Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

United States Environmental Assessment Department of Agriculture

Forest Blue Buck Hawkweed Project Service

July 2008 Methow Valley Ranger District Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forest Okanogan County, Washington

For Information Contact: John Newcom District Ranger 24 West Chewuch Winthrop, WA. 98862 Phone: (509)996-4003

Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

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. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call toll free (866) 632-9992 (voice). TDD users can contact USDA through local relay or the Federal relay at (800) 877-8339 (TDD) or (866) 377-8642 (relay voice). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

Table of Contents

Summary…...... S

Chapter 1 Introduction………………………………………………………………….1-1

Document Structure………………………………………………………..1-1

Background…………………………………………………………………1-1

Purpose and Need for Action…………………………………………...... 1-4

Proposed Action…………………………………………………………….1-5

Public Involvement…………………………………………………………1-6

Issues………………………………………………………………………..1-6

Chapter 2 Alternatives, including the Proposed Action…………………………..2-1

Alternatives………………………………………………………………...2-1

Mitigation Common to All Alternatives…………………………………..2-2

Comparison of Alternatives……………………………………………….2-5

Chapter 3 Environmental Consequences…………………………………………….3-1

Invasive Plants……………………………….…………………….………3-2 Terrestrial Wildlife………………………………………………….……...3-10 Botany………………………………………………………………………3-25 Hydrology…………………………………………………………….…….3-34 Soils…………………………………………………………………….…..3-43 Range Management……………………………………………………...3-50 Aquatic Resources…………………………………………………….….3-56 Human Health………………………………………………………….….3-69 Other Required Disclosures……………………………………………. 3-70

Chapter 4 Consultation and Coordination……..…………………………………….4-1

Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

List of Figures and Appendices

Figures Page Number

Figure 2-1. Comparison of Alternatives 2-7

Figure 3.0-1 Established, new and potential invaders found within or adjacent to the Blue Buck Hawkweed project area. 3-2

Figure 3.0-2 Existing invasive plant characteristics. 3-3

Figure 3.0-3 Amounts of herbicide application over a 10 year period. 3-8

Figure 3.2-1 List of sensitive species in special areas at potential risk from orange hawkweed invasion. 3-30

Figure 3.3-1 Concentration levels when sprayed 10 ft from stream. 3-37

Figure 3.3-2 Concentration levels when sprayed 50 ft from stream. 3-38

Figure 3.3-1 Concentration levels when sprayed 100 ft from stream. 3-38

Figure 3.3-2 Concentration levels when sprayed 1 ft from stream. 3-39

Figure 3.3-5 Saturated soil water movement by soil hydraulic conductivity and slope gradient. 3-40

Figure 3.4-1 General research findings of pertinent herbicide characteristics relating to soils. 3-48

Figure 3.5-1 Volstead pasture acres within the Tripod Fire. 3-51

Figure 3.6-1 Sensitive fish distribution in project area. 3-61

Figure 3.6-2 Comparison of surface fine sediment data in Beaver Creek and Blue Buck Creek 2007 vs. 2004. 3-62

Appendices

Appendix A References

Appendix B Spill Plan

Appendix C Project Maps

Appendix D Plant List

Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

SUMMARY

The Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forest proposes to treat a population of orange hawkweed (Hieracium aurantiacum) by implementing an integrated weed management approach and early detection and rapid response (EDRR). The project includes the use of chemical herbicides applied by back pack pumps and monitoring of treated sites. The project area is located in the Blue Buck, Beaver and the southern portion of the Boulder Creek drainages east of Winthrop and is located on the Methow Valley Ranger District, Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forest, Washington. This action is needed because the proposed treatment area is not currently covered in a Forest wide invasive species planning document that allows treating invasive species with the use of herbicides. A Forest wide noxious weed document is expected to be completed in 2009. The proposed action is designed to control the populations of orange hawkweed in the Blue Buck Creek drainage and lead to eventual eradication. The treatments may restore and retain healthy plant communities, biodiversity and overall ecosystem integrity. Potential effects on TES plant, wildlife, fish, and other resources would be mitigated by applying mitigation measures (see Mitigation Measures Common to All Alternatives in Chapter 2). Potential effects on human health from herbicides would also be mitigated by following mitigation measures in Chapter 2. In addition to the proposed action, the Forest Service also evaluated the following alternatives: Alternative 1: No Action, orange hawkweed continues to spread by rhizomes, stolons and seeds into suitable habitats in the analysis area and beyond (See Vicinity Map in Appendix C). Alternative 2: Proposed Action, treat upland sites by spot spraying with picloram (Tordon) or clopyralid (Transline). Sites within 15 feet of water would be treated by hand-wicking the aquatic formulation of glyphosate (Rodeo). Orange hawkweed sites that occur outside the 15 foot buffer and out to the RHCA boundary would be treated with clopyralid by hand spraying with a backpack sprayer. As part of an integrated weed management approach, geotextile cloth would also be used in suitable and appropriate sites (a monoculture of orange hawkweed at least 100 sq ft in area, relatively flat and no obstructions). The proposed action would prevent spread, reduce sites and eventually eradicate the weed in the analysis area. Proposed acres to be treated include 11 acres of existing orange hawkweed plus up to 25% more for any new detections within the project area. The actual size of the total project area is about 13,836 acres (See Proposed Action Project Area Map in Appendix C). Alternative 3. Manual removal of flower heads and the use of geotextile cloth in appropriate areas; no use of herbicides, reduces seed production for the year but stimulates stolon growth, so reduces potential for new adjacent sites from seed dispersal but enlarges existing sites. Geotextile cloth would reduce spread, seed production and seed dispersal when used in suitable areas. Proposed acres to be treated include 11 acres of existing orange hawkweed plus up to 25% more for any new detections (See Vicinity Map in Appendix C). Based upon the effects of the alternatives, the responsible official will decide whether or not to implement weed treatment activities, modify weed treatment activities and if weed treatments are chosen, what mitigation and monitoring measures are needed.

Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

CHAPTER 1

Purpose and Need

INTRODUCTION Document Structure ______The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. The document is organized into four Chapters and Appendices: Summary Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action: This section includes information on the history of the project proposal, the purpose of and need for the project, and the agency’s proposal for achieving that purpose and need. This section also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded. Chapter 2. Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This section provides a more detailed description of the agency’s proposed action as well as alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose. These alternatives were developed based on significant issues raised by the public and other agencies. This discussion also includes mitigation measures. Finally, this section provides a summary table of the environmental consequences associated with each alternative. Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences: This section displays the expected effects to the environment that would occur with the implementation of alternatives presented in Chapter 2. The scientific and analytical basis for the alternative comparison at the end of Chapter 2 is presented here. Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination: A list of the other agencies and organizations that were consulted on the project, as well as a list of the interdisciplinary team members. Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the analyses presented in the environmental assessment. Background______The Methow Valley Ranger District on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest contains a population of orange hawkweed (Hieracium aurantiacum) in the Blue Buck Creek drainage east of Winthrop, Okanogan County, WA. Washington State classifies orange hawkweed as a Class B noxious weed. The state has developed regions within which orange hawkweed is designated for control. Okanogan County lies within a region where control of orange hawkweed is required by law. Orange hawkweed is classified as

1-1 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

a “New Invader” noxious weed species by the Okanogan County Noxious Weed Control Board. “New Invaders” are invasive plant species that occur sporadically on the Forest, may be controlled by preventing seed production and early treatment, and poses a very serious threat. Further information is available from the State and County Noxious Weed Control Boards at http://www.nwcb.wa.gov. and http://okanogancounty.org/nw/new%20invader.htm. The population in Blue Buck Creek is the only one known to exist on the Methow Valley Ranger District. The current population consists of 1 patch approximately 10 acres in size and several nearby patches each less than 1/10 acre in size. Each of the patches is within timber sale units that were harvested in the 1980’s and were burned in the Tripod wildfire.

A weed is a plant growing where it is not desired, or any plant that is a nuisance, a hazard, or causes injury to humans, animals or desired plants. Noxious weeds are defined by law as non-native, undesirable, or difficult to control. Both FS National and PNW Region Noxious Weed Strategies use the term “noxious weeds” to broadly encompass all invasive, aggressive, or harmful non-indigenous species. The more recent term used by the Forest Service is “invasive plants”, which are defined as nonnative plants likely to cause economic harm, environmental harm or harm to human health (Executive Order 13112, 1999). The terms “invasive plant species”, “noxious weeds” and “weeds” are used interchangeably in this document because orange hawkweed is both an invasive plant and a State designated noxious weed.

This document will analyze the site specific effects of proposed herbicide treatments aimed at managing the existing weed infestations as well as treating new orange hawkweed infestations if spreading occurs within the project area. This analysis will also address alternatives to the proposed action. The proposed treatments were designed to meet Forest Plan guidance and State and Federal noxious weed laws.

PURPOSE AND NEED Direction, Policy and Guidance______Direction is provided by and tiers to the:

Okanogan National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan final Environmental Impact Statement and it’s accompanying Forest Plan (Forest Plan, 1989); Pacific Northwest Invasive Plant Program Final Environmental Impact Statement, Record of Decision (USDA Forest Service 2005b), hereafter referred to as the R6 2005 ROD; Environmental Assessment and Decision Notice for the Implementation of Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish-producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and Portions of California (PACFISH, 1995).

The project area is allocated to management areas 14 (general wildlife) and 25 (general forest).

The R6 2005 ROD amended the Okanogan Forest Plan. It emphasizes the elimination or control of invasive plants to attain desired conditions, and the maintenance of land

1-2 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

manager’s ability to provide goods and services from National Forest System lands (ROD, page 3), and adopts 7 prevention standards and 12 treatment and restoration standards. The R6 2005 ROD’s goal is to “retain healthy native plant communities that are diverse and resilient, and restore ecosystems that are being damaged, and to provide high quality habitat for native organisms throughout the forest, and assure that invasive plants do not jeopardize the ability of the forest to provide goods and services communities expect.” PACFISH requires that herbicides be applied in a manner that does not retard or prevent attainment of Riparian Management Objectives and avoids adverse effects to listed anadromous fish (PACFISH, page C-17).

Policy for this project is provided in the National Strategy and Implementation Plan for Invasive Species Management (USDA Forest Service 2004). This document uses a strategy of prevention, early detection and rapid response (EDRR), control and management, and rehabilitation and restoration. This strategy is used to meet the goal to reduce, minimize, or eliminate the potential for introduction, establishment, spread, and impacts of invasive species across all landscapes and ownerships. Direction is also provides by the USDA-Forest Service Guide to Noxious Weed Prevention Practices (USDA, 2001d) and the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests Weed Management and Prevention Strategy (OWNF, 2002). These documents are incorporated by reference and each requires steps that everyone (decision makers, project planners, managers, etc.) need to take to prevent invasive plant occurrences. They also support implementation of Executive Order 13112 on Invasive Species (February 3, 1999). The order directs all Federal agencies to use relevant programs and authorities to:

1. prevent the introduction of invasive species; 2. detect and respond rapidly to and control populations of such species in a cost- effective and environmentally sound manner; 3. monitor invasive species populations accurately and reliably; 4. provide for restoration of native species and habitat conditions in ecosystems that have been invaded; 5. conduct research on invasive species and develop technologies to prevent introduction and provide for environmentally sound control of invasive species; 6. promote public education on invasive species and the means to address them.

Guidance for desired conditions in the project area is found in the 1997 Middle Methow Watershed Assessment and the 1994 Chewuch River Watershed Assessment. Most of the project area lies within the Middle Methow River watershed. The Middle Methow watershed analysis describes how changes in landscape attributes and increased human activities have affected resources; one of these changes is the introduction and spread of noxious weeds. The analysis describes the types of habitats that are favoring noxious weeds infestations. The objective relevant to this project states that noxious weed populations, including new invaders, should be controlled or eradicated.

