminates: • Chemical and biological treatments of NNIPS in the Wilderness: There are high quality streams in the NFGT Wilderness areas. Currently, NNIPS have not invaded these Wilderness streams. However, should NNIPS infest these streams, they could become NNIPS sinks if left untreated. These infestations lead to lower diversity, overloading of organic material, and excessive algal blooms. The general effect, whether streams or swamps, is decreased species diversity. Swamps typically have low diversity due to low pH and lack of nutrient input, but large amounts of decaying NNIPS vegetation would further reduce dissolved oxygen for endemic species like the Etheostoma fusiform, Amia calva, Notropis texanus, Lepisosteus oculatus and Capiodes carpio, typifying a reduction in diversity. A typical NNIPS impact to streams wo uld be Triadica sebifera infestation, which would alter the diversity of shoreline woody species to an eventual monoculture that does not allow the stratification and comp lexity of shading and other benefits that native species provide. Triadica sebifera infests even remote riparian sites in Wilderness areas, and is difficult to control mechanically. Restricting herbicide treatments from Wilderness areas could pose a risk to adjacent NFGT holdings should NNIPS go untreated. Being allelopathic, tallow trees inhibit other plant growth in their proximity by changing soil chemistry. This can lead to lack of soil cover and increased erosion into streams, along with loss of stratified plant diversity that is important for shading and overhanging fish structure. Loss of native ground cover would lead to the e xclusio n of aquatic i ntegrate species such as amphibians and insects that provide prey and predator input into the system that aquatic species depend upon. Other effects of Alternative 4 are as described for Alternative 3. Alternative 5. Alternative 5 is similar to Alternative 3, but eliminates: • All NNIPS treatments in the Wilderness—The effects would be similar to those described under Alternative 1. • All use of chemical NNIPS control—This would limit cost effectiveness and specificity in control of infestations, as well as the prevention of NNIPS dispersal into other areas. Chemical treatment is the only effective control in species that spread by v arious means, including roots, rhizomes, runners, seed and sprigs. As

129 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

mentioned, these uncontrolled infestations lead to lower native plant diversity, loss of soil cover, and overload of organic material in aquatic systems. Mechanical, biological, and cultural control effects would be the same as under Alternative 3.

Aquatic Cumulative Effects The time span for the cumulative effects analysis for vegetation is 5 years into the future. The rational for this time span includes several considerations involving the current inventory of infestations on the NFGT. These include: • Currently, there are less than 500 acres of NNIPS infestations all units. Within 5 years of implementation of the NNIPS management Plan, these known infestations would have been treated and controlled and/or eradicated including any multiple retreatments. • Multiple treatments on these infested sites to control and/or eradicate the infestations are assumed to consist of up to three treatments per site. It is assumed that these known sites will be controlled and/or eradicated after three treatments. • Budget considerations include an assumed budget of $250,000 for NNIPS control activities to implement the NNIPS Management Plan. Currently, FY 07 budget for NNIPS control activities was limited to $41,000. An increase to a maximum of $250,000 per fiscal year is assumed following a decision to implement the NNIPS Management Plan. • Personnel considerations also drive the ability to treat NNIPS on the NFGT as yearly NNIPS control activities are limited by available qualified personnel. • Adaptive management will also drive implementation of the NNIPS Management Plan and new sites of infestation on the NFGT will set back the cumulative effects timeline. Following NEPA procedures, the decision will be reviewed at 5-year intervals to assure that effects analysis are consistent with current conditions and that any new information is incorporated. This is in addition to the continual information feedback to the decision making process associated with adaptive management. Alternative 1—No Action. NNIPS infestations left untreated under this alternative are likely to decrease the quality of native fisheries habitat, potentially leading to reduced species diversity and range reductions. As discussed, infestations usually lead to a monoculture situation, where native habitat plants are reduced and excluded. This results in loss of the ground cover that holds soils and prevents erosion. Lacking this, streams can become fouled with silt and turbidity, as well as sustaining channel down-cuttting from increased runoff. Long-term mussel habitat and species would be lost since they are most susceptible to these impacts, being bottom dwellers and immobile. Howells (1994) documented such effects over a 10-year period in the San Jacinto River. These impacts, along with the additional complications associated with large infestations of vegetative biomass in lakes could render some of these water bodies unusable in terms of supporting viable populations of fish for recreation. The inability or limitation in controlling submergent species results in the eventual ecosystem shift toward heavy biomass and decay and more of a swampy environment where bass/bluegill numbers and

130 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment decline and reproductive success is limited. Species biomass then shifts toward fish like Erimyzon succetta, Carassius spp., and Ameiurus natalis. Alternatives 2–5. There are likely to be few cumulative effects to aquatic species from implementation any action alternatives. Standards and guidelines in both the Forest Plan and those associated with this proposal are designed to mitigate, minimize, or eliminate the potential for impacts to aquatic species. Areas targeted for control are likely to receive three treatments within 5 years. None of the herbicides proposed for use would bioaccumulate in animal tissues or have lengthy half-lives in the environment. The State and counties are currently treating invasive plant species on some of the lakes they manage and will continue treating invasive plant species. It is likely that urban development will continue to increase over time and allow opportunities for the introduction of new or additional invasive species. Therefore, it is necessary to treat invasive plant species across the Forest in order to prevent any further decline in quality native plant and aquatic species habitat. A lack of control of NNIPS through use of an IPM approach to treat NNIPS poses the greatest potential for an adverse cumulative effect to aquatic species and continued degradation of their habitat.

Aquatic Species Determinations Effects determinations for aquatic wildlife species (Table 26) are based on the effects analysis presented above. For a detailed analysis of the determinations, please see “Appendix 10. Biological Evaluation.”

131 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Table 26. Effects determinations for aquatic TES, Region 8 sensitive species, and MIS Alternative Species Group 1 2 3 4 5 Endangered Species Arkansia wheeleri Mollusk Not Likely to Adversely Effect

Sensitive Species Fusconaia askewi Mollusk May impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to Federal listing or a loss of viability Fusconaia lananensis Mollusk Pleurobema riddellii Mollusk Lampsilis satura Mollusk Obovaria jacksoniana Mollusk Potamilus Mollusk amphichaenus Procambarus Crayfish nigrocinctus Procambarus Crayfish nechesae Faxonella beyeri Crayfish Notropis sabinae Fish MIS Micropterus salmoides Fish May impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to Federal listing or a loss of viability Lepomis species Fish Ictalurus punctatus Fish Polyodon spathula Fish Percina sciera Fish Ammocrypta vivax Fish All species Macro- invertebrates

Issue 2: NNIPS Treatments in the Wilderness Treatment of NNIPS in the Wilderness will cause excessive/ undue trammeling. Measure: Specific treatment procedures/methods allowed within MA 7 versus specific treatment procedures/methods allowed in all other management areas.

Wilderness

Wilderness Affected Environment The Wilderness areas within the NFGT were created by the Texas Wilderness Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-574). Wilderness areas in general have been designated, through the Wilderness Act of 1964, as areas “….which [are] protected and managed so as to preserve [their] natural conditions…” Wilderness areas fall under the Forest-wide

132 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment guidelines and desired conditions as described under MA 7 of the NFGT 1996 LRMP (pages 180–191). This MA (approximately 37,200 total acres) is comprised of five individual Wilderness areas: Big Slough (Davy Crockett NF), Indian Mounds (Sabine NF), Little Lake Creek (Sam Houston NF), and Turkey Hill and Upland Island (Angelina NF). Lands within this MA are administered to maintain or achieve a natural state and may include the following communities: • Permanent openings—Special use sites (oil and gas operational areas and other easements granted for the public) • Roadsides—Aquatic areas • Trails and trailheads—Mixed pine-oak woodlands and forests • Utility corridors—Mesic hardwood, bottomland, and/or riparian forests • Recreation areas—Streamside zones

Wilderness Direct/Indirect Effects The presence of any NNIPS undermines the philosophy of managing to preserve natural conditions in Wilderness. Invasive species alter natural processes, and the presence of these species should not be accepted in any Wilderness area where the management goals revolve around maintaining a “natural condition.” In fact, the mere presence of any NNIPS in these areas should be looked at as being “unnatural.” Alternatives 1—No Action and Alternative 5 (no NNIPS treatments in MA 7). Under the no-action alternative treatments of NNIPS in the Wilderness would not occur. Populations of NNIPS would continue to spread. In the long term (years), NNIPS infestations could dominate the canopy layer and/or understory and even form monospecific stands as evidenced in other southern forests. The long term, indirect effect of these changes would be to displace native vegetation, decrease habitat quality, pose new threats to the integrity of the forest community, increase fire danger, and ultimately alter the “natural condition” of the Wilderness areas. Alternative 2–3. The proposed limited NNIPS IPM control efforts (non-mechanized manual mechanical, chemical, and cultural methods) within Wilderness areas under these two alternatives would maintain the “natural conditions” in this setting. Decreasing known infestations of NNIPS along ROWs bordering Wilderness areas would be a priority. This would have the direct effect of preventing those species from spreading deeper into these Wilderness areas. The indirect effect of decreasing NNIPS infestations along ROWs adjacent to Wilderness areas would be to maintain and increase the diversity and occurrences of native plant species as infestations decrease in size. In addition to the existing design criteria (1996 Forest Plan, 1989 VMFEIS, and accompanying NNIPS Management Plan) under Alternative 1, the following special design criteria would be incorporated into any NNIPS control efforts within Wilderness to as safeguards and to promote safety: • Treatments in areas directly adjacent to or on the edge of MA 7 will be prioritized, focusing on pathways of infestations (ROWs, trails, and special use sites) in an effort to keep known existing NNIPS from spreading deeper into Wilderness areas. Any infestations occurring within this MA will be treated with the least intrusive and most selective methods that would successfully control and/or eradicate the

133 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

NNIPS. These treatments will be limited to manual non-mechanized mechanical (girdling, cutting, and pulling), cultural (signing, prevention, washing, and the use of native seed only) and, if necessary, manual non-mechanized herbicide (cut stump, stem injection, and directed foliar spray only) treatments. • All specific treatment areas adjacent to or within MA 7, regardless of MA, would be reviewed by a team of specialists led by the Forest botanist, to determine whether special circumstances exist that warrant additional mitigations. These site visits would be documented on a site-specific survey form (see “Appendix 6. Implementation Checklist for Invasive Plant Control”) and placed in the project file along with an Emergency Spill Plan (see Appendix 7). If determined to be necessary, herbicide use will be documented in form FS-2100-2 found on the following site: (http://fsweb.wo.fs.fed.us/im/forms/fs_forms/index.htm) and placed in the project file (see example in “Appendix 4. Herbicide Use Proposal Forms”). This form, which is to be reviewed and approved by the Forest herbicide coordinator, will detail the type of herbicide to be used, application rate, amount of active ingredient per acre, and special mitigation issues. In addition, areas to be treated will be posted with signs according to FS regulations (Policies and Guidelines for Fish and Wildlife Management in National Forest and Bureau of Land Management Wilderness, June 2006, page 6). Alternative 4. Alternative 4 is similar to Alternative 3, with the following differences: • Excludes any chemical and biological treatments within MA 7 (Wilderness) limiting the effectiveness of an IPM approach by removing one of the methods in the toolbox that could be used to successfully control and eradicate certain NNIPS. Some NNIPS are not easily controlled by either mechanical and/or cultural methods since they spread by rhizomes and readily resprout when pulled. Excluding the use of chemical treatments in the Wilderness could lead to a decrease of certain NNIPS that respond to mechanical and cultural treatments and an increase in other NNIPS that do not. The indirect effect in the Wilderness is that, where NNIPS are controlled, there would be a long-term increase in the maintenance and restoration of “natural processes” and a long- term decrease increase of “natural processes” where NNIPS are not effectively controlled.

Wilderness Cumulative Effects Currently there are no past or present activities planned for NNIPS treatments within MA 7 or directly adjacent to the individual Wilderness units. There would be some foreseeable future NNIPS treatments in areas directly adjacent to Wilderness areas upon implementation of this project. These activities would occur either on adjacent FS land or, through partnerships, on adjacent state and private lands. These activities would act to further reduce the spread of any existing NNIPS into areas of Wilderness. However, NNIPS infestations will continue to spread into the Wilderness from existing and new sites adjacent to the Wilderness units (ROWs, trails, and special use sites) if action is not taken to prevent spread. New infestation sites will continue to spread through the use of the area by recreationists. The FS can neither control nor dictate to state and private agencies what, where, and how any NNIPS treatments would occur on those lands under their control that are adjacent to these Wilderness areas.

134 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

The cumulative effects area for Wilderness includes those areas of the NFGT congressionally designated as Wilderness (MA 7) and the areas directly adjacent to these units including ROWs, trails, and special use sites. These boundaries were chosen because areas of Wilderness are managed differently than other management areas within the NFGT and infestations of NNIPS directly adjacent can encroach on the Wilderness. The time span for the cumulative effects analysis to recreation is 5 years into the future. The rational for this time span includes several considerations involving the current inventory of infestations on the NFGT. These include: • Currently, there are less than 500 acres of NNIPS infestations all units. Within 5 years of implementation of the NNIPS Management Plan, these known infestations will have been treated and controlled and/or eradicated including any multiple retreatments. • Multiple treatments on these infested sites to control and/or eradicate the infestations are assumed to consist of up to three treatments per site. It is assumed that these known sites will be controlled and/or eradicated after three treatments. • Budget considerations include an assumed budget of $250,000 for NNIPS control activities to implement the NNIPS Management Plan. Currently, FY 07 budget for NNIPS control activities was $41,000, an increase to a maximum of $250,000 per fiscal year is assumed following a decision to implement the NNIPS Management Plan. • Personnel considerations also drive the ability to treat NNIPS on the NFGT as yearly NNIPS control activities are also driven by available qualified personnel. • Adaptive management will also drive implementation of the NNIPS Management Plan and new sites of infestation on the NFGT will set back the cumulative effects timeline. Following NEPA procedures, the decision will be reviewed at 5-year intervals to assure that effects analysis is consistent with current conditions and that any new information is incorporated. This is in addition to the continual information feedback to the decision making process associated with adaptive management. Alternatives 1—No Action and Alternative 5 (no NNIPS treatments in MA 7). The increase and spread of NNIPS into and throughout the Wilderness areas would have combined cumulative effects on the individual Wilderness units. NNIPS would continue to occupy an increasing proportion of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems within the Wilderness units. In addition, known populations of NNIPS found in ROWs along the outer boundaries of Wilderness would spread deeper into the Wilderness areas. NNIPS would also spread onto adjacent FS and non-FS system lands and vice versa, continuing to decrease native vegetative diversity and alter fire regimes, recreational use, and degrade overall forest health. Alternative 2 and 3. If more NNIPS control projects occur on inholdings within NFGT administrative unit boundaries, including lands adjacent to Wilderness areas, overall NNIPS infestations would cumulatively decrease. However, NNIPS would generally continue to increase on private lands, where there is little financial incentive to control them beyond current partnerships between state, federal, and private individuals. Where

135 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

NNIPS are uncontrolled on adjacent non-FS lands, NNIPS would continue to spread to FS system lands, including into Wilderness areas. Because there would be annual NNIPS control treatments on FS system lands adjacent and within in each Wilderness unit, there should be the steady annual reduction in the populations of NNIPS similar to those effects discussed under direct/indirect effects above. Alternative 4. The cumulative effects to NNIPS in the Wilderness would be similar to those described under Alternative 2 and 3, but to a lesser degree because there would be no chemical or biological control of NNIPS within the Wilderness boundaries under this alternative (see direct/indirect effects). Other Resource Considerations This section provides a summary analysis of resources not directly related to the significant issues of (1) herbicide use and (2) Wilderness. For more detailed information see the project file.

Physical Elements

Air

Air Affected Environment For an in-depth discussion of the factors considered in the analysis of air quality, see the “Air Quality Report for the Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project” in the project file. The project area lies within the eastern part of Texas. The EPA’s Air Quality Index (AQI) generally rates air quality in the vicinity of the project area as “good.” The AQI is a system for measuring and rating pollution levels for five of the six “criteria” pollutants regulated under the Clean Air Act. Criteria pollutants included in the AQI are total suspended particulate matter (TSP), which includes PM-10, PM-2.5, sulfur dioxide (S02), carbon monoxide (CO), and oxides of nitrogen (NOx). Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are also included because of their potential contribution to the development of ozone (O3). Lead is the single criteria pollutant not included in the AQI. The AQI is based on a sliding scale ranging from zero to 500, corresponding to “good,” “moderate,” “unhealthful,” “very unhealthful,” or “hazardous.” The EPA determines the index value on a daily basis for each of the measured pollutants. Occasional brief exposure of the public to low concentrations of drift smoke is more of a temporary, short-term nuisance than a health concern. High smoke concentrations of long duration (greater than 24 hours) can, however, be a serious health matter, particularly near homes of people with respiratory illnesses or health care facilities. Chronic exposure to relatively low smoke concentrations can contribute to respiratory problems and cancer. The risk of developing cancer from exposure to prescribed fire has been estimated to be less than one in one million (USDA-FS 1989). Wildfires emit the same pollutants as prescribed fires. In general, emissions from wildfires are greater per acre burned and often occur at times when climatic conditions such as wind direction may carry smoke directly into sensitive areas.

136 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Local visibility is affected by several variables including the amount, size, and type of air borne particulates. Visibility data from the Class I Area, Caney Creek Wilderness (a sensitivity receptor adjacent to the Sam Huston NF), near Mena, Arkansas, air quality monitoring station, has remained relatively constant for the past 3 years, with the average annual visual range approximately 50 kilometers (Figure 1). Between 2001 and 2004, the visual range has been as good as 140 kilometers and as low as 27 kilometers. On the worst days, the primary pollutants affecting visibility are sulfates, organic carbon, and nitrates (Figure 2). These visibility ranges reflect the emissions that are coming from industrial sources, such as coal fired power plants and pulp mills. Particulate matter in the atmosphere includes wind-blown soil, soot, smoke, and liquid droplets. It also includes fine particulates of sulfates, nitrates, and organic compounds that are 2.5 microns or smaller in size. Particulates are emitted into the air by sources such as factories, power plants, construction activities, automobiles, fires, and agricultural activities. Additionally, fine particulates called “secondary” pollutants are formed through atmospheric chemistry from “primary” PM2.5 pollutants from vehicular, industrial, and utility pollution. Compared to the rest of the United States, most of the counties in East Texas, except for Harris County, have average emissions. Emissions of PM-10 from fuel combustion and other industries (stationary sources) comprise a small portion (3 percent) of the total emissions (USDA-FS 1999).

Air Design Criteria To minimize the negative effects of smoke and associated pollutants on visibility and human health, smoke management plans are required as part of every prescribed fire implementation project. By planning and executing prescribed fires on days that have fair to excellent smoke dispersion and by avoiding smoke sensitive areas (see Air Quality Report for the Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project for a table of smoke sensitive areas), the negative effects of smoke can be reduced. Implementing these requirements does not completely eliminate the risk of smoke impacts from prescribed fire. For example, unforeseen changes in weather and equipment failures can cause unanticipated smoke intrusions. Strategies developed to reduce the amount of smoke emissions include: • Avoidance—do not burn when smoke would not disperse well or would carry into a smoke sensitive area. • Dilution—reduce smoke concentration by staggering ignitions and/or burning when there is good smoke lift and dispersion. • Emission-reduction—using best available control measures such as: Reduce acres burned Reduce fuel loading Reduce fuel consumption Lower the applicable emission factor (PM10) Conducting a prescribed burn only when the meteorological conditions are expected to disperse the emissions away from urban receptors, and in accordance with the above criteria is considered a BMP that is applicable to this project and compatible with the project objectives.

137 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Air Direct/Indirect Effects Alternative 1—No Action. Alternative 1 represents the existing condition. Under Alternative 1, current and on-going management activities would continue, but no new FS activities would occur. Changes might occur through current management direction (such as road maintenance), natural processes, or other management decisions in the future. This alternative provides a foundation for describing and comparing the magnitude of environmental changes associated with the action alternatives against those changes that occur with no new action at this time. There would be no direct effects to air quality with this alternative. Indirectly, large wildfires could occur with the natural accumulation of fuels. This alternative does not include prescribed burning and, therefore, would have negligible potential for affecting air quality other than that which may occur under a wildfire situation. Alternative 2–5. Alternatives 2–5 would have a direct, short-term effect on air quality in the project area. (Prescribed burning would not be used in MA 7 under Alternatives 3–5.) Residents near the actual burn might receive some respiratory discomfort; however, it is expected that most impacts would be in the form of nuisance smoke and/or smell. These alternatives would produce some smoky days in the local area. Smoke from the proposed burning and the associated emissions would occur in the local area a relatively short time depending on the weather. Some smoke would be expected to settle into the lower draws and drainages along highways during the evening hours following a prescribed burn. Some signing may be needed along public roads to caution the public of smoky conditions. Smoke trapped in low-lying areas would be expected to dissipate once morning temperatures rose and the nighttime inversion lifted. Prescribed burning would be conducted when weather conditions are predicted to produce good-to-excellent smoke dispersal. Proposed burn activities would generally be completed by mid-afternoon so that most smoke is dispersed by nightfall. Pertinent smoke impact mitigation measures would be applied, as outlined in the Forest Plan (USDA-FS 1996) and mitigation measures outlined herein. The effect on air quality is expected to be short-term because once the smoke has dispersed the emissions are diluted and transported from local air sheds. Careful application of mitigation measures and monitoring of results should ensure compliance with NAAQS and AQI. An indirect beneficial effect of these alternatives is a reduction in the emissions that would be released from potential wildfires in the area. By removing the small diameter surface fuels with controlled low intensity prescribed fire, the potential of a high intensity catastrophic fire developing within the stands would be reduced significantly. If a crown fire were to occur, the amount of live fuel that could burn would tend to release high amounts of particulate matter.

Air Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects area for Air Quality has varying scales. For smoke sensitive areas, the county in which the burn takes place as well as the counties surrounding the burn for a maximum distance of 10 miles was considered. For pollutants emitted, the East Texas Area was considered. For Class I Areas, a four-state area was considered. The time span for the cumulative effects analysis of air quality is 1 to 2 days. These boundaries were

138 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

chosen because the smoke sensitive sites of concern can be some distance from the burn area. Smoke can travel over great distances, but if the prescribed burn is implemented using BMPs the smoke will dissipate within the county or adjacent county. The time span of 1 to 2 days was chosen because unlike most industrial and urban sources, wildland fire smoke is usually transitory in nature, lasting only 1 or 2 days at a single location. Under Alternatives 2–5, maximum treatment acres for all NNIPS treatments could not exceed 500 acres per Forest or both Grasslands per year; for a total annual treatment of 2,500 per year. Therefore, if all NNIPS treatments on all units were to be prescribed burning of the maximum number of allowable acres, approximately 2,500 acres could be prescribed burned across the NFGT at various times. Alternative 1—No Action. Because this alternative does not include prescribed burning, there would be no potential for affecting air quality other than that which may occur during wildfires. Therefore, there would be no anticipated cumulative effects. Alternative 2–5. The cumulative effect of prescribed fire on air quality is the downwind impact of multiple burns, ignited simultaneously, in addition to the other emissions in the area. The same scales used in Alternative 1 were used to analyze cumulate effects in these alternatives. The cumulative effect of prescribed fire on air quality is short-lived, because once the burn is over and the smoke has dissipated, the effect is over. Impacts to air quality would generally be confined to no more than a few hours or at most a few days. It is acknowledged that multiple burns, occurring at the same time, could cumulatively increase particulate levels. It is difficult or impossible to quantify such emissions in a planning document because the time of each burn is weather dependent. Generally, the effects of one burn activity are completed before another burn activity begins. Once these activities are completed, the effects on air quality are of short duration and are not cumulative with the next activity or sets of activities as long as the time between the two is sufficient to allow for dispersal. The maximum amount of acres that could possibly be burned under these alternatives in any one year is 2,500 acres. These acres most likely would be widely separated in both time and space thereby reducing any potential cumulative impact on air quality. As shown in the conformity analysis (see project file, Air Quality Report for the Non- Native Invasive Plant Species Project) burning does not take place on days with high AQI because the weather parameters that occur on high AQI days do not meet the burning parameters for prescribed burns. Therefore, no exceedance of the NAAQS, or contributions to the unhealthy or hazardous AQI, or other adverse cumulative air quality impacts are expected under these alternatives, provided mitigation measures outlined in the Forest Plan and herein are implemented. Other cumulative foreseeable activities that produce pollutants include, but are not limited to, use of fireplaces, dust from unsurfaced roads, wildfires, and industrial emissions.