A small portion of the northwest corner of the project area falls within the Chewuch River Watershed. The Chewuch River Watershed Assessment gives guidance for future management activities regarding noxious weeds. Objectives relevant to this project include: develop, implement, and monitor integrated noxious weed management implementation plans to all areas that have experienced soil-disturbing activities. Utilize prevention, no action, early treatment, maintenance, and correction strategies to restore affected native plant communities, replace forage for wildlife and livestock, reduce soil erosion and improve water quality.

1-3 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

This area is currently not covered in the existing Forest wide invasive species planning documents that allows treating invasive species with the use of herbicides. A Forest - wide invasive plant document is expected to be completed in 2009 which is not in time to treat before seed set in 2008.

Purpose and Need for Action ______A new population of orange hawkweed in the Blue Buck drainage of the Methow Valley Ranger District is spreading. This is the only known population of this species on the District. Because the initial infestation was relatively small, initial control attempts focused on manual methods. The Forest Plan, R6 2005 ROD, National and Forest policy all emphasize early treatment of invasive plant populations. The purpose of this project is to control or eradicate the population of orange hawkweed as quickly as possible.

The following biological information on orange hawkweed is from Callihan et. al. (1997) and Wilson and Callihan (1999). Orange hawkweed is a perennial plant native to northern Europe. It has a fibrous root system that prefers well-drained, coarse-textured soils that are low in organic matter. It can invade natural open areas and disturbed sites, including roadsides, mountain meadows, and forest openings. It can reproduce by seeds, stolons, rhizomes, and buds on the roots. Most new orange hawkweed infestations are started by seeds and most expansion of established populations is from vegetative spread. Once the weed is established, vigorous stolon growth quickly expands the population. Orange hawkweed plants produce from 3 to 8 long, slender stolons. The roots and root buds of orange hawkweed produce phytotoxins (plant poisons) into the soil that inhibit the growth of other plants. Flower and stem removal stimulates both stolon and root bud production, thus increasing the spread rate. Once established, hawkweed quickly develops into a patch that continues to expand until it covers the site with a solid mat of rosettes with as many as 3,200 plants per square yard. A dense mat of hawkweed plants displaces other vegetation and poses a serious threat to native plant communities.

Orange hawkweed seed is dispersed by wind, water, wildlife, and humans. The seeds have a tuft of bristles on one end that are more than twice as long as the seed that allows for wind dispersal. In addition, the seed tufts stick to fur, feathers, hair, clothing, and vehicles. Each orange hawkweed flower produces 12-30 seeds and there are 10-50 flowers per plant (Jacobs and Weise 2007, Wilson and Callihan 1999). With up to 3200 plants per square yard (Jacobs and Weise 2007), even if only half of them flowered there could be as many as 2.4 million seeds produced from one square yard infested with the plant, or over 11 billion seeds produced on 1 acre of solid orange hawkweed. Orange hawkweed is capable of asexual reproduction, meaning it only takes one seed for a new plant to grow and further proliferate by producing more seed. The seeds remain viable for up to 7 years.

1-4 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

now surrounded by thousands of acres of forest that burned intensely in 2006, had very little vegetative recovery in 2007, and thus provides a suitable seedbed and habitat for orange hawkweed.

There is a need for eradication of the current orange hawkweed infestations and prevention of new infestations to maintain healthy native plant communities that are diverse and resilient, restore ecosystems that have been damaged by this population of hawkweed, and provide for future high quality habitat. Proposed Action ______The action proposed by the Forest Service to meet the purpose and need includes treating sites in the Blue Buck project area using herbicides and geotextile cloth. Treatment would implement an integrated weed management approach and early detection and rapid response (EDRR) approach. The orange hawkweed populations in this area occur in patches that vary in size with one patch estimated to be 10 acres. Acres to be treated include 11 acres of existing orange hawkweed plus up to 25% more for any new detections within the 13,836 acre project area.

Orange hawkweed plants that are outside of riparian areas would be spot sprayed with picloram (Tordon) or clopyralid (Transline). Orange hawkweed plants that are within the boundaries of Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) would be treated with aquatic formulation of glyphosate (Rodeo) or clopyralid (Transline). Within 15 feet of open water orange hawkweed would be treated by hand-wicking the aquatic formulation of glyphosate (Rodeo). Application of herbicides by hand-wicking involves using a long handled tool with a wick at the end, soaked with glyphosate, that allows the applicator to treat target species while reducing impacts of herbicide on non-target species. Orange hawkweed sites that occur from the 15 foot buffer out to the RHCA boundary would be spot sprayed with clopyralid using a backpack sprayer. Herbicides would be applied with a nozzle that produces droplet sizes in the 200-800 um range to decrease the amount of drift from herbicide application. The chemicals selected for these sites provide the highest likelihood of eradication with a minimum of re-treatments while presenting minimal risk to non-target organisms. The surfactants that would be used are LI-700 or Agri-dex. Application rates will not exceed label directions.

As part of an integrated weed management approach, a geotextile cloth would also be used in suitable and appropriate sites. A suitable and appropriate site would be one with a monoculture of orange hawkweed at least 100 sq ft in area, relatively flat, no water, and no large rocks, stumps, shrubs or other obstructions.

1-5 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

Treated sites will receive follow-up treatments and monitoring in years 2008-2018. As sites decease in size, monitoring of sites will most likely replace herbicide treatment of sites.

DECISION FRAMEWORK ______Given the purpose and need, the deciding official reviews the proposed action and the other alternatives in order to make the following decisions: Whether or not to implement weed treatment activities. Whether or not to modify weed treatment activities. If weed treatments are chosen, what mitigation and monitoring measures are needed. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ______The proposal was listed in the Okanogan and Wenatchee Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions on March, 2008. The proposal was provided to the public and other agencies for comment during scoping March 28, 2008. Government to government letters were sent to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation and the Yakama Nation in March, 2008. Neither tribe raised any issues regarding the project. Using the comments received during scoping, the interdisciplinary team developed a list of issues to address. Issues ______Significant issues were defined as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action. One issue was identified.

Herbicide exposure above a threshold of concern for people and the environment. a. Human health There is a concern that the use of herbicides to control the orange hawkweed infestation would have potential impacts on human health.

Indicator: Would proposed herbicide use result in exposure to workers or the public associated with adverse health effects (y or n). b. Bull trout There is a concern that the use of herbicides to control the orange hawkweed infestation would have potential impacts on bull trout via herbicide delivery to water.

Indicator: Consistency with Aquatic Restoration Biological Opinion. The Aquatic Restoration Biological Opinion “cite properly” provides limitations on use of herbicides to restore riparian areas affected by invasive plants such as orange hawkweed. c. Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive plants There is a concern that use of herbicides to control the orange hawkweed infestation would have potential impacts on threatened, endangered, and Sensitive plants. Glyphosate is a non-selective herbicide.

1-6 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

Indicator: Number of herbicide treatment sites within 100 of TES plants d. Soil Biology There is a concern that use of herbicides to control the orange hawkweed infestation may affect soil biology. The R6 2005 ROD indicated that picloram may affect soil productivity and microorganisms. Picloram is persistent and can accumulate in soil over time.

Indicator: Acres of picloram use with mitigation. e. Water Quality There is a concern that use of herbicides to control the orange hawkweed infestation may affect water quality. Picloram is a mobile and persistent herbicide that may have adverse effects on aquatic ecosystems. Glyphosate is not persistent but may cause non-lethal adverse effects on fish.

Indicator: acres of aquatic glyphosate within 15 feet of a stream f. Herbicide Delivery to wildlife

There is a concern that use of herbicides to control the orange hawkweed infestation may affect wildlife. The R6 2005 FEIS found that adverse effects to grass and insect eating animals and amphibians may occur from use of the herbicides proposed.

Indicator: none

1-7 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Blue Buck Hawkweed project. It includes a description and map of each alternative considered. This section also presents the alternatives in comparative form, sharply defining the differences between each alternative and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision maker and the public. Some of the information used to compare the alternatives is based upon the design of the alternative (i.e., herbicide treatment versus the use hand pulling) and some of the information is based upon the environmental effects of implementing each alternative (i.e., effects of herbicide on water quality and threatened, endangered and sensitive plants, fish and wildlife). Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study_

Use of geotextile cloth on all areas of orange hawkweed was considered but eliminated from detailed study because this method is only practical in areas that are relatively flat and without trees, shrubs, stumps, rocks, and other obstructions. It may have the potential to be effective on small road-side populations in the Blue Buck area, but would not be feasible for the sites on forested slopes. Alternatives ______

Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative, current management plans would continue to guide management of the project area. No herbicide or manual treatments would be implemented to accomplish project goals.

Alternative 2 The Proposed Action – Herbicide Application and Geotextile Cloth This alternative is the proposed action that would use herbicide application and geotextile cloth to implement integrated weed management in the project area. Geotextile cloth would be used in suitable and appropriate sites. A suitable and appropriate site would be one with a monoculture of orange hawkweed at least 100 sq ft in area, relatively flat, no water, and no large rocks, stumps, shrubs or other obstructions. Treated areas using the geotextile cloth would not exceed 1000 square feet.

2-1 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

aquatic formulation of glyphosate (Rodeo) or clopyralid (Transline). Within 15 feet of open water orange hawkweed would be treated by hand-wicking the aquatic formulation of glyphosate (Rodeo). Application of herbicides by hand-wicking involves using a long handled tool with a wick at the end, soaked with glyphosate, that allows the applicator to treat target species while reducing impacts of herbicide on non-target species. Orange hawkweed sites that occur from the 15 foot buffer out to the RHCA boundary would be spot sprayed with clopyralid using a backpack sprayer. Herbicides would be applied with a nozzle that produces droplet sizes in the 200-800 um range to decrease the amount of drift from herbicide application. The chemicals selected for these sites provide the highest likelihood of eradication with a minimum of re-treatments while presenting minimal risk to non-target organisms. The surfactants that would be used are LI-700 or Agri-dex. Application rates will not exceed label directions.

Proposed acres to be treated include 11 acres of existing orange hawkweed plus up to 25% more for any new detections within the project area. The actual size of the total project area is about 13,836 acres (See Proposed Action Project Area Map in Appendix C). All existing sites will be treated. Follow-up treatments in following years will likely be required until all existing seed source has been depleted. The amount treated each year should be less than half of that treated the previous year and monitoring will be the primary management activity.

Alternative 3 Manual Treatment and Geotextile Cloth This alternative responds to the significant issue related to the use of herbicides. With this alternative, manually removing flower heads and using a geotextile cloth in suitable and appropriate sites would be the only treatment method used to implement orange hawkweed management in the project area. A suitable and appropriate site would be one with a monoculture of orange hawkweed at least 100 sq ft in area, relatively flat, no water, and no large rocks, stumps, shrubs or other obstructions. Treated areas using the geotextile cloth would not exceed 1000 square feet. Geotextile cloth would reduce spread, seed production and seed dispersal when used in suitable areas. Proposed acres to be treated include 11 acres of existing orange hawkweed plus up to 25% more for any new detections.

Mitigation Common to All Alternatives ______In response to public comments and agency concerns about the proposal, mitigation measures were developed to ease some of the potential impacts the various alternatives may cause. The mitigation measures are an integral part of the alternatives and would be applied to any of the action alternatives, where applicable (i.e. herbicide related mitigation measures only apply to Alternative 2). Human Health 1. The MSDS will be posted at storage facilities and in vehicles, and made available to workers. These provide physical and chemical data, fire or reactivity data, specific health hazard information, spill or leak procedures, instructions for worker hygiene, and special precautions.