139 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Socioeconomic Elements

Heritage

Heritage Affected Environment All archeological and historical sites within the Forest’s administrative boundaries may be potentially affected , not just those identified as MA 8-F in the 1996 Forest Plan. Especially at risk are historical sites from the late 19th-early 20th centuries. Several of the species targeted for control (Melia azedarach, Wisteria sinensis, Logustrum sinense, Hedera helix, Ligustrum japonicum, Sorghum halpense, Albizia julibrissin, Vinca major/Vinca minor, Triadica sebifera) were preferred by early settlers as landscape plantings. In many cases, remnant populations of these species are the best indicators of late 19th-early 20th century settlement, and represent elements of historic landscapes associated with sites from this period. Control and/or eradication of these species by any of the means proposed may have an adverse effect on the integrity of this class of site. Mechanical treatments that involve digging, uprooting, or other techniques that involve disturbance of mineral soils could also have an adverse effect upon the archeological integrity of historic and prehistoric sites with surface and subsurface cultural materials.

Heritage Mitigation and Monitoring Measures There is potential for adverse effect to prehistoric sites through the application of mechanical treatments that involve digging, uprooting, blading, or any other method that would cause disturbance of the surface and near-subsurface soil contexts. After annual review of areas identified for the application of control and/or eradication measures, mitigation of adverse effects upon archeological and historical sites would be achieved by • Removing the site containing NNIPS from consideration for control/eradication actions, and/or • Treating only those NNIPS populations that have spread beyond documented site boundaries. An active and effective monitoring program would be implemented to insure that mitigation decisions are made in a timely and efficient manner.

Heritage Direct/Indirect Effects Alternative 1—No Action. The no-action alternative has little potential for adverse effects to archeological or historical resources. By not controlling NNIPS and leaving things as they are, remnant populations of several NNIPS that mark late 19th-early 20th century homesteads would not be disturbed or removed, and would remain in place as vegetative markers of historic settlement on the Forest. There would be no potential for damage to buried resources since there would be no mechanical treatments that would involve digging or pulling up of resources. Alternatives 2–5. By following the mitigations to protect heritage sites during NNIPS treatment, there would be no effect to heritage sites from the proposed treatments.

140 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Heritage Cumulative Eeffects The cumulative effects area for heritage resources is within the administrative boundaries of the NFGT (all management areas except fMA 5, aquatic resources). There are no historic properties in inundated contexts that would be affected by the proposed actions. The time span for the cumulative effects analysis of heritage resources is undetermined at this time, since the range of actions may be subject to change under adaptive management. Also, the treatments proposed would be implemented over a period of years, but no decision is offered on how many years this plan will be in effect. These boundaries were chosen, because controls can only be implemented on lands administered by NFGT. Alternative 1—No Action. Historic properties containing remnant populations of NNIPS would continue to exhibit elements of the historic landscape created by the late 19th-early 20th century settlers. These species would continue to serve as indicators of historic habitation and settlement, while providing valuable data towards developing working models to predict historic settlement patterns on the Forest. Alternatives 2–5. By following the mitigations to protect heritage sites during NNIPS treatment, there would be no direct/indirect effects to heritage sites from the proposed treatments, and, therefore, no cumulative effects

Recreation—Not including Wilderness (MA 7)

Recreation Affected Environment This section discusses the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to recreation on the NFGT due to implementation of a NNIPS control program. The effects to MA 7 (Wilderness) are discussed above. This section only discusses effects to all other MAs. The NFGT provide for recreational opportunities for a variety of users from the surrounding communities and metropolitan areas. The location of the NFGT results in substantial recreation use and demand for both motorized and non-motorized recreation experiences are high. In addition to recreationists from the communities adjacent to the NFGT, people come from the Houston metropolitan area and the Dallas-Ft. Worth Metroplex for sightseeing, picnicking, camping, fishing, hunting, hiking, horseback and mountain bike riding, and to participate in ORV activities. Some of these activities may occur on sites where NNIPS control activities are planned. NNIPS establish themselves across the landscape by many means, and one main vector of spread and introduction is through recreationists. NNIPS seeds and propagules are easily transported unknowingly from site to site on clothing, recreational equipment, vehicles, boats, and ORVs. Through an IPM approach to control of NNIPS, cultural methods such as signing will help educate the recreating public on their potential to spread NNIPS through their activities. Methods for reducing the potential of spread and introduction of NNIPS by recreationists include visual inspection of recreational equipment, clothing, and vehicles for any NNIPS plant parts and/or seeds both before entering the NFGT and before leaving a recreational site on the NFGT. Also of concern is the spread of aquatic NNIPS by boaters. The NFGT does not manage the major water bodies (Lake Conroe, Sam Rayburn, Toledo Bend, etc.) found within the

141 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

administrative boundary of the NFGT. Aquatic NNIPS are managed through their respective authorities such as the San Jacinto River Authority (Lake Conroe) and the Sabine River Authority (Toledo Bend). Although these areas are not managed by the NFGT, these aquatic NNIPS have the potential to affect the recreational experience on adjacent NFGT recreational sites and are further considered in the cumulative effects section. Recreation on the NFGT can be divided into two broad categories: developed recreation that occurs in MAs 9a and 9b, and dispersed recreation that can occur in all other MAs. MAs 9a and 9b include the developed (9a) and minimally developed (9b) recreation sites on the NFGT while dispersed recreation occurs across all management areas. Developed recreation sites are located on all four NFs and the two Grasslands. A detailed list of the developed sites is included in the 1996 Forest Plan (page 262). MA 9a consists of designated, developed recreation sites such as campgrounds and picnic areas. This MA contains lands physically suited for developed recreation use and is managed to protect other values such as water quality, soil productivity, biological diversity, and other uses or values compatible with developed recreation. Within most of these areas, recreation facilities are interspersed with prairie and woodland savannahs on the Grasslands, or stately pine forests and hardwood bottomlands on the Forests. MA 9b consists of primitive or minimally developed recreation sites for hunting, horseback riding, hiking, and boating, among other activities. These sites are located throughout the four National Forests and two Grasslands. Most areas have a low development scale with few amenities provided. Facilities are as natural, simple, and unobtrusive as possible. Use and occupancy are regulated to protect natural resources and to ensure safe, enjoyable recreation experiences. MAs 9a and 9b have associated standards and guidelines with MA 9a-11 and MA 9b-11 that state: “Manage vegetation for maximum native diversity in overstory trees and understory shrubs, forbs, and grasses” (1996 Forest Plan; pages 264 and 272). Implementation of the NNIPS Management Plan through this EA will allow the NFGT to treat NNIPS in these management areas and thus will allow the NFGT to meet MA 9a-11 and MA 9b-11. In addition, the treatment of NNIPS in all other management areas will enhance the recreational environment through the control of and containment of the spread of NNIPS. The types and frequency of recreation occurring in the other MAs of the NFGT are not as extensive and are more seasonal than that occurring in MAs 9a and 9b. Furthermore, dispersed recreation is not uniformly distributed across all other MAs, but rather occurs randomly (dependent on the characteristics of the MA and the goal of the recreationist). The major dispersed recreational activity occurring in these MAs is hunting and related activities. Hunting is regulated by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department through the issuance of licenses, the setting of seasons, and the enforcement of hunting regulations. Thus, dispersed recreation related to hunting is centered around the established hunting seasons. The Forests and Grasslands of the NFGT provide the public with an outstanding resource in relation to public lands hunting in Texas. In addition to hunting, other dispersed recreation includes off-trail hiking, wildlife viewing, wildflower and plant viewing, photography and general sightseeing, and fishing.

142 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Integral to the recreational experience is scenery management. Effects to visual quality are discussed in the scenery management section and it is acknowledged that scenery management enhances the recreational experience for a variety of recreationists and, in some cases, is the primary factor in a recreationist’s decision to pursue their recreational interests on the NFGT.

Recreation Direct/Indirect Effects Alternative 1—No Action. No action beyond what is currently ongoing (see Table 4, Chapter 1 for a list of ongoing NNIPS treatment projects on NFGT system lands) would be taken to control NNIPS under this alternative. The NNIPS Management Plan would not be implemented. There would be no disruption to the recreating public and no visual impacts due to NNIPS treatments. There would be no need to close developed or dispersed sites since herbicide would not be used. All direct effects of Alternative 1 are related to the continued spread and introduction of NNIPS into new areas. NNIPS would continue their spread in all MAs including MAs 9a and 9b and thus continue to alter the natural environment. This spread could lead to recreationists choosing not to engage in some activities because of the alteration to the native environment and the resulting decrease in the quality of the recreational experience. Dense invasive vegetation could hinder physical movement especially in riparian areas, but this effect would be isolated to small areas and is not considered significant. Aquatic NNIPS could continue to spread and to be introduced into new water bodies. The primary vector for this spread is through inadvertent introduction by boats from water body to water body. This vector of spread has the potential to not only introduce current aquatic NNIPS found on the NFGT to areas currently not infested but also can introduce new aquatic NNIPS from places further away. This potential spread and introduction can negatively affect recreational activities such as boating, fishing, and swimming through changes in the character and hydrological properties of the affected water bodies and also through the reduction of access to these water bodies due to the dense mats formed by these aquatic NNIPS on the waters surface. Alternative 2—Proposed Action. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would implement the NNIS Management Plan and includes an IPM strategy for the reduction and control of NNIPS. Implementing Alternative 2 would result in an overall decrease of NNIPS including offsite natives across the NFGT and thus resulting in an increase in native plant species diversity. The effects of Alternative 2 can be discussed based on the IPM method of treatment. IPM methods include biological, mechanical, cultural, and chemical control of NNIPS. Under this alternative, NNIPS occurring on the NFGT, including aquatic NNIPS, would be treated through an IPM approach with a full toolbox of treatment methods available to tackle the problem of NNIPS. In addition, off-site natives would be treated and thus help to control the encroachment of off-site natives into habitat where they were previously not encountered. For the specific effects to vegetation from NNIPS controls, See the Vegetation section above.

143 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Biological. Biological controls are specific to targeted species and include the introduction of a biological control agent that targets a NNIPS and thus decreases the populations of the targeted NNIPS. The direct effects to recreation would include an increase in the quality of the recreational experience as NNIPS would be reduced and the sites currently infested by NNIPS would be returned to a natural state. Aquatic NNIPS, Myriophyllum spicatum and Hydrilla verticillata, typically invade water bodies, degrade aquatic habitats, become entangled in boat propellers, and can be a danger to swimmers. Biological methods could be used such as the Crytobagous salviniae to treat Salvinia molesta. In addition, sterile Ctenopharyngodon idella may be an option to control hydrilla in areas with adequate control structures to ensure retention of released fish. Ctenopharyngodon idella are an option only in areas where impact to all of the vegetation is acceptable. The stocking rates for Ctenopharyngodon idella have not been established. Any introductions of Ctenopharyngodon idella into a water body within the administrative boundaries of the NFGT are approved on a site-specific basis by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. A direct effect of using Ctenopharyngodon idella as a biological control would be a reduction in the aquatic NNIPS, while an indirect effect would be that native vegetation would also be eaten by Ctenopharyngodon idella. This could then cause an indirect effect on quality fish habitat by reducing cover for fry, ultimately affecting fishing opportunities. Mechanical. Mechanical treatments include hand pulling/digging, collecting and disposing of propagules, mowing, girdling, cutting, and grubbing. Effects to recreation due to mechanical treatments for all MAs include recreationists meeting work crews and thus detracting from the recreational experience through the presence of these crews. In addition, treating NNIPS with mechanical methods would increase the visual impacts of seeing dead vegetation in areas where the public recreates and can affect the recreational experience. These direct effects are short term as the target vegetation would quickly deteriorate and be unnoticeable within a year after treatment. Indirect effects in MAs 9a and 9b, mechanical treatments may lead to the temporary closing of developed and semi- developed recreation sites while treatments are carried out. Cultural. Cultural control methods include prescribed burning (not in MA 7), revegetating treated areas with native species, and prevention and education techniques such as signing at recreation areas and the installation of bootbrush stations at trailheads. Effects of signing and installation of bootbrush stations at trailheads include an increased public awareness of NNIPS, which in turn will result in an indirect effect of a decrease of NNIPS introductions by recreationists as they become more aware of NNIPS and prevention practices. Bootbrush stations will directly reduce the introduction of NNIPS along trails, because bootbrush stations would serve to remove any NNIPS seeds and/or propagules that would otherwise be introduced through footwear. Indirect effects to recreation from prescribed burning and/or revegetation with native plants could include the temporary closing of some portions of the Forest while either prescribed burns are taking place or else when areas are being revegetated with native species. Indirect effects from prescribed burning on recreation also include the blackening of the landscape, visual and odor issues with smoke, and the temporary closure of recreational sites in MAs 9a and 9b and also closure of treatment areas of other