2-2 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

2. Herbicides will be applied when wind speed is less than 10 miles per hour. Additional environmental conditions, including relative humidity, air temperature, chemical persistence, and times since last rainfall will be used to determine application timing.

3. Nozzle type and size will produce droplets between 200-800 um in size to minimize drift.

4. The lowest effective labeled rates for the herbicides picloram, glyphosate, clopyralid will be used. Spot spraying will not exceed typical rates.

5. Herbicides will be applied by certified and licensed applicators, or by applicators under the direct supervision of licensed applicators.

6. In areas that within 15 feet from open water an aquatic formulation of the herbicide glyphosate will be applied by hand-wicking. Orange hawkweed from 15 feet to the RHCA boundary will be treated by spot-spraying clopyralid with a low pressure nozzle.

7. Herbicides will contain a colored dye. Only adjuvant (e.g. surfactants, dyes) and inert ingredients reviewed in Forest Service hazard and risk assessment documents will be used.

8. Herbicide application workers will be informed of known potential human health impacts from the herbicides to be used and provided copies of the relevant methods and information profiles. Workers not wishing to be exposed to glyphosate, picloram and clopyralid will be given alternate work assignments.

9. Personal protective equipment (PPE) such as gloves, long-sleeved shirts, boots, and safety glasses will be worn by all workers involved in herbicide mixing, loading, and backpack applications. Where specific items of protective clothing are optional, they must be on the work site at all times during application. Workers will wear a clean set of clothes daily, and should have a complete change of clothes available at the work site in case of accidental exposure.

10. An emergency eyewash unit and other washing facilities with an adequate supply of soap and uncontaminated water will be available at each work site.

11. Precautions will be taken to assure that equipment used for storage, transport, mixing, or application of herbicides will not leak (see separate spill plan in Appendix B). Areas used for mixing herbicides and cleaning equipment will be located outside riparian areas, in locations where spillage will not run into surface waters or result in groundwater contamination.

12. Buffers will be established along areas of concern, such as sensitive plant locations. Where areas of concern exist, the appropriate specialist will assist in project implementation to ensure resources protection. Local conditions could require adjustment of the buffer based on topography, soil, weather, non-adverse impacts to non-target organisms and water quality, or other site-specific conditions.

13. Prior to implementation of herbicide projects, National Forest system staff will ensure timely public notification. Treatment areas will be posted to inform the public and

2-3 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

forest workers of herbicide application dates and herbicides used. If requested, individuals may be notified in advance of spray dates.

Vegetation 1. Although sensitive plant surveys have already been done, pre-treatment surveys would be conducted for TES and rare or uncommon species. If TES and rare or uncommon plant species are located buffers would be developed to ensure TES and rare or uncommon plant species would not be impacted. 2. Applicators will be trained to identify TES and rare or uncommon plants. Fish 1. To mitigate adverse impacts to threatened fish species, orange hawkweed plants that are within the boundaries of RHCAs would be treated with aquatic formulation of glyphosate (Rodeo) or clopyralid (Transline). Within 15 feet of open water orange hawkweed would be treated by hand-wicking the aquatic formulation of glyphosate (Rodeo). Orange hawkweed sites that occur from the 15 foot buffer out to the RHCA boundary would be spot sprayed with clopyralid using a backpack sprayer. Picloram is not to be applied where soils have rapid to very rapid permeability (such as loamy sand to sand) and the water table is shallow, or where soils have severely fractured surfaces, and substrates that would allow direct introduction to groundwater.

Comparison of Alternatives ______This section provides a summary of the effects of implementing each alternative, and a synopsis of issue related environmental consequences for the key issue units or measure. Information in the table is focused on activities and effects where different levels of effects or outputs can be distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives. More detail will be provided in the specific resource discussions in Chapter 3 in the final EA. Figure 2-1 presents a snapshot of the key features of all alternatives.

Preferred Alternative Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) is the Forest Service preferred alternative. This alternative would implement integrated weed management activities while maintaining other resource characteristics. At this time, the Proposed Action represents the best recommendation for containment, control, and eventual eradication of orange hawkweed. It is designed to achieve the objectives discussed in Chapter 1, The Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action.

2-4 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

Figure 2-1. Comparison of Alternatives

Purpose and Need and Issue Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Components No Action Proposed Action Manual Treatment and Geotextile Cloth Eradication of current orange Yes. Prevention of seed hawkweed infestations and any dispersal and elimination of site No. Treatments would reduce No. Population would continue new infestations if spreading expansion would occur. but not eliminate seed to increase and spread into the occurs. Eradication likely to due to dispersal and would accelerate surrounding area. effectiveness of herbicide expansion of existing sites. treatment. Desired future condition is to No. Native plant communities No. Native plant communities Yes. Eradication of orange restore and retain native plant would be replaced with would be replaced with hawkweed and return to native communities and biodiversity monoculture of hawkweed monoculture of hawkweed plant communities. (ecosystem integrity). Implementation of integrated No Yes Yes weed management. Potential effects on human Yes, but proposed herbicide health from herbicides use would not result in No No exposures associated with adverse health effects. Potential effects on bull trout Yes, but buffers for herbicide from herbicides. use near streams have been No established that are consistent No with the Aquatic Restoration BO. Potential effects on TES plants Yes, but there are no known from herbicides. TES plants near treatment No sites and treatment sites will be No surveyed again prior to treatment. Potential effects on soil biology Yes, however types of from herbicides. No herbicides proposed for No treatment minimize effects.

2-5 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

Purpose and Need and Issue Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Components No Action Proposed Action Manual Treatment and Geotextile Cloth Potential effects on water Yes, however the small amount quality from herbicides. of treatment relative to the size of the area, and the herbicide No No use buffers proposed nearly eliminates adverse effects occurring to water quality. Weed treatment workers (total None 3 (135) 8 (1920+) worker-days) Total annual weed treatments None 45 for the ten year period 240+ for the ten year period (all methods)

2-6 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

Chapter 3

Environmental Consequences

This chapter displays the expected effects to the environment that would occur with the implementation of alternatives presented in Chapter 2. The scientific and analytical basis for the alternative comparison at the end of chapter 2 is presented here.

Environmental consequences are described in terms of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. Direct effects are those caused by the action, occurring at the same time and place. Indirect effects are caused by the action later in time or further removed in distance but are still reasonably predicted. Cumulative effects are the overall effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Each resource has a unique set of other actions that have cumulative effects with that particular resource because each resource has a unique geographical and temporal boundary for overlapping effects. The effects of past and present actions affecting resources are described as part of the existing condition information. A summary of the past and present actions follows:

Grazing The Blue Buck Hawkweed project area is within the Volstead unit of the Beaver grazing allotment. Under the current Allotment Management Plan the Volstead unit is grazed every year from approximately June 15 to July 24 by 140 cow/calf pairs. As a result of the Tripod wildfire this unit was rested in 2007, will be rested in 2008, and will likely be rested in 2009 to allow the landscape to recover from the effects of the fire.

Timber Management The Blue Buck Creek drainage was the location for 3 timber sales and the accompanied road building. The Split, Blue, and Blue Fly timber sales were each planned and implemented in the mid to late 1980s.

Fire The Tripod Wildfire of 2006 burned over 174,000 acres of mid and high elevation forest land. The Blue Buck hawkweed population is several miles within the boundary of the fire. Burn severities for the entire area were estimated to be 24% high, 27% moderate, 47% low, and 2% unburned. Burn severities for the Blue Buck Hawkweed project area were estimated to be 50% high, 32% moderate, and 18% low. Based on field surveys conducted in 2007, there was little vegetative recovery in the areas of high and moderate burn severity, and so those areas remain an open seedbed and susceptible to invasive plant species.

Tripod Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation (BAER) Much of the Blue Buck watershed had emergency treatments to reduce the potential damage to downstream property and human life. Certified wheat straw was applied by helicopter to give about 70% ground cover (1 ton/acre of straw). In addition emergency road treatments were completed to protect the roads from high intensity runoff. Ditches were cleared of debris, so they would be able to carry expected increases in overland flow. Road surfaces were graded and existing relief culverts were cleaned to divert road

3-1 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

ditch water to safe runoff locations. Additional relief culverts were installed on the steeper roads to keep ditch water from accumulating and causing road damage. Hydro- mulching of the disturbed road cuts and fills was completed to control erosion and retard infestations of other noxious weeds. In addition, a culvert was replaced near the mouth of Blue Buck Creek to increase the likelihood that it would pass the expected higher streamflow. Effectiveness monitoring of BAER related noxious weed treatments are likely continuing in 2008 and any necessary re-treatments will occur if the 2007 treatments were not effective.

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions Future projects not covered by a decision at this time will be thoroughly analyzed and documented in separate environmental documents. There are no future projects being considered for the Blue Buck project area at this time.

3.0 Invasive Plants

Affected Environment

Invasive plant populations on the Okanogan National Forest have been categorized. These categories are used to prioritize invasive species on the Forest list for treating and inventorying. There are 3 categories: 1. “Established Invaders” are those species whose population levels and distribution are such that seed production cannot be prevented. 2. “New Invaders” are invasive plant species that occur sporadically on the Forest and that may be controlled by preventing seed production and early treatment; 3. “Potential Invaders” are invasive plants that occur on lands adjacent to the project area but have not been documented on lands administrated by the Forest. However, the potential for infestation is imminent as described in the Okanogan National Forest Integrated Weed Management Environmental Assessments (USDA 1997 and USDA 2000) (1997 and 2000 Weed EAs).

This project area contains a potential for New Invaders from adjacent private lands due to its proximity to private land.

Figure 3.0-1. Established, new and potential invaders found within or adjacent to the Blue Buck Hawkweed project area. Established Invaders New Invaders Potential Invaders (on Potential Invaders (on (most common): within project adjacent private land, not Forest land adjacent to area: yet on Forest land ): the project area): Bull thistle Orange hawkweed Japanese knotweed Dalmation toadflax Canada thistle Yellow Starthistle Oxeye daisy Common mullein Hoary Alyssum Whitetop Bulbous bluegrass Musk thistle Cheatgrass Diffuse knapweed

3-2 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

Figure 3.0-2. Existing invasive plant characteristics (includes the most common established invader weeds). SPECIES CHARACTERISTICS

Diffuse knapweed An annual or short-lived perennial with a long tap root; highly competitive in disturbed areas; occupies a wide range of habitats; Centaurea diffusa not tolerant of shade or flooding; thrives in gravel pits, roadsides, and heavily grazed areas; reproduces primarily by seed and is dispersed as plant breaks off a the base and tumbles or attaches to vehicles. Whitetop A perennial with deep creeping roots; one of the earliest perennial Carderia draba weeds to emerge in the spring; highly competitive once it becomes established; reproduction mainly by creeping roots; can establish under a wide variety of environmental and climatic conditions, mainly spread by vehicles and contaminated hay. Musk Thistle An aggressive biennial that spreads rapidly to form dense stands up to 6 ft. tall, often displacing desirable plants. It invades open natural Carduus nutans L. areas, roadsides and waste places, can lead to severe degradation of native grasslands and meadows. Oxeye daisy An aggressive perennial; invader of open forest, meadows and roadsides; strong adventitious roots with branched rhizomes; Chrysanthemum reproduces vegetatively along rhizomes and by seed. leucanthemum Dalmation A perennial reproducing by seed and rhizomes, it is aggressive on toadflax roadsides and rangeland, difficult to control. Linaria dalmatica (Potential Invader) Japanese An escaped ornamental becoming increasingly common along Knotweed stream corridors and rights-of-way in Washington, a perennial with Polygonum spreading rhizomes, can reach 8 feet in height and is often shrubby, cuspidatum very aggressive, capable of crowding out all other vegetation, rarely (Potential Invader) established from seed, primary spread is through mechanical movement of plant parts, several sites in Methow Valley bottom. Diffuse knapweed An annual or short-lived perennial; highly competitive; common Centaurea diffusa along road sides and in well-lit disturbed areas. (Established Invader) Canada thistle A creeping perennial; established slowly; difficult to control because of rhizomes and from adventitious root buds; prolific seed producer; Cirsium arvense seeds dispersed by wind/water in late summer and fall; seeds can (Established survive in soil up to 22 years depending on the depth of burial. Invader) Common mullein A biennial, grows in a wide variety of habitats but prefers well-lit disturbed soils, long-lived seeds persist in the seed bank, spreads Verbascum thapsus by prolific seed production but rarely becomes invasive as seeds (Established require open ground to germinate.