144 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

MAs while prescribed burning is taking place. Recreationists may choose to avoid areas that have been burned, or areas adjacent to burned areas, until they recover or are revegetated. In addition, cultural control methods also result in some positive direct and indirect effects. First, prescribed burning leads to improved wildlife habitat and thus an increase in the quality of the recreational experience (i.e., hunting, wildlife, and plant viewing). For example, prescribed burning on the NFGT has successfully been used to improve turkey habitat and thus indirectly improves the quality of turkey hunting on the NFGT. Treating NNIPS through cultural methods will also indirectly improve wildlife habitat and thus recreational experiences. Chemical. The primary effects (indirect) of treating areas with herbicides relate to the visual impacts of seeing dead vegetation especially in areas where the public engages in recreational activities. In addition, recreationists would not be able to enter areas at the time of herbicide treatments. These effects are short term since the target vegetation would quickly deteriorate and be unnoticeable within a year after an application is made. The site-specific nature of applications would minimally affect native vegetation. Impacts would be most noticeable after the first application. Subsequent applications are intended to kill any residual target plants and to prevent their re-sprouting. Subsequent treatments would not be as noticeable as the first. Indirectly, the long-term benefits to recreation from controlling NNIPS and the re- establishment of native vegetation would be a more open understory that creates greater sight distance and easier access through the woods. Long-term (over 5 years) visual effects of herbicide application would be positive since areas targeted for treatment would kill invasive plants that have over-grown native vegetation. As plant diversity would increase once the invasive vegetation is eliminated, native vegetation would reoccupy the available growing space. This long-term visual benefit would be especially noticeable in riparian areas where additional moisture and better growing sites would result in greater plant diversity. In addition, the physical impediment posed by some of these invasive plants (especially in riparian areas) would be eliminated allowing easier access off trails and long term (years) improvement in wildlife habitat affording better opportunities for the recreational user to view wildlife. There is a chance that recreational activities could be indirectly affected during herbicide application. These effects are slight given the nature of the proposal that targets specific species of plants and impacts small areas. Developed recreation sites do not have large areas of invasive plants that need treatment. In addition, recreational areas are widely distributed and not all areas would be treated at the same time. Therefore, while recreationists might be displaced for a short time, there are many other places on the Forests and Grasslands available for recreational use. To reduce impacts from herbicide application and to avoid contact with recently treated areas, Forest Plan standards and guidelines require that the public be informed of specific areas where herbicide treatments would occur. In areas where the herbicide Plateau (active ingredient imazapic) is used, the area would be closed for 24 hours to avoid having the public come in contact with the chemical. These actions would minimize exposure of the recreating public from herbicide application.

145 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Alternative 3—Modified Proposed Action. The effects are similar to those described for Alternative 2 with the exception that: • “Offsite” natives would not be treated and would thus be allowed to continue their encroachment of the tallgrass and Blacklands prairies ecosystems. The exclusion of any treatments to offsite natives such as Juniperus virginiana, Gledista triacanthos, and Robinia pseudoacacia in grassland ecosystems could result in decreases in acres of tallgrass and Blackland prairies within the NFGT, resulting from encroachment by these species. Indirectly, this encroachment has the potential to alter the recreational experience in these grassland habitats over the long term (over 5 years), as more grassland would be lost to encroachment. • The exclusion of 2,4-D will limit the treatment of certain aquatic NNIPS (Myriophyllum spicatum and Hydrilla verticillata), which could result in indirect effects to the recreational experience in relation to swimming, fishing, and boating as described under biological controls under Alternative 2. Alternative 4. The difference between Alternatives 3 and 4 is that there would be no herbicide application or biological control treatments in the Wilderness (MA 7), the effects of which have been discussed under the Wilderness section above. Therefore, the effects to recreation would be similar to those discussed for Alternative 3. Alternative 5. The difference between Alternatives 4 and 5 are that: • There would be no NNIPS treatments in MA 7 (discussed under the Wilderness section above). • Chemical control of NNIPS would not be used under Alternative 5. For NNIPS species whose preferred method of control is through chemical means (see Table 2 in Chapter 1) this alternative would result in the least effective method of control being used to treat these species. NNIPS that are only controlled through chemical means could potentially continue to expand their infestations and also create new infestations on the NFGT under this alternative. Over the long term (years), this could result in an indirect effect to recreational experience. As native plants and ecosystems become displaced by NNIPS (not effectively controlled by mechanical means alone), the naturalness of the NFGT would decrease.

Recreation Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects area for the recreation resource is within the administrative boundaries of each of the units of the NFGT and includes all MAs, as recreation occurs across the NFGT through both developed and dispersed recreation. This boundary was chosen because the administrative boundary of the NFGT includes all possible treatment sites for NNIPS. The time span for the cumulative effects analysis to recreation is 5 years. The rational for this time span includes several considerations involving the current inventory of infestations on the NFGT. These include: • Currently, there are less than 500 acres of NNIPS infestations on all units. Within 5 years of implementation of the NNIPS Management Plan, these known infestations will have been treated and controlled and/or eradicated including any multiple retreatments.

146 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

• Multiple treatments on these infested sites to control and/or eradicate the infestations are assumed to consist of up to three treatments per site. It is assumed that these known sites will be controlled and/or eradicated after three treatments. • Budget considerations include an assumed budget of $250,000 for NNIPS control activities to implement the NNIPS Management Plan. Currently, FY 07 budget for NNIPS control activities is $41,000. An increase to a maximum of $250,000 per fiscal year is assumed following a decision to implement the NNIPS Management Plan. • Personnel considerations also drive the ability to treat NNIPS on the NFGT as yearly NNIPS control activities are also driven by available qualified personnel. • Adaptive management will also drive implementation of the NNIPS Management Plan and new sites of infestation on the NFGT will set back the cumulative effects timeline. Following NEPA procedures, the decision will be reviewed at 5-year intervals to assure that effects analysis are consistent with current conditions and that any new information is incorporated. This is in addition to the continual information feedback to the decision making process associated with adaptive management. Cumulative impacts include those impacts resultant from treatment of NNIPS on both FS system lands and non-FS system lands located within the administrative boundary of each unit in the NFGT. Cumulative effects may arise from all treatment methods proposed in an IPM approach. Past, current, and reasonably foreseeable NNIPS treatments on lands within the NFGT include: • The use of herbicides for vegetation maintenance on highway rights of ways by Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT). • The use of herbicides by some oil and gas companies to treat small areas of vegetation around equipment on well pads and some utility companies may include the use of herbicides to maintain or control vegetation in utility corridors. • The use of biological and chemical controls in aquatic areas on private lands by the San Jacinto River Authority to control hydrilla on Lake Conroe. • The use of a combination of biological and chemical controls by the Sabine River Authority to treat giant salvinia in Toledo Bend Reservoir. • The very limited use of herbicides (currently less than 1 acre) on FS system lands, currently under a special use operating permit and/or a right of way easement, to maintain vegetation around wellheads and other equipment. • Ongoing FS projects to control NNIPS (as displayed in Table 4, Chapter 1). Alternative 1—No Action. Alternative 1 would not implement the NNIPS Management Plan and would continue treating NNIPS as listed above. Cumulative effects would be a reduction of NNIPS and an increase in native vegetation where the listed projects would occur and an increase in NNIPS in all other areas across the NFGT as existing NNIPS infestations spread and new infestation sites develop. The resulting long-term (over 5 years) cumulative effects of the increase in NNIPS and the alteration of natural ecosystems (including associated wildlife) could alter the recreational experience available on the on the NFGT (hunting, wildlife and plant viewing, boating, etc.).

147 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Cumulative effects in the long term (over 5 years) to MAs 9a and 9b could include a loss of their recreational appeal as NNIPS infestations spread, and the naturalness of sites is altered. Alternatives 2–5. There would be an overall increase in NNIPS treatments (as described in the direct/indirect effects above) in the cumulative effects areas of the NFGT with the greatest increase being associated with Alternative 2 and the least with Alternative 5. The resulting cumulative effect on recreation would be a maintenance and restoration of natural ecosystems and continuation of the associated recreational experiences (described in direct and indirect effects above) across the NFGT. However, while current NNIPS infestations would be treated and reduced, new infestation sites would continue to occur, as recreationists are the prime vector for spread of NNIPS. Therefore, continual monitoring and treatment of NNIPS on both FS lands and non-FS lands will be important.

Scenery Management

Scenery Affected Environment The East Texas area comprising the administrative boundary of the NFGT is heavily oriented to the agricultural and forest industry with most of the area covered by forests of shortleaf, loblolly, and some longleaf pine. These are interspersed with hardwood stands and flowering species such as dogwood, redbud, and magnolia. The vegetation of the National Forests is predominantly shortleaf and loblolly pine with red oak, white oak, and sweetgum. Longleaf stands usually have an open understory whereas the loblolly and shortleaf have a more heavily vegetated understory. The river bottoms and sloughs are predominantly Salix spp.; Quercus pagoda, Quercus nigra and Quercus lyrata; Liquidambar styraciflua; and a variety of other bottomland hardwood species. The ridges, terraces, and slopes have a dense understory while the river bottoms and sloughs have a sparse understory. The general character of the forests is a continuous vegetative cover with little variety except at river bottoms and sloughs. The Grasslands are located in the central lowland landscape character type. This area is characterized by rather level and some gently sloping surfaces lying at different levels with a relatively steep and straight, cliff-like faces or slopes of considerable linear extent. Main streams are entrenched. Vegetation is a mixture of tall and pasture grasses, Quercus virginiana, Quercus marilandica, Quercus stellata, and Prosopis glandulosa. The landform within the National Forests varies from flat to gently rolling uplands to low hardwood bottoms. The Sam Houston NF has the least amount of landform followed by the Davy Crockett, Angelina, and the Sabine NF, which has the greatest variety of landform. Long distance views across the Forest are very limited. All long distance views have a line of site of less than 10 percent slope making most management practices in middle ground or background unseen since there is insufficient topography across the Forest to provide long distance views. Table 27 describes the visual character of the various vegetative communities found on the NFGT.

148 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Table 27. Visual character of the vegetative communities found on the NFGT Community Existing Visual Character Aquatic Habitats (lakes) This includes water bodies impounded by dams and in oxbow lakes, and open water in river channels with no or little vegetation cover overhead. Submersed aquatic vegetation may be present in some areas. Some lakes clear of NNIPS; some lakes with scattered infestations of NNIPS both in the water and around the shoreline. Permanent Openings Typical of grassland and prairie habitat currently free of NNIPS; areas of scattered encroachment of NNIPS and off-site natives. Roadsides Visuals along roadsides will vary dependent on habitat road is traveling through and include typical visuals associated with grasslands and prairies as well as East Texas Pineywoods. Forest-wide - scattered NNIPS along roadways. Trails and Trailheads The existing visual character of trailheads includes information signs and parking areas while visuals along trails are dependent on the habitat the trail traverses. Trails through the grassland exhibit typical grassland and prairie scenes while those through on the Forests will exhibit a variety of habitats including riparian forests, mesic hardwoods, mixed pine-oak woodlands, and streamside zones. Most areas are free of NNIPS but some areas of scattered NNIPS occur usually beginning at trailheads and progressing along trails. Recreation Areas MAs 9a and 9b are developed and semi developed recreation sites. Visitors would view developed sites with fire rings, boat ramps, picnic tables, and other recreation improvements typical of developed recreation sites. Forest-wide - scattered NNIPS in all recreation areas. Utility Corridors Utility corridors are typically corridors across the landscape where vegetation has been maintained (trees cleared, vegetation mowed) to allow maintenance of the utilities. Scattered NNIPS along and within utility corridors. Special Use Sites Visuals at special use sites include equipment associated with well pads, pipelines, and small electronic sites. Scattered NNIPS within special use sites. Range Typical of grassland and prairie habitat currently free of NNIPS Areas of scattered encroachment of NNIPS and off-site natives. Mixed Pine-Oak Woodlands Over this landscape, one would view open pine forests mixed with some hardwood species. A mixture of pines (shortleaf and loblolly pines) and hardwood species other than post-oak, hickory, and blackjack oak as in the oak-hickory type are present. To date few recorded NNIPS within forest stands; NNIPS are present, but not abundant in scattered locations. Mesic Hardwood Characterized by high species richness in the understory and low species richness in the overstory. Mesic hardwood has few pines and is mainly dominated by hardwood species which prefer intermediate soil moisture. Major species include sweetgum, white oak, red maple, and water oak. It occupies moist slopes of hills with fairly fertile soils. To date few recorded NNIPS within forest stands; NNIPS are present, but not abundant in scattered locations. Riparian Forests Dominant woody species include baldcypress, water tupelo, swamp tupelo, blackgum, water oak, willow oak, overcup oak, river birch, red maple, green ash, sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana L.), water hickory, and American elm. Infestations scattered, but when present sometimes form monotypic stands. Streamside Zones Visuals at streamside zones include bottomland hardwood forest species, stream banks, and lakeshores. Scattered NNIPS particularly at culverts and stream crossings.