3-3 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

Invader) Bull thistle Highly competitive in newly disturbed sites; common in harvest Circium vulgare units; easily dispersed by wind; persistent for about 3 years and is (Established usually greatly reduced in 5 years as disturbed area revegetates. Invader) Yellow Starthistle A deep taprooted winter annual with long sharp spines; performs (Centaurea best in deep silt loam soils on south slopes but high adaptability to solstitialis L.) most arid rangelands; abundant seed production - 150,000 per plant per season; seeds are plumed and plumeless, plumed seed is spread by wind. Hoary alyssum A member of the mustard family; can be an annual, biennial or (Berteroa incana) perennial; toxic to horses; spreads rapidly due to the high number of seeds per plant; most abundant in disturbed sites but is also found in meadows and pastures and along roadsides; well adapted to dry conditions, particularly in area with sandy to gravelly soils. Orange Hawkweed A perennial with creeping stolons; forms dense patches and rapidly Hieracium invades new areas; mostly vegetative reproduction; dispersed by aurantiacum wind, animals, and people, seeds not carried far by the wind - presumably dispersed > 1 klm, minute barbs on the seeds stick to fur, clothing and vehicles; suitable habitat well above 5000 ft. in mountain meadows. Bulbous Bluegrass A weedy introduced perennial grass, completes its growth cycle in Poa bulbosa the spring and matures ahead of other grasses, often is the first invading species on shallow soils that are moist only during the winter and early spring, often associated with knapweed.

Current Infestations

Invasive plant population levels are relatively low within the project area.

New Invaders The population of orange hawkweed in Blue Buck Creek is the only new invader weed within the project area and is the only one known to exist on the Methow Valley Ranger District. The current population consists of 1 patch approximately 10 acres in size and several nearby patches each less than 1/10 acre in size. Each of the patches is within timber sale units that were harvested in the 1980’s and were burned in the Tripod wildfire.

Established Invaders for all project areas The occurrence of five lower-priority Established Invaders; cheatgrass, Canada thistle, bull thistle, common mullein, and bulbous bluegrass, are fairly widespread throughout the Methow Valley Ranger District. These weeds are so extensive Forest-wide that they are generally not site-specifically inventoried. Common mullein and bull thistle are less invasive and/or persistent than the high priority weeds and generally give way to or do not out-compete most desirable vegetation. It is expected that these lower-priority weeds occur within the analysis area. Bulbous bluegrass is strongly associated with diffuse knapweed. Cheatgrass and Canada thistle are present in relatively small patches in or adjacent to the project area.

3-4 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

Potential Invaders Weed sites outside the project area on state, county, and private lands have potential to spread though vehicle traffic into the project units. These species are listed in Figure 2. The Potential Invader populations are small infestations on the Valley floor currently under treatment administered by the County Noxious Weed Board.

Control methods for Orange Hawkweed

Manual and Mechanical Control These treatments physically remove and destroy, disrupt the growth of, or interfere with the reproduction of invasive plants. Manual treatment would use hand pulling, seed head removal, digging, and/or covering the infestation with geotextile fabric. Hand pulling and seed head removal prevents seed production by removing the flowering stems and hand pulling may remove part of the root but not all. Mechanical control methods are often ineffective since any disturbance of the plant can stimulate new plant growth from roots, stolons, and/or rhizomes (Callihan et. al. 1997). Manually removing flowers or seed heads to stop seed production was attempted on the Blue Buck populations in 2007, but was found to be frustrating, impractical and ineffective. Since flowering continues throughout the summer followed by rapid seed production, many seed head removal treatments would be required each summer to prevent all seed production. Our experience with seed head removal in the Blue Buck hawkweed site found an almost continuous production of flowers requiring a frequency of treatments beyond what was feasible. Also, the cutting of seeds heads promotes an increase in stolon and root growth of the plant. Covering populations with geotextile cloth to deprive the plants of sunlight has been attempted in other areas (Nickelson 2008, Snyder and Shephard 2004). This method is expensive, time-intensive, requires several years of mat maintenance, and is only practical in areas that are relatively flat and without trees, rocks, shrubs, stumps, and other obstructions (Nickelson 2008). This method would only have the potential to be effective on linear roadside populations in the Blue Buck area. It would not be feasible for the off-road sites.

Mechanical Control consists of mowing road right-of-ways before weeds have gone to seed. This method is not very practical in a forest environment, although it might be used along roads. Although mowing prevents seed production by removing flowering stem, repeated mowing encourages faster vegetative spread.

Biological As of 2007, no insect species have been approved for release in the United States for control of orange hawkweed (Jacobs and Wiese 2007). The use of biological control organisms is intended to be a permanent change to the environment. Biological control agents are used when weed eradication is not possible. The agent is released to coexist with the weed while bringing the weed population down to acceptable levels.

Cultural Cultural methods are generally targeted toward enhancing desirable vegetation to minimize invasion. This includes grass seeding to out-compete the noxious weeds, the addition of fertilizer/soil amendments, competitive planting, or any other cultural practice known to be useful for treating invasive plants. Fertilization was shown to reduce orange hawkweed in a study in England due to increased competition from perennial grasses and forbs that were also present on the treatment site (Jacobs and Weise 2007). However, fertilizer applications as high as 300 pounds per acre were required to achieve

3-5 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

this effect and fertilization is not recommended where other weed species could be present.

Chemical Herbicide application is the only known treatment that is effective at preventing spread and reducing/eradicating existing populations of orange hawkweed (Callihan et. al. 1997, Snyder and Shephard 2004). Our proposal is to hand-wick and spot-spray from backpack units to minimize the amount of herbicide applied and to minimize herbicide drift and effects to non-target species. We would use glyphosate, clopyralid, and/or picloram which all were authorized for use in the 2005 Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program EIS.

Rehabilitation and Restoration Site restoration or revegetation is part of any long term strategy to reduce invasive plants. Determining the need for active restoration/revegetation versus passive restoration (allowing plants on the site to fill in treated area) is the first choice when addressing this need. Passive restoration may be appropriate where treated sites leave only small gaps of bare ground and native vegetation on site can provide adequate seed source to fill in such gaps (Region 6 Invasive Plant FEIS, 2005). For noxious weeds, this is accomplished primarily with competitive grass seeding. Native plant materials are the first choice for restoration, rehabilitation, and revegetation efforts; however, nonnative, non-invasive plant species may be used when: 1. Needed to protect basic resource values (e.g., soil stability and water quality, to prevent establishment of invasive plants) 2. As an interim, non-persistent measure designed to aid in the reestablishment of native plants (unless natural soil, water, and biotic conditions have been permanently altered) 3. Native plant species are not available. 4. In permanently altered plant communities (Region 6 Invasive Plant EIS, 2005)

Comparison of Alternatives

Alternative 1 No Action Orange hawkweed is a perennial plant native to northern Europe. It has a fibrous root system that prefers well-drained, coarse-textured soils that are low in organic matter. It can invade natural open areas and disturbed sites, including roadsides, mountain meadows, and forest openings. It can reproduce by seeds, stolons, rhizomes, and buds on the roots. Most new orange hawkweed infestations are started by seeds and most expansion of established populations is from vegetative spread. Once the weed is established, vigorous stolon growth quickly expands the population. Orange hawkweed plants produce from 3 to 8 long, slender stolons. The roots and root buds of orange hawkweed produce phytotoxins (plant poisons) into the soil that inhibit the growth of other plants. Flower and stem removal stimulates both stolon and root bud production, thus increasing the spread rate. Once established, hawkweed quickly develops into a patch that continues to expand until it covers the site with a solid mat of rosettes with as many as 3,200 plants per square yard. A dense mat of hawkweed plants displaces other vegetation and poses a serious threat to native plant communities.

3-6 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

Orange hawkweed spreads vegetatively and by seed dispersal. Our major concern is for the potential of new invasions by seed dispersal. The existing population is capable of producing billions of seeds that are designed to be dispersed by wind, wildlife, and water. There is a nearby system of mountain meadows that are unique to the area and are susceptible to orange hawkweed infestation. In addition, the existing population is now surrounded by thousands of acres of forest that burned intensely in 2006, had very little vegetative recovery in 2007, and thus provides a suitable seedbed and habitat for orange hawkweed.

Wind dispersal of orange hawkweed seeds is limited to approximately 1 km (Wilson 2008). Dispersal by wildlife could be much further. The Methow Valley is home to a large population of migratory mule deer that move an average of 31 miles, and up to 60, from winter ranges to summer ranges (Ziegler 1978). The Blue Buck area is between winter ranges to the west and south and summer ranges to the north, and has mule deer traveling through it in spring and fall. Black bears, coyotes, and bobcats are common in the area and could transport seeds several miles. Bird species that utilize mountain meadows and forest openings could easily transport orange hawkweed seeds from Blue Buck Creek to mountain meadows many miles away in a short time. Specific resources at risk that are within seed dispersal distance of the Blue Buck orange hawkweed population includes a system of natural mountain meadows to the north, Roger Lake Research Natural Area, Tiffany Botanical Area, the Tripod wildfire area, the Blue Buck Creek riparian area, and mountain meadows in the Pasayten Wilderness.

Under this alternative the existing sites would continue to expand by vegetative growth, and each year would produce billions of seeds that will float away on the wind, float down Blue Buck Creek, or be on the ground available to be attached to any mammal or bird that brushed against them. New sites would be established via seed dispersal, some in remote areas where they may not be detected for years.

Alternative 2 Proposed Action – Herbicide Application and Manual Treatment This alternative is the proposed action that would use herbicide application and geotextile cloth to implement integrated weed management in the project area. Geotextile cloth would be used in suitable and appropriate site. A suitable and appropriate site would be one with a monoculture of orange hawkweed at least 100 sq ft in area, relatively flat, no water, and no large rocks, stumps, shrubs or other obstructions. All existing sites will be treated. Seed production and spread by stolons/rhizomes will be little, if any. Follow-up treatments in following years will likely be required until all existing seed source has been depleted. The amount treated each year

3-7 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

should be less than half of that treated the previous year and monitoring will be the primary management activity.

Orange hawkweed plants that are outside of riparian areas would be spot sprayed with picloram (Tordon) or clopyralid (Transline). Orange hawkweed plants that are within the boundaries of Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) would be treated with aquatic formulation of glyphosate (Rodeo) or clopyralid (Transline). Within 15 feet of open water orange hawkweed would be treated by hand-wicking the aquatic formulation of glyphosate (Rodeo). Orange hawkweed sites that occur from the 15 foot buffer out to the RHCA boundary would be spot sprayed with clopyralid using a backpack sprayer. Herbicides would be applied with a nozzle that produces droplet sizes in the 200-800 um range to decrease the amount of drift from herbicide application. The chemicals selected for these sites provide the highest likelihood of eradication with a minimum of re-treatments while presenting minimal risk to non-target organisms. The surfactants that would be used are LI-700 or Agri-dex. Application rates will not exceed label directions.

Orange hawkweed is effectively controlled by clopyralid and picloram. Studies conducted at the University of Idaho showed that over 50% control was achieved for six years following treatment with clopyralid and similar results were achieved using picloram. Other herbicides either failed to control hawkweed or suppression was for fewer than three years (Sheley and Petroff 1999). Within the upland hawkweed sites, at least 50% control is expected each year, consequently the amount of herbicide applied to the site each year would be reduced by at least half. Clopyralid will be used in most situations and would be applied at 1.3 pints per acre on the upland areas within the 11 gross acres. In the riparian areas Glyphosate would be applied at 4-5 pints per acre with 50% control expected. With spot spraying, only the infested portion of the total 11 acres would be sprayed with herbicide. The infested area is estimated to be no more than 40% of the gross area within all the hawkweed infestation which would be 4.4 acres. It is estimated that half of the infestation is upland and half riparian. The infested acres treated and the amount of herbicide applied was estimated for a 10 year period assuming that the amount of herbicide applied to the site would be reduced by 50% each year. For the upland treatment there would be a total of 9 pints clopyralid applied to the site over the 10 years with the amount applied reduced to .005 pints in year 10. For the riparian site a total of 20 pints of glyphosate would be applied and reduced down to .02 pints in year 10. The total infested acres treated would be reduced from 4.4 acres in year 1 to .01 acres by year 10.

Figure 3.0-3. Amounts of herbicide application over a 10 year period. Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Infested 4.4 2.2 1.1 .55 .3 .14 .07 .04 .02 .01 acres Total 8.83 Total 2.9 1.43 .71 .36 .19 .09 .04 .02 .01 .005 herbicide applied in Total 5.755 pints (Clopyralid) Total 10 5 2.5 1.2 .6 .3 .15 .08 .04 .02 herbicide applied in Total 20

3-8 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

pints (Glyphosate)

Picloram and clopyralid are broad leaf selective herbicides and will not kill the grasses and grasslikes (rushes and sedges). Both of these herbicides will be applied with backpack sprayers using spot applications. Spot applications would be very selective where the applicator targets the orange hawkweed and tries to avoid the nontarget desirable vegetation. Clopyralid is most effective on species within the sunflower family and does not kill some of the desirable broadleaf vegetation. Treatment of orange hawkweed with either of these herbicides would retain the grasses and much of the broadleaf vegetation.

Glyposate is a nonselective herbicide and will kill all vegetation. Only spot applications and/or wicking would be used. Selectivity with this herbicide can be improved by the applicator targeting only the orange hawkweed. As orange hawkweed leaves are all basal in a relatively small rosette, individual plants can be targeted by keeping the nozzle very close to the leaves, applying a circular spray pattern and avoiding most of the surrounding vegetation. Wicking can be selective in the same manner. Where the orange hawkweed is in dense patches or in monocultures, little to no selectivity is possible. Glyphosate strongly binds to the soil particles and is not available to the plants. Any desirable vegetation seed in the soil at the time of treatment can germinate and re-establish some of the nontarget vegetation killed by the glyphosate. It is expected that some vegetation will continue to establish even with repeated glyphosate treatments in the riparian buffer.

The use of geotextile cloth would be effective on small monoculture populations. This treatment would be most effective on relatively flat roadside treatments away form the creek. Tarping is nonselective and will kill all vegetation and the soil would be at risk of erosion once the soil stabilizing vegetation is gone. Most of the hawkweed infestations are adjacent to Blue Buck Creek. Using a geotextile cloth next to the creek would not be feasible as it would result in a high potential for erosion. Orange hawkweed seeds can remain viable in the soil for up to 7 years. Tarping will be maintained for 5 years to account for most of the seeds losing viability. The bare soil then would be seeded with mix of competitive grass species. Alternative 3- Manual and Mechanical Treatments Removing seed heads would require several treatments per year and would be cost prohibitive to effectively control. Orange hawkweed can begin to flower in early June, depending upon the weather. Some plants may set seed as early as July, but flowering usually lasts through September (Snyder and Shephard). As flowering continues throughout the summer followed by rapid seed production, many seed head removal treatments would be required each summer to prevent all seed production. Past experience with seed head removal within the project area hawkweed sites have not been effective due to the almost continuous production of flowers and seeds requiring a frequency of treatments beyond what is feasible. Also, it is likely that the cutting of seeds heads would promote an increase in vegetative spread of the plant.

Under this alternative seed production and dispersal would be reduced but not eliminated. Vegetative growth of the existing sites would accelerate.

3-9 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

3.1 Terrestrial Wildlife

Invasive plants can adversely affect wildlife species by altering their native habitats. Habitats that become dominated by invasive plants are often used less, or not at all by wildlife. Specifically, orange hawkweed that establishes in meadows or other openings will displace native grasses and forbs that provide forage for a number of herbivorous wildlife species. Orange hawkweed can produce phytotoxins that inhibit the growth of other plants, and once established, can grow in such density that it excludes all other plants.

Invasive plant treatment methods have the potential to disturb or temporarily displace wildlife. In addition, herbicides used to treat invasive plants have the potential to adversely affect wildlife. The likelihood that an animal would experience adverse effects from an herbicide depends on: the toxicity of the herbicide, the amount of herbicide it is exposed to, the amount of herbicide actually received by the animal, and the inherent sensitivity of the animal. The following report analyzes the effects of mechanical removal (handpulling and flower snipping) and herbicide treatment (hand-wicking and spot-spraying of clopyralid, glyphosate, and picloram) on up to 14 acres of orange hawkweed to selected wildlife species and habitats in the Blue Buck project area. The toxicities of clopyralid, glyphosate, and picloram are relatively low. Hand-wicking and spot-spraying treatments minimize herbicide drift, effects to non-target species, and the overall amount of herbicide applied.

Environmental Consequences

Management Indicator Species

Marten, Pileated Woodpecker, Three-toed Woodpecker, and Barred Owl The marten, pileated woodpecker, and three-toed woodpecker are management indicator species for mature or old growth habitats in mixed conifer, lodgepole pine, and/or subalpine fir forest types. The marten is a small forest carnivore that inhabits mature/old growth habitats, especially those with an abundance of downed woody debris. It preys on small mammals, birds, and insects. The pileated woodpecker inhabits mixed conifer stands and the three-toed woodpecker inhabits lodgepole pine and subalpine fir forest types. The barred owl is a management indicator species for mixed conifer old growth and mature habitats. It preys on small forest mammals and birds. There is suitable habitat for all 4 of these species in the Blue Buck project area.

Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Effects

Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 The proposed weed treatment alternatives for the Blue Buck Hawkweed project area would not alter any of the important components of mature or old growth forest habitats. They would not affect the size or health of marten, pileated woodpecker, three-toed woodpecker, or barred owl populations.

Primary Cavity Excavators The pileated, three-toed, black-backed, downy, hairy, Lewis’ and white-headed woodpeckers; red-naped and Williamson’s sapsuckers; and Northern flicker are management indicator species

3-10 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

for dead and defective tree habitat. Suitable habitat for these species exists in the Blue Buck project area.

Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Effects

Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 The 3 weed treatment alternatives proposed for the Blue Buck project area would not alter dead and defective tree habitat. These 3 alternatives would have no effect on the size or health of primary cavity excavator populations.

Ruffed Grouse The ruffed grouse is the management indicator species of deciduous and riparian habitats. Deciduous and riparian habitats are also important for songbirds, waterfowl, amphibians, beaver, ungulates, and many other species. There is deciduous and riparian habitat in the Blue Buck project area. It primarily occurs in narrow linear corridors along Blue Buck Creek, Beaver Creek, and un-named tributaries to them.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 This alternative would have a negative effect on ruffed grouse and riparian/deciduous habitats in the Blue Buck project area. No treatment would likely result in, over the next several years, the expansion of the existing populations of orange hawkweed and the establishment of new populations nearby via seed dispersal. The existing populations of orange hawkweed in the Blue Buck project area are on roadsides or in created openings (old clear-cut harvest units). Suitable areas for expansion and invasion are roadsides, old harvest units, mountain meadows, and areas burned with high intensity during the 2006 Tripod fire. Some of these acres of created openings are riparian areas along Blue Buck Creek, Beaver Creek, and tributaries. The invasion and establishment of orange hawkweed in these riparian areas would change the composition and structure of the grass/forb layer. This change from a diverse species composition and varied structure to a monoculture of orange hawkweed would have negative impacts to ruffed grouse and other dependent wildlife species in the Blue Buck project area. Alternative 2 This alternative would result in the reduction of and eventual eradication of orange hawkweed in the Blue Buck project area. Riparian and deciduous habitats would return to their natural composition and structure. This alternative would have the potential for a slight negative effect on ruffed grouse and riparian/deciduous habitats. Hand-wicking the aquatic formulation of glyphosate (Rodeo) and spot spraying clopyralid or picloram would have little, if any, potential for harming ruffed grouse or other wildlife. Hand-wicking would result in herbicide being applied only to orange hawkweed plants with some accidental exposure to plants directly adjacent. Orange hawkweed is not sought by wildlife for forage so ingestion of treated plants would be unlikely. The hand-wicking or spot spraying of individual plants on approximately 10 – 14 acres would have very little potential to harm wildlife. Alternative 3 This alternative would have a slight negative effect on ruffed grouse and riparian/deciduous habitats in the Blue Buck project area. Mechanical treatment would likely result in expansion of the existing populations until they were established throughout the 3 clear-cut harvest units that it presently inhabits. It would limit the establishment of new sites via seed dispersal. The expansion of orange hawkweed into riparian areas in these 3 clear-cut units would change the composition and structure of the grass/forb layer. This change from a diverse species composition and varied structure to a monoculture of orange hawkweed would be limited in acres and would have a minor impact to ruffed grouse and other dependent wildlife species in the Blue Buck project area. Implementation of the mechanical treatment would entail

3-11 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

a small crew of workers for a few days each year. The crew’s presence would have a slight disturbance effect on wildlife in the vicinity.