149 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Scenery Direct/Indirect Effects Alternative 1—No Action. No action beyond what is currently ongoing (see Table 4 in Chapter 1 for a list of ongoing NNIPS treatment projects on NFGT system lands) would be taken to control NNIPS under this alternative. The NNIPS Management Plan would not be implemented. NNIPS would continue to spread, and in the long term (over 5 years) as native species are displaced, the character of the various vegetative communities across the NFGT would be altered, changing the current visual character of the NFGT in areas of NNIPS infestations. Direct effects of Alternative 1 include an increase in the number and size of current infestations as well as new infestations being visible in all vegetative communities across the NFGT. Alternative 1 has the greatest potential to affect the scenery resource as NNIPS would alter habitats and landscapes if left unchecked. See Table 28 for a comparison of visual effects to the vegetative communities by alternatives. Alternative 2—Proposed Action. Areas of dead and dying vegetation along trails, roads, and within and adjacent to developed recreation sites would be an indirect visual effect of implementing Alternative 2. These visual impacts will likely be mosaic in nature with areas of dead vegetation interspersed with live vegetation, and would also be short lived (less than 1 year). These effects would lessen over time (after 1 year) as native vegetation begins to reseed the treated areas. See Table 28 for a comparison of visual effects to the vegetative communities by alternatives. Specific effects based on the IPM method of treatment are described below. Biologic al. Biological controls are specific to targeted species and include the introduction of a biological control agent that targets a NNIPS and thus decreases the populations of the targeted NNIPS. There are no negative direct effects to scenery management due to biological control as the public would have difficulty detecting biological control agents. In the case of using grass carp to control hydrilla, control structures (grates) may be visible at inlets and outlets of water bodies to prevent the grass carp from being introduced to any other unintended water bodies. Indirect effects would include short-term (less than 1 year) increase in dead vegetation as the biological agent controls the NNIPS and a decrease in the amount of NNIPS visible across the landscape. The long-term (over 5 years) indirect effect would be a restoration of the natural visual character of the various vegetative communities across the Forest. Mechanical. Mechanical treatments include hand pulling/digging, collecting and disposing of propagules, mowing, girdling, cutting, and grubbing. Indirect effects to the visual resource resulting from mechanical treatments for all MAs include: • An increase in the amount of dead and dying vegetatio n seen (treated NNIPS) at sites across the NFGT as treatments are executed. • Areas treated mechanically will exhibit greater site disturbance than those treated using either biological and/or chemical methods. These e ffects a re shor t term since the target vegetation would quickly deteriorate and be unnoticeable within months after treatment as native vegetation reseeds the treated area. Cultural. Cultural control methods include prescribed burning (not in MA 7), revegetating treated areas with native species, and prevention and education techniques

150 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment such as signing at recreation areas and the installation of bootbrush stations at trailheads. Effects of signing and installation of bootbrush stations at trailheads include an increased public awareness of NNIPS which in turn will result in an indirect effect of a decrease of NNIPS introductions by recreationists as they become more aware of NNIPS and prevention practices. Bootbrush stations will directly reduce the introduction of NNIPS along trails by helping to remove any NNIPS seeds and/or propagules that would otherwise be introduced through recreationists footwear. Indirect effects to visual resources from prescribed burning are short-lived (prescribed burning areas revegetate quickly and, within months, are green again) and could include: • The temporary closure of recreational areas in MAs 9a and 9b and areas of other MAs while prescribed burning and revegetation are taking place (areas not being available for public sightseeing); • Smoke temporarily obscuring views during burning; and • Blackening of the landscape following burning. Chemical. The primary effects of treating areas with herbicides relate to the visual impacts of seeing dead vegetation especially in areas where the public engages in recreational activities. These effects are short term (less than 1 year) since the target vegetation would quickly deteriorate and be unnoticeable within months after an application is made and green up occurs. Impacts would be most noticeable after the first application. Subsequent applications are intended to kill any residual target plants and to prevent their re-sprouting and would not be as noticeable as the first application since treated areas would be of smaller sizes (less acreage treated in any given area during retreatment). Long-term (over 5 years) indirect visual effects of herbicide application would be an overall reduction in invasive plants that have over-grown native vegetation. Plant diversity would increase once the invasive vegetation is eliminated, and other native vegetation reoccupies the available growing space, restoring the naturally-appearing landscape. There would be a long-term visual benefit especially in riparian areas where additional moisture and better growing sites would result in greater plant diversity. In addition, the physical impediment posed by some of these invasive plants (especially in riparian areas) would be eliminated providing a greater sight distance. Alternative 3—Modified Proposed Action. These indirect visual effects are similar to those described for Alternative 2 with the exception that offsite natives would not be treated. In the long term (over 5 years), as these species continue their encroachment in the grasslands, the visual character of these communities would be altered and reduced. See Table 28 for a comparison of visual effects to the vegetative communities by alternatives. Alternative 4. Alternative 4 is similar to Alternative 3, except no herbicides or biological control treatments would be used in MA 7. The indirect visual effects are similar to those described for mechanical treatments under Alternative 2. See Table 28 for a comparison of visual effects to the vegetative communities by alternatives. Alternative 5. Treatments for NNIPS in Alternative 5 are restricted to mechanical, cultural, and biological control methods in all MAs except the Wilderness (MA 7) where

151 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment no NNIPS treatments would occur. The indirect visual effects to MA 7 would be the same as those described for Alternative 1 and to all other MAs would be similar to those described for mechanical treatments under Alternative 2. See Table 28 for a comparison of visual effects to the vegetative communities by alternatives.

152 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Table 28. Effects to the visual character of the various vegetative communities on the NFGT Alternative Community 1 2 3 4 5 Aquatic Habitats Increases of aquatic Decrease in aquatic Decreases in aquatic Decreases in NNIPS with Decreases in NNIPS with a (lakes) NNIPS resulting in NNIPS with a visible NNIPS with a visible a visible reduction of visible reduction of dense mats across the reduction of vegetation reduction of vegetation on vegetation on the waters vegetation on the waters waters surface. on the waters surface. the waters surface, though surface, though decreases surface, though decreases decreases not as not as pronounced as in not as pronounced as in pronounced as in Alternative 2. Increases of Alternative 2. Increases of Alternative 2. aquatic NNIPS in MA 7, aquatic NNIPS in unless biological controls Wilderness areas are used.

Permanent Continued Decrease in Continued encroachment Continued encroachment Continued encroachment Openings encroachment by off- encroachment by off- by off-site natives and other by off-site natives and other by off-site natives and other site natives and other site natives and other NNIPS would result in long- NNIPS would result in long- NNIPS, most effectively NNIPS and would result NNIPS would result in term loss of grassland term loss of grassland controlled through chemical in long-term loss of long-term restoration character. character. Long-term means, would increase and grassland character. and maintenance of effects in MA 7 - NNIPS would result in long-term grassland character most effectively controlled loss of grassland character. through chemical means In MA7 - continued would increase and result encroachment by off-site in long-term loss of natives and other NNIPS grassland character. and would result in long- term loss of grassland character.

153 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Table 28. Effects to the visual character of the various vegetative communities on the NFGT Alternative Community 1 2 3 4 5 Roadsides, Trails Increases in NNIPS Decrease in NNIPS and restoration of natural vegetation along roadsides, trails Decreases in NNIPS along and Trailheads, along roadsides, trails and trailheads, and in recreation areas would result in an overall long-term roadsides, trails and Recreation Areas and trailheads, and in maintenance and increase of the natural visual character trailheads, and in recreation recreation areas would areas that are controlled result in an overall long- through treatment methods term decrease of the other than chemical would natural visual character result in an overall long- term maintenance and increase of the natural visual character. Increases in NNIPS whose primary method of control is chemical would result in a long-term decrease of the natural visual character. Utility Corridors, Increases in NNIPS Decreases in NNIPS along utility corridors and at special use sites would result in Decreases in NNIPS along Special Use Sites along utility corridors an overall long-term maintenance and increase of the natural visual character utility corridors and at and at special use sites special use sites that are results in an overall effectively treated with long-term decrease of mechanical methods would the natural visual result in an overall long- character term increase of the natural visual character. An increase in the NNIPS controlled most effectively through chemical methods would result in an overall long-term decrease of the natural visual character

154 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Table 28. Effects to the visual character of the various vegetative communities on the NFGT Alternative Community 1 2 3 4 5 Range Continued Removal of off site natives and NNIPS in range habitat would result in an overall Continued encroachment encroachment by off- long-term maintenance and increase of the natural visual character. by off-site natives and site natives and NNIPS NNIPS that are not would result in an effectively treated through overall long-term biological, cultural, and/or decrease of the natural mechanical methods would visual character of result in an overall range decrease of the natural visual character. Decreases in NNIPS that are effectively treated with mechanical methods would result in an overall long- term increase of the natural visual character of range. Mixed Pine-Oak Increases in NNIPS Decreases in NNIPS Decreases in NNIPS and maintenance and restoration of Decreases in NNIPS in Woodlands, Mesic mixed pine-oak and maintenance and mixed pine-oak woodlands, mesic hardwood, riparian mixed pine-oak woodlands, Hardwood, woodlands, mesic restoration of mixed forests, and streamside zones would result in long-term mesic hardwood, riparian Riparian, Forests, hardwood, riparian pine-oak woodlands improved site distance and natural visual character. In forests, and streamside and Streamside forests, and streamside results in long-term MA 7, decreases in NNIPS that are effectively treated zones that are effectively Zones zones would result in improved site distance with mechanical methods would result in long-term treated with mechanical an overall long-term and natural visual increase of site distance and natural visual character; methods would result in decrease in site character. and increases in NNIPS in MA7 that are only controlled long-term increase of site distance and of the through chemical means would result in long-term loss of distance and natural visual natural visual character. site distance and natural visual character. character; increases in NNIPS that are only controlled through chemical means would result in long- term loss of site distance and natural visual character. Increases in NNIPS in MA 7 would result in long-term loss of site distance and natural visual character.