Cumulative Effects Past, present, and future foreseeable actions that may have affected ruffed grouse and riparian and deciduous habitats in the Blue Buck project area include timber harvest, livestock grazing, road building, fire suppression, wildfire, and hunting. Past timber harvest in the Blue Buck project area has likely resulted in an increase in aspen and other deciduous vegetation. Road building has removed some riparian/deciduous vegetation. Fire can rejuvenate decadent aspen stands and initiate sucker sprouting and stand expansion. Hunting is regulated by the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife. Future resource projects in the area would be planned and implemented to avoid or minimize and mitigate impacts to riparian and deciduous habitats. Alternative 1 When considered in conjunction with other activities affecting ruffed grouse and riparian habitats, this alternative would have a negative effect on ruffed grouse and riparian/deciduous habitats in the Blue Buck project area. Alternative 2 When considered in conjunction with other activities affecting ruffed grouse and riparian habitats, this alternative would contribute little to a cumulative effect. The slight potential for harmful effects from herbicide exposure would be temporary in nature. Alternative 3 When considered in conjunction with other activities affecting ruffed grouse and riparian habitats, this alternative would have a minor negative effect on ruffed grouse and riparian/deciduous habitats in the Blue Buck project area. Mule Deer Mule deer are the management indicator species for winter range. Mule deer winter ranges on the Methow Valley Ranger District are primarily lower elevation areas where bitterbrush and other shrubs exist along with forest habitat to provide both forage and cover. Approximately 50% of the Blue Buck project area is mapped as low density mule deer winter range.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 This alternative would have a negative effect on mule deer winter range in the Blue Buck project area. No treatment would likely result in expansion of the existing populations of orange hawkweed and the establishment of new populations nearby via seed dispersal. The existing populations of orange hawkweed in the Blue Buck project area are on roadsides or in created openings (old clear-cut harvest units). Suitable areas for expansion and invasion are roadsides, old harvest units, mountain meadows, and areas burned with high intensity during the 2006 Tripod fire. The invasion and establishment of orange hawkweed in these areas would change the composition and structure of the grass/forb layer. This change from a diverse species composition and varied structure to a monoculture of orange hawkweed would reduce the amount of forage for mule deer in the Blue Buck project area. This summer forage reduction would result in mule deer that normally inhabit the Blue Buck project area to shifting use to adjacent areas. Summer forage is not thought to be a limiting factor for mule deer in the Methow Valley so this effect would not be enough to result in a reduction in overall population. Alternative 2 This alternative would result in the reduction of and eventual eradication of orange hawkweed in the Blue Buck project area. Grass and forb habitats would return to their natural composition and structure.

3-12 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

This alternative would have the potential for a slight negative effect on mule deer winter range. Hand-wicking and spot-spraying glyphosate, clopyralid, and/or picloram would have little, if any, potential for harming mule deer. Hand-wicking and spot-spraying would result in herbicide being applied only to orange hawkweed plants with some accidental exposure to plants directly adjacent. Orange hawkweed is not sought by deer for forage so ingestion of treated plants would be unlikely and minimal. The hand-wicking or spot spraying of individual plants on approximately 10 – 14 acres would have very little potential to harm mule deer or other wildlife. Alternative 3 This alternative would have a slight negative effect on mule deer winter range in the Blue Buck project area. Mechanical treatment would likely result in expansion of the existing populations until they were established throughout the 3 clear-cut harvest units that they presently inhabit. It would limit the establishment of new sites via seed dispersal. The expansion of orange hawkweed into these 3 clear-cut units would change the composition and structure of the grass/forb layer. This change from a diverse species composition and varied structure to a monoculture of orange hawkweed would be limited in acres and would have a limited impact to mule deer in the Blue Buck project area. Implementation of the mechanical treatment would entail a small crew of workers for a few days each year. The crew’s presence would have a slight disturbance effect on mule deer and other wildlife in the vicinity. Cumulative Effects Past, present, and future foreseeable actions that may have affected mule deer winter range in the Blue Buck project area include timber harvest, livestock grazing, road building, fire suppression, wildfire, and hunting. Past timber harvest in the Blue Buck area has likely resulted in an increase in deciduous trees and shrubs that deer favor for browse. Road building has removed some riparian/deciduous vegetation. Fires have rejuvenated deer browse species such as aspen and buckbrush by initiating sprouting of new stems. Hunting regulations are administered by the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife. Future resource projects in the area would be planned and implemented to avoid or minimize and mitigate impacts to mule deer winter range. Alternative 1 When considered in conjunction with other activities affecting mule deer winter range, this alternative would have a negative effect on mule deer habitats in the Blue Buck project area. Alternative 2 When considered in conjunction with other activities affecting mule deer winter range, this alternative would contribute little to a cumulative effect. The slight potential for harmful effects from herbicide exposure would be temporary in nature. Alternative 3 When considered in conjunction with other activities affecting mule deer winter range, this alternative would have a minor negative effect on mule deer habitats in the Blue Buck project area.

Landbirds

The Partners in Flight Conservation Strategy for Landbirds of the East-Slope of the Cascades Mountains in Oregon and Washington (2001) lists priority habitats, habitat attributes, focal species, and management considerations for the Blue Buck analysis area. The following focal species were selected based on their conservation need, and/or degree of association with important habitat attributes in the East-Slope Cascades:

Habitat Habitat Attribute Focal Species

3-13 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

Ponderosa Pine old forest-large patches white-headed woodpecker Ponderosa Pine large trees pygmy nuthatch Ponderosa Pine open understory - regeneration chipping sparrow Ponderosa Pine burned old forest Lewis' woodpecker Mixed Conifer large trees brown creeper Mixed Conifer large snags Williamson's sapsucker Mixed Conifer grassy openings, dense thickets flammulated owl Mixed Conifer multi-layered, structural diverse hermit thrush Mixed Conifer fire edges and openings olive-sided flycatcher Oak-Pine Woodland early seral, dense understory Nashville warbler Oak-Pine Woodland large oaks with cavities ash-throated flycatcher Oak-Pine Woodland large pine trees/snags Lewis' woodpecker Lodgepole Pine mature/old-growth black-backed woodpecker Whitebark Pine mature/old growth Clark's nutcracker Montane Meadows wet and dry sandhill crane Aspen large trees/snags, regeneration red-naped sapsucker Subalpine Fir patchy presence blue grouse

The priority habitat/habitat attribute/focal species that may be affected by the proposed weed treatment actions in the Blue Buck project area are limited to those that include meadows or forest openings:

Ponderosa Pine open understory - regeneration chipping sparrow Mixed Conifer grassy openings, dense thickets flammulated owl Mixed Conifer fire edges and openings olive-sided flycatcher Montane Meadows wet and dry sandhill crane

The chipping sparrow nests in small trees and forages on the ground in open areas for seeds and insects. The flammulated owl is a secondary cavity nester and forages on insects and arthropods that are most abundant and diverse in grassy meadows and open forests. The olive-sided flycatcher nests in trees and forages on flying insects. The sandhill crane nests, forages, and rears young in large meadows. They are not known to nest in the Blue Buck project area, or anywhere else on the Methow Valley Range District.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 This alternative would have a negative effect on chipping sparrow, flammulated owl, and olive-sided flycatcher habitat in the Blue Buck project area. No treatment would likely result in expansion of the existing populations of orange hawkweed and the establishment of new populations nearby via seed dispersal. Suitable areas for expansion and invasion are roadsides and the open forests and mountain meadows that these 3 bird species forage in. The invasion and establishment of orange hawkweed in these areas would change the composition and structure of the grass/forb layer. This change from a diverse species composition and varied structure to a monoculture of orange hawkweed may reduce the abundance and diversity of insects in the Blue Buck project area. Alternative 2 This alternative would result in the reduction of and eventual eradication of orange hawkweed in the Blue Buck project area. Landbird habitats would return to their natural composition and structure. This alternative would have the potential for a slight negative effect on chipping sparrow, flammulated owl, and olive-sided flycatcher populations in the Blue Buck project area. Hand-wicking and spot-spraying glyphosate, clopyralid, and/or picloram would have little, if any, potential for harming landbirds or other wildlife. It would prevent the spread of

3-14 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

hawkweed and loss of habitat needed by these 3 bird species. Hand-wicking and spot-spraying would result in herbicide being applied only to orange hawkweed plants with some accidental exposure to plants directly adjacent. It is possible that chipping sparrows, flammulated owls, olive-sided flycatchers, or other insectivorous birds could consume insects that had come into contact with herbicide. The hand-wicking or spot spraying of individual plants on approximately 10 – 14 acres would have very little potential to contaminate enough insects to harm landbird populations. This alternative may impact a few individuals but would prevent the loss of habitat. Alternative 3 This alternative would have a non-significant effect on landbird populations in the Blue Buck project area. Mechanical treatment would likely result in expansion of the existing populations until they were established throughout the 3 clear-cut harvest units that they presently inhabit. It would limit the establishment of new sites via seed dispersal. The expansion of orange hawkweed into these 3 clear-cut units would change the composition and structure of the grass/forb layer. This change from a diverse species composition and varied structure to a monoculture of orange hawkweed would be limited in acres and would result in that much habitat being lost for foraging area for these 3 landbirds.

Cumulative Effects Past, present, and future foreseeable actions that may have affected landbird populations in the Blue Buck project area include timber harvest, livestock grazing, road building, fire suppression, wildfire, and firewood collection. Past timber harvest in the Blue Buck area has likely resulted in an increase in forest openings that some bird species favor for foraging. Road building has removed some riparian/deciduous vegetation. Fires have created forest openings and diverse grass/forb understories. Future resource projects in the area would be planned and implemented to avoid or minimize and mitigate impacts to landbird populations. Alternative 1 When considered in conjunction with other activities affecting landbird populations, this alternative would have a negative effect on landbirds in the Blue Buck project area. Alternative 2 When considered in conjunction with other activities affecting landbird populations, this alternative would contribute slightly to a cumulative effect. The slight potential for harmful effects from herbicide exposure would be temporary in nature. Alternative 3 When considered in conjunction with other activities affecting landbird populations, this alternative would have a slight cumulative effect.

Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species

The following list of endangered, threatened, and sensitive species are known or suspected to occur on the Okanogan National Forest:

Endangered or Threatened gray wolf grizzly bear northern spotted owl Canada lynx Sensitive American peregrine falcon common loon eared grebe fisher gray flycatcher great gray owl Pacific fringe-tailed bat sandhill crane

3-15 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

sharp-tailed grouse Townsend’s big-eared bat western gray squirrel wolverine bald eagle

Gray Wolf

Wolves are wide-ranging predators that can exist in a wide variety of habitat types. To successfully inhabit an area they require a prey base of wild ungulates and freedom from persecution by humans (Fritts and Carbyn 1995). Gray wolves are known to occur on the Methow Valley Ranger District, but confirmed sightings are not common. There have been 4 confirmed sightings on the district in the last 15 years. Mule deer are likely the main prey item for wolves in the Methow Valley area since they are the most abundant ungulate. Moose do occur in small numbers in the watershed and they would be a potential prey item for wolves. Beavers, marmots, and other small mammals are probably preyed on also. The Blue Buck Hawkweed area provides suitable habitat for gray wolves.

There are no known or suspected wolf den or rendezvous sites in the Blue Buck Creek area. In 1991 a wolf den area was confirmed in the Black Pine Basin area, approximately 25 air-miles northwest of the orange hawkweed sites. In 1999 a gray wolf was photographed at a baited camera station in the Salmon Creek drainage of the Tonasket Ranger District approximately 5 air-miles east of the Blue Buck Creek area. During the last 2 years there have been numerous credible reports of wolf sightings, howlings, tracks, or scats in the Lower Methow River and Twisp River watersheds. In addition, 4 photographs have been acquired at baited camera stations in the same area that may be of individual wolves. The Blue Buck Hawkweed area may be inhabited by wolves during spring, summer, and fall when mule deer are present in the area. Wolf use of the area in winter is unlikely due to lack of prey items. The project area is mixed conifer forest habitat type. The area is behind a locked gate from October 1 to March 31 each year. It is part of an active cattle grazing allotment.

Direct/Indirect Effects

The proposed activities would result in no new road construction. There would be a temporary increase in human activities in Alternatives 2 and 3. Alternative 1 This alternative would have “no effect” on the gray wolf. No treatment of the orange hawkweed in the Blue Buck project area would lead to expansion of the existing populations and the establishment of new populations. This would have a slight impact to mule deer in Blue Buck Creek though not enough to reduce their overall population or to effect wolf populations. Alternative 2 This alternative would have “no effect” on the gray wolf. There would be no new road construction or any changes in road densities. The only potential effect of the proposed project on gray wolf is the temporary human disturbance at the weed sites during implementation. The proposed weed treatments would occur during late July and/or early August. The treatment would entail 2 or 3 people with backpack sprayers for 3-5 days. There would be no engine or power tool noises other than the transport vehicle. These activities would cause less disturbance than typical recreational users of firewood collectors. This temporary human disturbance of a typical mixed conifer forest would not result in any reductions to the mule deer or other wildlife populations. It would not reduce prey availability for gray wolf.