155 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Scenery Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects area for the scenery resource is the administrative bo undaries o f the individual units on the NFGT and includes all management areas. This boundary was chosen because the administrative boundaries of the NFGT include all possible treatment sites for NNIPS. The time span for the cumulative effects analysis for the scenery resource is 5 years into the future. The rational for this time span includes several considerations involving the current inventory of infestations on the NFGT. These include: • Currently, there are less than 500 acres of inventoried NNIPS infestations within all units. Within 5 years of implementation of the NNIPS Management Plan, these known infestations will have been treated and controlled and/or eradicated includin g any multiple retreatments. • Multiple tre atments on these infested sites to control and/or eradicate the infestations are assumed to consist of up to three treatments per site. It is assumed that these known sites will be controlled and/or eradicated after three treatments. • Budget considerations include an assumed budget of $250,000 for NNIPS control activities to implement the NNIPS management Plan. Currently, FY 07 budget for NNIPS control activities was $41,000, an increase to a maximum of $250,000 per fiscal year is assumed following a decision to implement the NNIPS Management Plan. • Personnel considerations also drive the ability to treat NNIPS on the NFGT as yearly NNIPS control activities are also driven by available qualified personnel. • Adaptive management will also drive implementation of the NNIPS Management Plan and new sites of infestation on the NFGT will set back the cumulative effects timeline. Following NEPA procedures, the d ec ision will be reviewed at 5-year intervals to assure that effects analysis are consistent with current conditions and that any new information is incorporated. This is in addition to the continual information feedback to the decision making process associated with adaptive manageme nt. Cumulative impacts include those impacts resultant from treatment of NNIPS on both FS system lands an d non-FS system lands located within the administrative boundary of each unit in the NFGT. Cumulative effects may arise from all treatm ent m ethods proposed in an IPM approach. Past, current, and reasonably foreseeable NNIPS treatments on lands within the NFGT include: • The use of herbicides for vegetation maintenance on highway ROWs by Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT). • The use of herbicides by some oil and gas companies to treat small areas of vegetation around equipment on well pads and some utility companies may include the use of herbicides to maintain vegetation in utility corridors. • The use of biological and chemical controls in aquatic areas on private lands by the San Jacinto River Authority to control hydrilla on Lake Conroe. • The use of a combination of biological and chemical controls by the Sabine River Authority to treat giant salvinia in Toledo Bend Reservoir.

156 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

• The very limited use of herbicides (currently less than 1 acre) on FS system lands, currently under a special use operating permit and/or a right of way easement, to maintain vegetation around wellheads and other equipment. • Ongoing FS projects to control NNIPS as displayed in Table 4, Chapter 1. Alternative 1—No Action. Alternative 1 would not implement the NNIPS Management Plan and would continue treating NNIPS as listed above. Cumulative effects would be a reduction of NNIPS and an increase in native vegetation where the listed projects would occur and an increase in NNIPS in all other areas across the NFGT as existing NNIPS infestations spread and new infestation sites develop. The resulting long-term (time) cumulative effects of the increase in NNIPS and the alteration of natural landscapes could alter the visual experience available on the on the NFGT. Alternatives 2–5. There would be an overall increase in NNIPS treatments (as described in the direct/indirect effects above) in the cumulative effects areas of the NFGT with the greatest increase being associated with Alternative 2 and the least with Alternative 5. The resulting cumulative effect on scenery would be a maintenance and restoration of natural landscapes (described in direct and indirect effects above) across the NFGT. However, while current NNIPS infestations would be treated and reduced, new infestation sites would continue to occur as NNIPS are reintroduced to the landscape. Therefore, continual monitoring and treatment of NNIPS both on FS lands and non-FS lands will be important in maintaining the natural visual character of the NFGT.

Socioeconomics

Methodology The analysis area is the area contained within the administrative boundary of the NFGT. This boundary was chosen because the administrative boundary of the NFGT includes all possible treatment sites for NNIPS. The time span for the cumulative effects for the economic analysis is 5 years. The rational for this time span includes several considerations involving the current inventory of infestations on the NFGT. These include: • Currently, there are approximately 500 acres of inventoried NNIPS infestations all units. Within 5 years of implementation of the NNIPS Management Plan, these known infestations will have been treated and controlled and/or eradicated including any multiple re-treatments. • Following NEPA procedures, the decision will be reviewed at 5-year intervals to assure that effects analysis are consistent with current conditions and that any new information is incorporated. This is in addition to the continual information feedback to the decision making process associated with adaptive management.

Projected Unit Treatment Costs In order to compare the alternatives, implementation costs were estimated based on a uniform set of assumptions. Regardless of which alternative is selected, costs will vary from year to year based on factors such as annual budget allocations, the annual operating plan, and the conditions present in the sites scheduled for treatment.

157 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

The area to be treated annually is generally constrained by budget allocations. Currently, annual budgets have averaged approximately $40,000. However, the cost of treatments at a variety of levels was estimated to determine annual and long-term costs should budget levels vary from the current average. Many variables affect the cost of treatment activities, including: treatment method(s) utilized (e.g., mechanical, cultural, herbicide, etc.), species to be treated, and site conditions. Many of the sites to be treated are likely to require repeated entries; the phenology of individual invasive species and the effectiveness of a given treatment influence the number of entries that may be required. In some cases, multiple treatment methods may be employed on the same site. For example, a site with multiple species may be treated with an initial application of herbicide to be followed by mechanical treatments. In some cases a combination of treatment options are proposed for concurrent use, such as prescribed burning, mechanical, and/or herbicide. Data regarding the expected rate of spread were unavailable; therefore the annual cost of treating acres of spread was not estimated. To estimate cost impacts, three cost estimates were calculated for each of the action alternatives. The first estimate is the total undiscounted cost to treat all inventoried acres one time together with the cost of associated monitoring. To account for the “worst case” scenario, the annual cost of treating the maximum number of acres authorized was also estimated. However, the dollar values developed should not be construed as the total cost over the life of the project. The third cost estimate examines the discounted costs over 5 years and the net annual equivalent cost. For these estimates, the acres of re-treatment were estimated, but no effort was made to approximate the acres of spread, or acres to be treated under adaptive management due to a lack of sufficient data. To address the potential of unanticipated funding changes, a variety of annual funding levels was estimated. Annual inventory and monitoring costs were incorporated as well. The following assumptions were used to arrive at this cost estimate for each alternative. • 500 acres of inventoried infestations Approximately 50 acres of aquatic species: It was assumed that aquatic species would require annual herbicide treatments until eradicated. It is not anticipated that these species are likely to be completely eradicated within the 5-year analysis period. Approximately 50 acres of species requiring multiple treatment methods applied concurrently: A combination of treatment methods would be applied each year until eradicated. It is not anticipated that these species will be completely eradicated within the 5-year analysis period. In order to account for the worst case scenario for the purposes of estimating costs, it was assumed that three treatment methods would be applied annually—prescribed fire, mechanical treatments, and herbicides. In actual practice, not all acres may be treated with all treatment methods every year. Approximately 400 acres of species to be treated with herbicides or mechanical treatment methods: It was assumed that these acres would all be treated with herbicides in the first year. The rate of effectiveness of treatments was conservatively estimated at 50 percent. Actual rates of effectiveness are likely

158 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

to be much higher. It was assumed that the need for the use of chemical treatments would decline over time as displayed in Table 29.

Table 29. Treatment assumptions used for cost estimates Treatment Method/Percentage of Percentage (%) Year Acres to Which Applied Acres Effectively Treated 1 Chemical / 100% 400 50 2 Mechanical / 50% 200 50 Chemical / 50% 3 Mechanically / 75% 100 50 Chemical / 25% 4 Mechanical / 100% 50 50 5 Mechanical / 100% 25 50

• Biological controls will only incur a one-time treatment cost (collection and release of biological control agent). • Costs for other cultural methods (signing, bootbrush stations, revegetation) are estimated at $5,000 for the first year and then at $1,500 per year after initial investment. These costs are based on initial installation and subsequent annual maintenance. • Effectiveness monitoring would occur on all treated acres. In addition, approximately 500 additional acres annually would be monitored for the occurrence of new infestations. Cost estimates for various treatment methods were taken from the NNIPS Management Plan for all but biological and chemical control. The cost of chemical control was obtained from the Texas Forest Service and is based on past charges (Texas Forest Service 2007). The cost estimate for biological control was calculated after a discussion in 2007 with Dr. Phillip Tipping of the Invasive Plant Research Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service. The costs for NNIPS control are presented in Table 30.

Table 30. Cost estimates for NNIPS activities

Activity Cost estimate (per acre) Monitoring $10 Mechanical Treatment $160

Prescribed Fire $30

Chemical Treatment $90

Biological Control (aquatic NNIPS) $30

Socioeconomics Affected Environment The forests of East Texas and the grasslands of North Central Texas play a significant role in the economic, social, cultural, and political environment of the State. The FS

159 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment manages a significant portion of these forests and a small but important part of the Grasslands. Many local communities rely on the employment and income from the use of the Forest and Grassland resources. Income and employment are also derived from people traveling through communities on their way to use the Forests and Grasslands for recreation and other purposes. An awareness of tourism’s importance as a source of future economic and social activity for communities in East Texas is growing. A diversity of vegetation, wildlife, and other resource opportunities provide for a variety of quality recreation experiences, and the many scenic and other attractions provide for an inviting place to live and work. All of these goods, services, and uses have value to the people who live in the area. Changes in the quantity or quality of these attributes affect their lives. With a limited resource base and increasing demands from a growing population, conflicts or issues related to the relative values of different goods, services, and uses are inevitable. NNIPS cause serious impacts on what have been termed ecosystem services. Some of these services or values are species biodiversity; ecosystem goods for human consumption, such as forest products, biomass fuels, fish, game, and pharmaceuticals; aesthetics, such as wildlife viewing, natural scenery, and spiritual values; watershed protection; and nutrient cycling. Because of the difficulty in placing monetary costs on ecosystem services, economic impacts of environmental damage to ecosystems caused by NNIPS infestations are poorly documented. Other costs of NNIPS can be calculated. For example, in Florida, it has been estimated that the annual loss to cattle producers by tropical soda apple is a total value of $11,000,000. In addition, tropical soda apple has been identified as a host for seven vegetable crop viruses, one of which, the Geminivirus, is causing millions of dollars in damage to tomato growers (Defense 2007). Although no estimates were available as to the economic cost of invasive species in Texas, the Invasive Species Challenge Management Plan published by the National Invasive Species Council in 2001 estimated that the cost of invasive plant species across the Nation is approximately $13 billion annually. This is a conservative figure in that it does not include losses to ecosystem services, biodiversity, or aesthetic values.

Socioeconomics Direct/Indirect Effects Alternative 1—No Action. Alternative 1 represents the existing condition. Under Alternative 1, current and on-going management activities would continue, but no new FS activities would occur. Changes might occur through current management direction (such as road maintenance), natural processes, or other management decisions in the future. This alternative provides a foundation for describing and comparing the magnitude of environmental changes associated with the action alternatives against those changes that occur with no new action at this time. Under this alternative, no treatment activities to control NNIPS would occur beyond those currently authorized under earlier decision documents (see Table 4, Chapter 1 for a list of ongoing NNIPS treatment projects on NFGT system lands). The NNIPS Management Plan would not be implemented.

160 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

The current inventory of NNIPS on the NFGT details approximately 500 acres of known infestations. This inventory is largely based on surveys completed along roads, at special use sites, ROWs, and recreation areas. However, because many areas of the NFGT have not been completely inventoried, the total acreage of NNIPS is believed to be greater than what is currently known. By not implementing the NNIPS Management Plan, NNIPS would continue to spread, resulting in ever larger acreages of infestation. NNIPS treatments implemented in the future will require an increasingly larger investment of funds to cover associated treatment costs. In the long term (time), losses to ecosystem services, biodiversity, and aesthetic values are expected to increase. Monitoring activities would continue to occur under Alternative 1. Monitoring of currently known sites, estimated at 500 acres, and an additional 500 acres would be surveyed annually to locate and inventory new and currently unknown infestations. The cost of monitoring under this alternative is estimated at $10,000 per year. The discounted cost of Alternative 1 over the 5-year life of the project is $47,750. Intangible and difficult to quantify economic costs would also be incurred. Some of those include: • Loss of biodiversity on those acres not treated; • Reduced forage for wildlife and domestic livestock grazing as a result of the spread of invasive species; • Spread to adjacent lands as discussed; • Increased future costs to the FS to treat invasive species infestations that have continued to spread unchecked; and • Potential for reduced recreational value for some visitors, which may result some users relocating their activities to other public or private lands, potentially causing a loss of contributions to the local economy. Other potential costs and benefits under this alternative are discussed in detail in specialist reports for other affected resources. Alternative 2—Proposed Action. The proposed action prescribes using and IPM and adaptive management approach to the control of NNIPS (see Tables 2 and 3 in Chapter 1) on the NFGT (see NNIPS Management Plan for specific treatment proposals). IPM treatments can include any combination of physical/mechanical, biological, cultural, and chemical techniques. Adaptive management allows a succession of IPM treatments based on the monitoring of past treatments and the predictable outcomes of additional treatments. Adaptive management also allows for the treatments of new infestations of NNIPS based on the monitoring of similar past treatments of NNIPS. Alternative 2 would limit all treatments involving biological, mechanical, cultural controls, and chemical applications to an area not to exceed 500 acres per forest and 500 acres in the Grasslands per year. All management areas would be treated equally regarding types of treatments and/or application methods with the exception of MA 7 (Wilderness). Treatments in MA 7 will be limited to manual non-mechanized mechanical (girdling, cutting, and pulling) and, if necessary, manual non-mechanized herbicide (cut stump, stem injection, and directed foliar spray only).