3-16 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

Herbicides used to treat invasive plants have the potential to adversely affect wildlife. Birds or mammals may ingest vegetation or insects that have been sprayed with herbicide. The likelihood that an animal would experience adverse effects from an herbicide depends on: the toxicity of the herbicide, the amount of herbicide it is exposed to, the amount of herbicide actually received by the animal, and the inherent sensitivity of the animal. Birds or mammals that eat grass or insects are most susceptible to harm from herbicides (USDA 2005). Herbicide residue is higher on grass than it is on other herbaceous vegetation or seeds. The proposed spot-spraying/hand-wicking of 11-14 acres with glyphosate, picloram, and/or clopyralid would minimize the amount of herbicide used and the amount of herbicide on non-target species (like grass). Selective application to target invasive plants is not likely to lead to exposure to wildlife (USDA 2005). Results of numerous field studies indicate the likelihood for direct adverse effects to wildlife from herbicide use is low (USDA 2005).

Since wolves do not consume plants or insects, the proposed herbicide use would not directly affect them. Orange hawkweed plants may be consumed by deer and other herbivores, so it is possible that they would consume hawkweed plants that had been sprayed with herbicide. These herbicides are passed through the body quickly and do not bio-accumulate in body fat. Herbicides consumed by a deer would not be passed on to a wolf.

Alternative 3 This alternative “may effect, but would not adversely affect” the gray wolf. The only potential effect of the proposed project on gray wolf is the temporary human disturbance at the weed sites during implementation. The proposed weed treatments would occur during late July and throughout August. The treatment would entail 2 or 3 people with gas-powered weed-whackers for 1-2 days every 10 days or so. These activities would disturb any wolves that were hunting in the area and other wildlife as well. This temporary human disturbance of a typical mixed conifer forest would not result in any reductions to the mule deer or other wildlife populations. It would not reduce prey availability for gray wolf.

Cumulative Effects Past, present, and future foreseeable actions that may have affected gray wolves in the analysis area include disturbance to a natal den site or rendezvous site, accidental or intentional shooting, road building and use, livestock grazing activities, and past hunting/trapping activities. Alternative 1 This alternative would have no cumulative effect on gray wolf. Alternatives 2 and 3 When considered in conjunction with other activities affecting gray wolf, these alternatives would have a non-significant cumulative effect on gray wolf. Shooting and trapping of wolves is illegal in Washington. Livestock grazing is regulated and there have been no livestock/wolf interactions documented in the analysis area. Disturbance to a den or rendezvous site is always a possibility on public lands. There are no known wolf den sites in the analysis area. If one was discovered appropriate actions would be taken in consultation with other wildlife agencies.

Grizzly Bear

The project area is within the North Cascades Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone. The number of grizzly bears in the 2,620,775 hectare recovery zone is estimated to be less than 50, possibly as few as 10-20 (Almack et.al. 1993). There have been 5 confirmed reports of grizzly bears on the

3-17 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

Methow Valley Ranger District; 2 in the Pasayten Wilderness and 3 in nonwilderness areas of the district. None of these were in or near the Blue Buck project area.

The Blue Buck Hawkweed project area is within the Middle Methow Bear Management Unit (BMU) which is 142,635 acres and is 18% core habitat. The Blue Buck area may be inhabited by grizzly bears at certain times of the year. The proposed weed treatment sites are in mixed conifer forest habitat type at 5200-5600 ft elevation. Bears might inhabit this type in spring after den emergence to search for green grasses, forbs, roots, and tubers on recently melted-out slopes. They might also be in the area in late summer and fall searching for berries. The Blue Buck area is not adjacent to any areas that are lush with berry shrubs, but there are scattered huckleberry, snowberry, wild rose, elderberry, thimbleberry, and others in the general area, especially in the old clearcuts where some of the orange hawkweed sites are located.

Direct/Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 This alternative would have a slight negative effect on grizzly bear habitat in the Blue Buck project area. No treatment would likely result in expansion of the existing populations of orange hawkweed and the establishment of new populations nearby via seed dispersal. The existing populations of orange hawkweed in the Blue Buck project area are on roadsides or in created openings (old clear-cut harvest units). Suitable areas for expansion and invasion are roadsides, old harvest units, mountain meadows, and areas burned with high intensity during the 2006 Tripod fire. The invasion and establishment of orange hawkweed in these areas would change the composition and structure of the grass/forb layer. This change from a diverse species composition and varied structure to a monoculture of orange hawkweed would reduce the amount of forage for grizzly bear in the Blue Buck project area. This alternative “may effect, but would not adversely affect” the grizzly bear. Alternative 2 This alternative would result in the reduction of and eventual eradication of orange hawkweed in the Blue Buck project area. Grizzly bear habitats would return to their natural composition and structure. This alternative would have the potential for a slight negative effect on grizzly bear habitat. Potential effects of the proposed project on grizzly bear includes: 1) Temporary human disturbance at the weed sites during implementation. The proposed weed treatments would occur during late July and/or early August. The treatment would entail 2 or 3 people with backpack sprayers for 3-5 days. There would be no engine or power tool noises other than the transport vehicle. These activities would cause less disturbance than typical recreational users of firewood collectors. 2) The possibility of adverse effects to individual bears from consuming herbicide residue. Orange hawkweed plants may be consumed by grizzly bears and other herbivores, so it is possible that they would consume hawkweed plants that had been sprayed with herbicide. The likelihood that an animal would experience adverse effects from an herbicide depends on: the toxicity of the herbicide, the amount of herbicide it is exposed to, the amount of herbicide actually received by the animal, and the inherent sensitivity of the animal. Birds or mammals that eat grass or insects are most susceptible to harm from herbicides (USDA 2005). Herbicide residue is higher on grass than it is on other herbaceous vegetation or seeds. The proposed spot-spraying/hand- wicking of 11-14 acres with glyphosate, picloram, and/or clopyralid would minimize the amount of herbicide used and the amount of herbicide on non-target species (like grass). Selective application to target invasive plants is not likely to lead to exposure to wildlife (USDA 2005). Results of numerous field studies indicate the likelihood for direct

3-18 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

adverse effects to wildlife from herbicide use is low (USDA 2005). These herbicides are passed through the body quickly and do not bio-accumulate in body fat. Another factor is that the herbicide is quickly absorbed by the plants it is applied to and residues are washed off by rain or heavy dews. The potential for a grizzly bear to be in the Blue Buck project area during the few days after herbicide treatment that herbicide residues are still on plants, and that the bear would actually consume orange hawkweed plants is rather low.

The project would meet intermim direction for the North Cascades Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone; there would be no decrease in core area. Food storage and sanitation requirements would be met. The project would be implemented by FS personnel with no overnight camping or storage of food, garbage, or other attractants. The temporary human disturbance to the site and the herbicide residue consumption issue are the only potential effects that the proposed project would have on grizzly bear.

The slight possibility of herbicide residue consumption and any adverse effects from it would be an insignificant and discountable effect to grizzly bears. The Blue Buck Hawkweed project “may effect, but would not likely adversely affect” the grizzly bear.

Alternative 3 This alternative would have a slight effect on grizzly bear habitat in the Blue Buck project area. Mechanical treatment would likely result in expansion of the existing populations until they were established throughout the 3 clear-cut harvest units that they presently inhabit. It would limit the establishment of new sites via seed dispersal. The expansion of orange hawkweed into these 3 clear-cut units would change the composition and structure of the grass/forb layer. This change from a diverse species composition and varied structure to a monoculture of orange hawkweed would be limited in acres and would have a minor impact to grizzly bear habitat in the Blue Buck project area. The proposed weed treatments would occur during late July and throughout August. The treatment would entail 2 or 3 people with gas- powered weed-whackers for 1-2 days every 10 days or so. These activities would disturb any bears that were hunting in the area and other wildlife as well. This alternative “may effect, but would not adversely affect” the grizzly bear.

Cumulative Effects Past, present, and future foreseeable actions that may have affected grizzly bear include human disturbance to a den or foraging site, accidental or intentional shooting/trapping, timber sale activities, livestock grazing activities, and displacement from habitat due to human use of roads or trails. Habitat displacement is measured by calculating the amount of core habitat in bear management units (BMUs). Core habitat is any habitat that is more than 500 meters from a road or high use trail. The Blue Buck project area is within the Middle Methow BMU. The Middle Methow BMU is 142,635 acres in size and 18% of it is in core habitat. A BMU with less than 55% core area is considered to have a high level of human influence (Gaines et. al. 2003). Alternative 1 When considered in conjunction with other activities affecting grizzly bears, this alternative would have a negative but non-significant cumulative effect on them. Alternatives 2 and 3 When considered in conjunction with other activities affecting grizzly bears, these alternatives would have a non-significant cumulative effect.

Canada Lynx

Lynx are known to occur on the Methow Valley Ranger District. Lynx inhabit mesic, coniferous forests that have cold snowy winters and provide a prey base of snowshoe hares (Ruggiero et

3-19 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

al. 2000). On the east side of the Cascade Range lynx primarily inhabit subalpine fir, Engelmann spruce, and lodgepole pine forests. They also occur in cool, moist Douglas-fir types where they are interspersed with primary vegetation types (Ruediger et al. 2000). These forest types generally are found above 4000 feet elevation. Lynx seem to prefer areas of low topographic relief (McKelvey et al. 2000, Apps 2000). Lynx distribution is linked to that of the snowshoe hare and snowshoe hares require forests with low, dense, horizontal structure (Ruggiero et. al. 2000). The Blue Buck project area is within lynx habitat. It falls within the Blue Buck Ridge lynx analysis unit (LAU).

Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Effects

The proposed weed treatment activities would not alter the forest structure that is the key component for lynx and their primary prey. Grasses and forbs do provide summer time forage for snowshoe hares, but summer forage is not a limiting factor for hares.

Lynx prey on snowshoe hares, which are herbivores. Herbicides used to treat invasive plants have the potential to adversely affect wildlife. Birds or mammals may ingest vegetation or insects that have been sprayed with herbicide. The likelihood that an animal would experience adverse effects from an herbicide depends on: the toxicity of the herbicide, the amount of herbicide it is exposed to, the amount of herbicide actually received by the animal, and the inherent sensitivity of the animal. Birds or mammals that eat grass or insects are most susceptible to harm from herbicides (USDA 2005). Herbicide residue is higher on grass than it is on other herbaceous vegetation or seeds. The proposed spot-spraying/hand-wicking of 11-14 acres with glyphosate, picloram, and/or clopyralid would minimize the amount of herbicide used and the amount of herbicide on non-target species (like grass). Selective application to target invasive plants is not likely to lead to exposure to wildlife (USDA 2005). Results of numerous field studies indicate the likelihood for direct adverse effects to wildlife from herbicide use is low (USDA 2005).

Since lynx do not consume plants or insects, the proposed herbicide use would not directly effect them. Orange hawkweed plants may be consumed by snowshoe hares and other lynx prey, so it is possible that they would consume hawkweed plants that had been sprayed with herbicide. These herbicides are passed through the body quickly and do not bio-accumulate in body fat. Herbicides consumed by a hare would not be passed on to a lynx.

Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 These alternatives would have “no effect” on the lynx.