161 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Annual monitoring of treated sites would be conducted to assess the effectiveness of treatments. Additionally, it is estimated that an additional 500 acres would be surveyed annually to locate and inventory new and currently unknown infestations. The undiscounted cost of treating all inventoried acres one time is estimated at $80,150. It should be remembered however, that it is expected that multiple treatments will be required in order to contain and control existing infestations. The undiscounted cost of treating 2,500 acres, the maximum acres of treatment allowed in 1 year, is approximately $315,000. Table 31 displays the discounted cost and net annual equivalent cost of implementing Alternative 2 at possible annual treatment levels ranging from 100 to 500 acres per year. The resulting 5-year discounted costs range from a low of $104,290 to a high of $2,246,760. At the maximum level of annual treatment potentially allowed under this alternative, the 5-year discounted cost is estimated at $1,775,560.

Table 31. Discounted cost for the life of the project under Alternative 2 Discounted Cost Average Annual Acres of Treatment (Five-years) 100 $104,290 200 $173,740 300 $224,160 400 $241,110 500 $246,760 2,500 $1,775,560 (Maximum Allowed)

At lower levels of treatment (100 to 200 acres annually), a portion of the currently inventoried acres would not be treated within the life of the project. This would allow further spread of the existing infestations and a need for more extensive treatments into the future. Therefore at lower annual treatment levels, the long-term costs would be much higher. For example, if annual treatments were constrained to 100 acres, assuming re- treatments were applied in following years as described above, it would take an estimated 12 years to apply an initial treatment to all currently inventoried sites. However, this projection is considered optimistic in that it does not account for the increased rate of NNIPS spread as treatments are delayed or for the occurrence of new infestations which would increase the amount of treatment required, the time required to accomplish that treatment, and the costs associated with doing so. Intangible and difficult to quantify economic benefits would also be incurred. Some of those include: • Maintenance or improvement of biodiversity; • Maintained or improved forage for wildlife and livestock grazing; • Reduced chance of spread to adjacent lands; • Reduced future costs to the FS to treat invasive species infestations; and

162 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

• Maintenance or improvement of recreational values for some visitors, thereby maintaining or potentially increasing contributions to the local economy. Other potential costs and benefits under this alternative are discussed in detail in specialist reports for other affected resources. Alternative 3—Modified Proposed Action. Alternative 3 responds to the public request that the NNIPS species list either be expanded to include additional offsite native species or to exclude native offsite species. Alternative 3 is the same as the proposed action, with the exception that the list of NNIPS species is limited to true non-native species. The undiscounted cost of treating all inventoried acres one time is estimated at $71,000. This is the lowest of the action alternatives. As described under Alternative 2, multiple treatments would be required in order to contain and control existing infestations. The undiscounted cost of treating 2,500 acres, the maximum acres of treatment allowed in 1 year, is approximately $315,000, the same as under Alternative 2. Table 32 displays the discounted cost of implementing Alternative 3 at possible annual treatment levels ranging from 100 to 500 acres per year. The resulting 5-year discounted costs range from a low of $98,680 to a high of $222,450. At the maximum level of annual treatment potentially allowed under this alternative, the 5-year discounted cost is estimated at $1,775,560. As under Alternative 2, at lower levels of treatment (100 to 200 acres annually), a portion of the currently inventoried acres would not be treated within the life of the project. This would allow further spread of the existing infestations and a need for more extensive treatments into the future. Therefore, at lower annual treatment levels, the long-term costs would be much higher.

Table 32. Discounted cost for the life of the project under Alternative 3 Discounted Cost Average Annual Acres of Treatment (Five-years) 100 $98,680 200 $172,740 300 $207,550 400 $217,420 500 $222,450 2,500 $1,775,560 (Maximum Allowed)

Other economic benefits under Alternative 3 would be the same as described under Alternative 2. Alternative 4. Alternative 4 is the same as Alternative 3, except that NNIPS control in MA 7 (Wilderness) would include a modified IPM approach (non-mechanized mechanical controls only) and adaptive management. Alternative 4 responds to Issue 2: NNIPS treatments in the Wilderness.

163 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

The undiscounted cost of treating all inventoried acres one time is estimated at $71,315. As described under Alternatives 2 and 3, multiple treatments would be required in order to contain and control existing infestations. The undiscounted cost of treating 2,500 acres, the maximum acres of treatment allowed in 1 year, is approximately $316,575, slightly higher than under Alternatives 2 and 3. Table 33 displays the discounted cost and net annual equivalent cost of implementing Alternative 4 at possible annual treatment levels ranging from 100 to 500 acres per year. The resulting 5-year discounted costs range from a low of $104,240 to a high of $222,990. At the maximum level of annual treatment potentially allowed under this alternative, the 5-year discounted cost is estimated at $1,778,380. As under Alternatives 2 and 3, at lower levels of treatment (100 to 200 acres annually), a portion of the currently inventoried acres would not be treated within the life of the project. This would allow further spread of the existing infestations and a need for more extensive treatments into the future. Therefore, at lower annual treatment levels, the long- term costs would be much higher.

Table 33. Discounted cost for the life of the project under Alternative 4 Discounted Cost Average Annual Acres of Treatment (Five-years) 100 $104,240 200 $174,290 300 $207,970 400 $217,850 500 $222,990 2,500 $1,778,380 (Maximum Allowed)

Other economic benefits under Alternative 3 would be the same as described under Alternative 2. Alternative 5. Alternative 5 was developed to respond to Issue 1, no herbicide use and Issue 2, NNIPS treatments in the Wilderness. No NNIPS control would occur in MA 7 (Wilderness). A modified IPM approach (mechanical and biological controls only) and adaptive management would be used in all other management areas. The undiscounted cost of treating all inventoried acres one time is estimated at $89,280, the highest of the action alternatives due to its reliance on mechanical treatment methods. As described under the other action alternatives, multiple treatments will be required in order to contain and control existing infestations. The undiscounted cost of treating 2,500 acres, the maximum acres of treatment allowed in 1 year, is approximately $410,000, the highest of the action alternatives. Table 34 displays the discounted cost and net annual equivalent cost of implementing Alternative 5 at possible annual treatment levels ranging from 100 to 500 acres per year. The resulting 5-year discounted costs range from a low of $115,160 to a high of

164 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

$244,450, the lowest of the action alternatives. At the maximum level of annual treatment potentially allowed under this alternative, the 5-year discounted cost is estimated at $2,142,230. As under the other action alternatives, at lower levels of treatment (100 to 200 acres annually), a portion of the currently inventoried acres would not be treated within the life of the project. This would allow further spread of the existing infestations and a need for more extensive treatments into the future. Therefore, at lower annual treatment levels, the long-term costs would be much higher.

Table 34. Discounted cost for the life of the project under Alternative 5 Discounted Cost Average Annual Acres of Treatment (Five-years) 100 $115,160 200 $195,780 300 $230,300 400 $239,770 500 $244,450 2,500 $2,142,230 (Maximum Allowed)

Other economic benefits under Alternative 5 would be the same as described under Alternative 2, but to a lesser extent. Treatments are not likely to be as effective under this alternative. The time required to obtain containment or control of some species will be longer. It is expected that some NNIPS will not respond to treatment methods proposed under this alternative, and therefore will continue to spread. For this reason, biodiversity would not be maintained to the same extent and the potential for loss of forage for wildlife and livestock would be reduced, but not eliminated. Forest users who wish to avoid exposure to herbicides would benefit under this alternative and may be less likely to relocate their activities to other public lands. The chance of spread to adjacent lands would be reduced to a lesser extent under this alternative. Potential future long-term costs to the FS are reduced as compared to Alternative 1, but less than would occur under the other action alternatives.

Socioeconomics Cumulative Effects The analysis area is the area contained within the administrative boundary of the NFGT. This boundary was chosen, because the administrative boundary of the NFGT includes all possible treatment sites for NNIPS. The time span for the cumulative effects for the economic analysis is five years. The rational for this time span includes several considerations involving the current inventory of infestations on the NFGT. These include: Currently, there are approximately 500 acres of inventoried NNIPS infestations all units. Within 5 years of implementation of the NNIPSMP, these known infestations will have been treated and controlled and/or eradicated including any multiple re-treatments.

165 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Alternative 1 - No Action. NIIPS will also continue to spread across all lands within the administrative boundary, including private lands. This source of NNIPS in combination with other sources will combine to increase the costs incurred by private landowners, state government, and other public agencies to control infestations. Current NNIPS control expenditures on the NFGT for FY 07 are budgeted at $40,000. The cost of monitoring NNIPS infestations is likely to increase as existing infestations spread and new infestations become established. This in combination with planned NNIPS projects will gradually increase the funds required, eventually exceeding current allocations. Alternative 2—Proposed Action. The proposed action prescribes using and IPM and adaptive management approach to the control of NNIPS (see Tables 2 and 3 in Chapter 1) on the NFGT (see NNIPS Management Plan for specific treatment proposals). IPM treatments can include any combination of physical/mechanical, biological, cultural, and chemical techniques. Adaptive management allows a succession of IPM treatments based on the monitoring of past treatments and the predictable outcomes of additional treatments. Adaptive management also allows for the treatments of new infestations of NNIPS based on the monitoring of similar past treatments of NNIPS. Alternative 2 would limit all treatments involving biological, mechanical, cultural controls, and chemical applications to an area not to exceed 500 acres per forest and 500 acres in the Grasslands per year. All management areas would be treated equally regarding types of treatments and/or application methods with the exception of MA 7 (Wilderness). Treatments in MA 7 will be limited to manual non-mechanized mechanical (girdling, cutting, and pulling) and, if necessary, manual non-mechanized herbicide (cut stump, stem injection, and directed foliar spray only). Annual monitoring of treated sites would be conducted to assess the effectiveness of treatments. Additionally, it is estimated that an additional 500 acres would be surveyed annually to locate and inventory new and currently unknown infestations. The undiscounted cost of treating all inventoried acres one time is estimated at $80,150. It should be remembered however, that it is expected that multiple treatments will be required in order to contain and control existing infestations. The undiscounted cost of treating 2,500 acres, the maximum acres of treatment allowed in 1 year, is approximately $315,000. Table 31 displays the discounted cost and net annual equivalent cost of implementing Alternative 2 at possible annual treatment levels ranging from 100 to 500 acres per year. The resulting 5-year discounted costs range from a low of $104,290 to a high of $2,246,760. At the maximum level of annual treatment potentially allowed under this alternative, the 5-year discounted cost is estimated at $1,775,560. At lower levels of treatment (100 to 200 acres annually), a portion of the currently inventoried acres would not be treated within the life of the project. This would allow further spread of the existing infestations and a need for more extensive treatments into the future. Therefore, at lower annual treatment levels, the long-term costs would be much higher. For example, if annual treatments were constrained to 100 acres, assuming re-treatments were applied in following years as described above, it would take an

166 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

estimated 12 years to apply an initial treatment to all currently inventoried sites. However, this projection is considered optimistic in that it does not account for the increased rate of NNIPS spread as treatments are delayed or for the occurrence of new infestations, which would increase the amount of treatment required, the time required to accomplish that treatment, and the costs associated with doing so. Intangible and difficult to quantify economic benefits would also be incurred. Some of those include: • Maintenance or improvement of biodiversity; • Maintained or improved forage for wildlife as well as livestock grazing; • Reduced chance of spread to adjacent lands; • Reduced future costs to the FS to treat invasive species infestations; and • Maintenance or improvement of recreational values for some visitors, thereby maintaining or potentially increasing contributions to the local economy. Other potential costs and benefits under this alternative are discussed in detail in specialist reports for other affected resources. Alternatives 3 and 4. The cumulative effects of Alternative 3 would be the same as described under Alternative 2. Alternative 5. The cumulative effects of Alternative 5 would be similar to those described under Alternative 2. The occurrence and spread of NIIPS would be reduced on National Forest System lands, resulting in a lower risk of spread to other land ownerships; however, not to as great an extent as under the other action alternatives. Future costs incurred by private landowners, state government, and other public agencies to control infestations may be reduced. In the short term, the cost of implementing Alternative 5 in combination with other planned NNIPS projects may result in the need for increased budget allocations, depending on the level of future annual treatments implemented. Long term costs would be reduced to lesser degree than under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4.

Environmental Justice The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) defines a minority as “Individual(s) who are members of the following population groups: American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian or Pacific Islander; Black, not of Hispanic origin; or Hispanic.” CEQ further directs that Minority populations should be identified where either (a) the minority population of the affected area exceeds 50 percent or (b) the minority population percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis…a minority population also exists if there is more than one minority group present and the minority percentage, as calculated by aggregating all minority persons, meets one of the above stated thresholds. Based on the above definition, although minorities make-up a large percentage of the population within the analysis area, the percentage of minority persons is not large enough for the population of the analysis area to be consider a “minority population,” nor

167 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment is the percentage of minorities in the analysis area “meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general population” of the State of Texas. Regardless of the above definition, no environmental justice issues relative to minority populations or children were raised during scoping for this project nor during the course of the environmental analysis. All members of the public would be restricted from work areas to maintain safety and signs informing the public of treatment activities would be posted. With adherence to established standards and guidelines for vegetation management actions, not impacts to minority populations or children would occur under the proposed action or other action alternatives. Alternatives 1–5. Since there are no disproportionate, adverse direct or indirect impacts regarding environmental justice or protection of children issues, neither one of the alternatives would contribute to any cumulative effects in or around the project area.

168 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Acronyms and Abbreviations

FHP Forest Health Protection NFGT National Forests and Grasslands in Texas AQI Air Quality Index NISC National Invasive Species Council BA Biological Assessment NNIPS Non-Native Invasive Plant Species BMP Best Management Practice NNIS Non-Native Invasive Species CEQ Council on Environmental Quality NOAEL No Observed Adverse Effect Level CFR Code of Federal Regulations NOx Oxides of Nitrogen

CO Carbon Monoxide O3 Ozone DC Desired Condition ORV Off-Road Vehicle EA Environmental Assessment RCW Red-Cockaded Woodpecker ECS Ecological Classification System RNA Research Natural Area EDRR Early Detection Rapid Response ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum EO Executive Order ROW Right-of-Way EPA Environmental Protection Agency RQ Risk Quotient ESA Endangered Species Act SEIS Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement FACTS Forest Activity Tracking System SERA Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement SFAEF Stephen F. Austin Experimental Forest FHP Forest Health Protection SFES Southern Forest Experiment Station FP Forest Plan SHNF Sam Houston NF

FSH Forest Service Handbook SO2 Sulfur Dioxide FSM Forest Service Manual TES Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive GPS Global Positioning System TNHP Texas Natural Heritage Program IPM Integrated Pest Management TPWD Texas Parks and Wildlife Department LBJ Lyndon B. Johnson TSP Total Suspended Particulate

LD50 Lethal Dose 50 TXDOT Texas Department of Transportation LMP Land Management Plan µg Microgram LOAEL Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level USDA United States Department of Agriculture LOC Level of Concern USFS United States Forest Service LRMP Land and Resource Management Plan USFWS U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service LTA Landtype Association VMCP/P Vegetation Management in the Coastal Plain/Piedmont MA Management Area VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds MIS Management Indicator Species VQO Visual Quality Objective MSDS Material Safety Data Sheets WHSL Wildlife Habitat and Silviculture Laboratory NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NF National Forest

169 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

List of Preparers and Consultants

Barb Ott Social Science; USDA-FS, TEAMS Enterprise Dave Peterson Fish Biology; USDA-FS, National Forests & Grasslands in Texas Jay Edwards Soils Science/Hydrology; USDA-FS, National Forests In Alabama John Ippolito Archaeology; USDA-FS, National Forests & Grasslands in Texas Judith Logan Air Quality; USDA-FS, Region 8, Western Zone Maple Taylor Editor; USDA-FS, TEAMS Enterprise Robert Trujillo Wildlife; USDA-FS, National Forests & Grasslands in Texas Sue Wingate Environmental Coordinator; USDA-FS, TEAMS Enterprise Tom Philipps IDT leader/Botany; USDA-FS, National Forests & Grasslands in Texas

170 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

References American Cyanamid Company. 1984. Summary of additional wildlife and nontarget insect toxicity data on Arsenal. Agricultural Research Division, Princeton, NJ. 2 p. American Cyanamid Company. 1985. Arsenal herbicide for brush control and forest management. Agricultural Research Division, Princeton, NJ. 12 p. Conner, R.N.;Rudolph, D.C.; Walters, J.R. 2001. The red-cockaded woodpecker: surviving in a fire-maintained ecosystem. University of Texas Press, Austin, TX. Defense Environmental Network and Information Exchange. 2007. Informational website for the Department of Defense. https://www.denix.osd.mil/denix/Public/ES- Programs/Conservation/Invasive/florida.htmlDupont (as cited in USFS 1989). DuPont Chemical Company. 1983a. Technical data sheet for fosamine amonium. Biochemicals Department, Wilmington, DE. 5 p. Edson, E.F.; Sanderson, D.M. 1965. Toxicity of the herbicides 2-methoxy-3,6- dichlorobenzoic acid (dicamba) and 2-methoxy-3,5,6-trichlorobenzoic acid (tricamba). Food and Cosmetic Toxicology (3): 299–304. ENSR International. 2005a. Diquat ecological risk assessment. Bureau of Land Management Contract No. NAD010156, ENSR Document Number 09090-020-650. ENSR International. 2005b. Fluridone ecological risk assessment. Bureau of Land Management Contract No. NAD010156, ENSR Document Number 09090-020-650. Fletcher, K.; Friedman, B. 1986. Effects of the herbicide glyphosphate, 2-4-5-T, and 2-4- D on forest litter composition. Canadian Journal of Forest Research (16): 6–9. Hamel, P.B. 1992. Land managers guide to the birds of the south. The Nature Conservancy, Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437 p. Howells R.G.; Neck, R.W.; Murray, H.D. 1996. Freshwater mussels of Texas. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Inland Fisheries Division, Austin. 218 p. Jackson, J. A. 1994. Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis). In: A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. The birds of North America, No. 85. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia PA, and the American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. Kenaga, E.E. 1979. Acute and chronic toxicity of 75 pesticides to various animal species. Down to Earth 35(2): 25–31. Komarek, E.V., Sr. 1969. Fire and animal behavior. Proceedings Annual Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference10: 161–207. Mayack, D.T.; Bush, P.B.; Neary, D.G.; Douglas, J. E. 1982. Impact of hexazinone on invertebrates after application to forested watersheds. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology (11): 209–217. McLean, S. R. 1992. On the calculation of suspended load for noncohesive sediments, Journal Geophysical Research 97(C4): 5759–5770.

171 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

McMurry, S.T.; Lochmiller, R.L.; Boggs, J.F.; Leslie, D.M., Jr.; Engle, D.M. 1993a. Woodrat population dynamics following modification of resource availability. American Midland Naturalist 129(2): 248–256. Mirowsky K.; Horner, P. 1997. Roosting ecology of two rare vespertilionid bats, the southeastern myotis and Rafinesque's big-eared bat in east Texas. 1996 Annual Report (20 June 1997), Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Resource Protection Division, Austin, TX. National Invasive Species Council. 2001. Program elements based on high priority management actions identified by the National Invasive Species Council. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. 2006. Version 1.6. Arlington, VA, USA: NatureServe. [http://natureserve.org/explorer]. Neary, D.G.; Bush, P.B.; Michael, J.L. 1993. Fate, dissipation and environmental effects of pesticides in southern forests: A review of a decade of research progress. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (12): 411–428. Oesch, R.D. 1984. Missouri naiades, A guide to the mussels of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, 270 p. Peterson. 1999. [Personal observation]. USDA Forest Service. Syracuse Environmental Research Associates (SERA), Inc. 2003a. Glyphosate - human health and ecological risk assessment: final report. March 1. SERA TR-02-43-09- 04ac. 281 p. SERA. 2003b. Triclopyr - human health and ecological risk assessment: final report. March 15. SERA TR-02-43-13-03b. 264 p. SERA. 2003c. Picloram - human health and ecological risk assessment: final report. June 30. SERA TR-03-43-16-01b. 133 p. SERA. 2004a. Clopyralid - human health and ecological risk assessment: final report. December 5. SERA TR-04-43-17-03c. 154 p. SERA. 2004b. Imazapic - human health and ecological risk assessment: final report. December 23. SERA TR-04-43-17-04b. 110 p. SERA. 2004c. Imazapyr - human health and ecological risk assessment: final report. December 18. SERA TR-04-43-17-05b. 149 p. SERA. 2004d. Dicamba - human health and ecological risk assessment: final report. November 24. SERA TR-04-43-17-06d. 179 p. SERA. 2004e. Metsulfuron methyl - human health and ecological risk assessment: final report. December 9. SERA TR-04-43-17-01b. 152 p. SERA. 2004f. Sulfumeturon methyl - human health and ecological risk assessment. final report. December 14. SERA TR-04-43-17-02c. 163 p. SERA. 2005. Hexazinone - human health and ecological risk assessment: final report. October 25. SERA TR-05-43-20-03d. 281 p.

172 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Tipping, P. 2007. [Personal communication]. May 30. Invasive Plant Research Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service. USDA-Forest Service. 1989. Final environmental impact statement vegetation management in the Coastal Plain Piedmont. Management bulletin R8-MB 15; USDA- Forest Service, Southern Region, Atlanta, GA. USDA-Forest Service. 1995. Record of decision and final environmental impact statement for the management of red-cockaded woodpecker and its habitat on ational forests in the southern region. USDA-Forest Service, Southern Region, Atlanta, GA. USDA-Forest Service. 1996. Land and resource management plan for the National Forests and Grasslands in Texas, as amended. 308 p. USDA-Forest Service. 2000. National Forests and Grasslands in Texas monitoring and evaluation report (1997–1999). USDA-Forest Service. 2002a. USDA-Forest Service southern regional framework for non-native invasive plant species. USDA-Forest Service. 2002b. National Forests and Grasslands in Texas monitoring and evaluation report (2000–2001). USDA-Forest Service. 2002c. National Forests and Grasslands in Texas monitoring and evaluation report (2002–2003). USDA-Forest Service. 2005a. Forest Service southern regional framework for non-native invasive plant species. USDA-Forest Service. 2005b. Vegetation management in the Coastal Plain/Piedmont, USDA-Forest Service, Southern Region, January 1989. Management bulletin R8- MB-23. USDA-Forest Service. 2005c. National Forests and Grasslands in Texas monitoring and evaluation report (2004). USDI-Bureau of Land Management. 2005. Contract No. NAD010156, ENSR Document Number 09090-020-650, Ecological Risk Assessment, ENSR International. USDI-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Handbook of acute toxicity of chemicals to fish and aquatic invertebrates. Resource Publication Number 137, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. USDI-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; final rule to reclassify the bald eagle from endangered to threatened in all of the lower 48. Federal Register 50 CFR Part 17, v.60, n.133 July 12, 1995:35999- 36010. USDI-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Recovery plan for the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis): second revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 296 p. Van Lear, D.H.; Johnson, V.J. 1983. Effects of prescibed burning in the Southern Appalachian and Upper Piedmont forests: a review. In: Forestry Bulletin 36. Clemson University, Department of Forestry, Clemson, SC.

173 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

Wan, M.T.K. 1989. The persistence of glyphosate and its metabolite, amino-methyl- phosophonic acid, in some coastal Bristish Columbia streams. Environment Canada, Environmental Protection Service, Pacific and Yukon Region, Regional Program Rep. 85-0. Williams, L.R.; Taylor, C.M.; Warren, M.L.,Jr.; Clingenpeel, J.A. 2003. Environmental variability, historical contingency, and the structure of regional fish and macroinvertebrate faunas in Ouachita Mountain stream systems. Environmental Biology of Fishes 67: 203–216.

174 The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Project Environmental Assessment

This document is available in large print. Contact the NFGT National Forest Supervisor’s Office 1-936-639-8501 TTY 1- 936-639-8560

Recycling 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 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, D.C. 20250- 9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

175