Proposed Critical Habitat-Lynx The Blue Buck Hawkweed project would occur within proposed critical habitat for lynx. The project would not alter any forest stand structure. Treatment of orange hawkweed would only alter the species composition of the grass/forb layer of habitat. It would have “no effect” on proposed critical habitat for lynx.

Northern Spotted Owl

Northern spotted owls are known to occur on the Methow Valley Ranger District. The Chewuch and Methow Rivers are recognized as the eastern boundary of northern spotted owl distribution in northern Washington. Breeding pairs or individuals have been documented at 8 different areas on the district. Suitable owl habitat on the Methow Valley Ranger District is mixed conifer

3-20 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

forest below 5000 feet in elevation with large diameter trees, snags, and downed logs, decadence, high canopy closure, and a large proportion of Douglas-fir. The northern spotted owls in the Methow Valley typically begin nesting in late March and young owls leave the nest by mid June. The Blue Buck project area is outside the range of the northern spotted owl.

Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Effects

Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 The proposed weed treatment activities would have “no effect” on the northern spotted owl.

Sensitive Species

The Blue Buck project area does not occur in or adjacent to habitat for common loon, eared grebe, gray flycatcher, Pacific fringe-tailed bat, sandhill crane, sharp-tailed grouse, or western gray squirrel. There are no large, open water bodies to support loons or grebes. Sandhill cranes may migrate through the area, but there are no large, wet meadow complexes that are known to be used by sandhill cranes. The gray flycatcher, Pacific fringe-tailed bat, and western gray squirrel all inhabit low elevation dry forests. All 3 alternatives of the proposed project would have “no impact” on any of these sensitive species.

American Peregrine Falcon Peregrine falcons are known to migrate across the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest. There are no known peregrine falcon nesting areas on the Okanogan National Forest. Formal surveys of the most suitable nesting areas on the Methow Valley Ranger District were conducted in 1997 and again in 1999 (Haggerty and Woodruff 1997). There were no peregrine falcons observed during these surveys. Peregrines prey mainly on other birds, however with no known nesting areas on or near the Blue Buck project area, it is unlikely they forage there.

Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Effects

Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 These alternatives would have “no impact” on the peregrine falcon. The proposed activities would not disturb any known falcon nesting or foraging areas.

Bald Eagle

Bald eagles are known to occur in the Methow Valley. During winter they occur as individuals or in small groups along the Methow River from Winthrop down to the mouth and along the lower 6-7 miles of the Chewuch River. The eagles tend to congregate in areas with road-killed or winter-killed deer, near livestock calving operations, and along open waters that contain fish. There are communal winter roosting areas on non-Forest lands adjacent to the Columbia River near the mouth of the Methow River and along the lower Methow River. In the last few years, bald eagles have attempted to nest at 3 locations, at least, in the Methow Valley; all on private lands, one on the Methow River near the town of Methow, one on the Methow River near Winthrop, and one near Mocassin Lake, south of Winthrop.

There are no known or suspected bald eagle nesting or roosting sites on Forest Service lands in the Methow Valley. The only known bald eagle use on Forest Service lands is on low elevation deer winter ranges where they scavenge on winter- or predator-killed deer remains.

3-21 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Effects

The proposed weed treatment activities would not occur during the winter season when bald eagles might be scavenging deer carcasses on winter ranges. The project does impact deer but not in a way that would reduce overall populations or the availability of winter carcasses. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 These alternatives would have “no impact” on the bald eagle. The proposed weed treatment activities would not occur near any known bald eagle use areas.

Fisher

Fishers are suspected to occur on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest. There are 2 trapping records of fishers on the Methow Valley Ranger District from the early 1900s (Stinson and Lewis 1998). In addition, there have been unverified observations of individual fishers or tracks in the snow by Forest recreationists. Based on lack of recent confirmed sightings, the fisher is considered extirpated or reduced to scattered individuals in the state of Washington (USDI 2004).

Fishers historically occurred on both sides of the Cascades mountains in Washington in low to mid elevation forests (USDI 2004). They are opportunistic predators with a diverse diet that includes snowshoe hares, birds, rodents, reptiles, insects, carrion, and fruit. They need forests that provide abundant prey and low vulnerability to predators. They also have specific needs for natal denning and for resting spots (Powell and Zielinski 1994). The forest stand structures that provide these needs include large diameter trees with cavities and/or large platform-type branches, and large hollow logs. Late successional forests provide the most suitable fisher habitat because they provide abundant potential den sites and preferred prey.

Forest stands that would be suitable fisher habitat are present, but not abundant within the Blue Buck project area. Weed treatments would not impact forest stand structure or the availability of denning and resting sites for fishers. They could impact the abundance of some small rodent species which make up part of the fishers diet. Since fishers are considered generalized predators and do not specialize on any certain prey species they would be able to shift to whatever species were available.

Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Effects

Weed treatments have not been identified as a concern for fisher habitat management. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 These alternatives would have “no impact” on the fisher. The proposed alternatives would not alter any fisher habitat.

Great Gray Owl

Great gray owls are known to occur on the Okanogan National Forest. Great gray owls commonly nest in mature to old-growth forests that provide nesting structures such as broken top snags, mistletoe brooms, or abandoned hawk or raven nests (Hayward and Verner 1994). They forage in nearby meadows, bogs, clearcuts, or open forests for voles and pocket gophers (Hayward and Verner 1994). Prey abundance and the availability of existing nest sites appear to regulate great gray owl populations.

3-22 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

There are no known great gray owl nests in the Blue Buck project area, though there appears to be suitable habitat components in this area. Weed treatments would not impact the availability of nest sites, but it could impact great gray owl prey abundance.

Direct/Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 This alternative would have a negative effect on the habitat of great gray owl prey species habitat in the Blue Buck project area. No treatment would likely result in, over the next several years, the expansion of the existing populations of orange hawkweed and the establishment of new populations nearby via seed dispersal. The existing populations of orange hawkweed in the Blue Buck project area are on roadsides or in created openings (old clear-cut harvest units). Suitable areas for expansion and invasion are roadsides, old harvest units, mountain meadows, and areas burned with high intensity during the 2006 Tripod fire. The invasion and establishment of orange hawkweed in these areas would change the composition and structure of the grass/forb layer. This change from a diverse species composition and varied structure to a monoculture of orange hawkweed would have negative impacts to voles and pocket gophers in the Blue Buck project area, and thus reduce their availability as prey for great gray owls. This alternative “may impact individual great gray owls, but is not likely to cause a trend toward Federal listing or a loss of population viability”. Alternative 2 This alternative would result in the reduction of and eventual eradication of orange hawkweed in the Blue Buck project area. Grass and forb habitats would return to their natural composition and structure. This alternative would have the potential for a slight negative effect on great gray owl prey species. Hand-wicking and spot-spraying clopyralid, picloram, and glyphosate would have little, if any, potential for harming rodents or other wildlife. Hand-wicking would result in herbicide being applied only to orange hawkweed plants with some accidental exposure to plants directly adjacent. Orange hawkweed is not sought by wildlife for forage so ingestion of treated plants would be unlikely. The hand-wicking or spot spraying of individual plants on approximately 10 – 14 acres would have very little potential to harm great gray owls. This alternative “may impact individual great gray owls, but is not likely to cause a trend toward Federal listing or a loss of population viability”. Alternative 3 This alternative would have a slight negative effect on great gray owls and their prey in the Blue Buck project area. Mechanical treatment would likely result in expansion of the existing populations until they were established throughout the 3 clear-cut harvest units that it presently inhabits. It would limit the establishment of new sites via seed dispersal. The expansion of orange hawkweed into these 3 clear-cut units would change the composition and structure of the grass/forb layer. This change from a diverse species composition and varied structure to a monoculture of orange hawkweed would be limited in acres and would have a minor impact to great gray owls in the Blue Buck project area. This alternative “may impact individual great gray owls, but is not likely to cause a trend toward Federal listing or a loss of population viability”.

Cumulative Effects

Past, present, and future foreseeable actions that may have affected great gray owls in the Blue Buck project area include timber harvest and livestock grazing. Past timber harvest has probably decreased the availability of suitable nesting sites. Alternative 1 When considered in conjunction with other activities affecting great gray owls, this alternative would have a slight negative effect on great gray owl prey species’ habitats in the Blue Buck project area.

3-23 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

Alternative 2 When considered in conjunction with other activities affecting great gray owls, this alternative would contribute little to a cumulative effect. The slight potential for harmful effects from herbicide exposure would be temporary in nature. Alternative 3 When considered in conjunction with other activities affecting great gray owls, this alternative would have a minor negative effect.

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat

Townsend’s big-eared bats are known to occur on the Methow Valley Ranger District. A nursery colony was discovered in a warehouse at the Early Winters Forest Service administrative compound in 1997. Approximately 70 Townsend’s big-eared bats were using this building. The colony has been closely monitored and protected from disturbance since then. There are several other known sites being used by Townsend’s big-eared bats on private lands in the Methow Valley. This species of bat is known to roost in old buildings, caves, and mines, and underneath bridges (Christy and West 1993). They are not known to roost in foliage, beneath loose bark, in snags, or in rock crevices. They seem to require enough space to be able to hang upside down. They feed primarily on moths, and foraging habitat is open dry forests, meadows, and grasslands.

There is suitable foraging habitat within the Blue Buck project area, but there are no known suitable roosting areas for Townsend’s big-eared bats in the area. Weed treatment has not been documented as a limiting factor for these bats.

Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Effects

Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 These alternatives would have “no impact” on the Townsend’s big-eared bat. The proposed project would not alter any bat roosting habitat or affect their prey base.

Wolverine

Wolverines are known to occur on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest. Wildlife biologists have recently captured and radio-collared 5 wolverines at 2 locations on the Methow Valley Ranger District. In addition, there have been highly reliable sightings from Forest visitors recently reported at several other locations on the Forest.

Wolverines are uncommon inhabitants of boreal coniferous forests in western mountain ranges in the lower 48 United States. They travel long distances and subsist on carrion and by predating on small to medium sized animals. Copeland (1996) found wolverines to be very intolerant of human disturbance at maternal den sites. Wolverines give birth in natal dens from late February to March (Copeland 1996). Copeland (1996) observed 2 wolverine natal dens in Idaho; both were in subalpine talus habitat on north-facing, steep slopes of cirque basins. The talus consisted of large rocks and boulders that were at least 2 meters in diameter, and the talus was less than 100 meters across and surrounded by trees. The den was in the interstitial spaces of the large-rock talus. Recent research in southeastern British Columbia has documented wolverine maternal den sites in Englemann spruce/subalpine fir forest types in large woody debris accumulations at the bottom of avalanche chutes (Krebs 1999).

Wolverine denning habitat as described by Copeland (1996) and Krebs (1999) does not exist within the Blue Buck project area.

3-24 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Effects

There is no wolverine denning habitat in the Blue Buck project area and weed management has not been identified as a concern for wolverine habitat management. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 These alternatives would have “no impact” on the wolverine. The proposed alternatives would not alter any wolverine habitat.

3.2 Botany Regulatory Framework

Direction from the Forest Service Manual under Section 2670 provides policies for managing Sensitive, Threatened, and Endangered plant species and their habitats to achieve recovery objectives so that protection measures provided under the Endangered Species Act are no longer necessary. The requirements for management of Forest Service Region 6 Special Status Species include:

1. Maintaining viable populations of all native plant species in habitats distributed throughout their range on National Forest System lands.

2. Developing and implementing management practices to ensure that species do not become threatened or endangered because of Forest Service actions.

3. Reviewing, through the biological evaluation process, Forest Service actions and programs to determine their potential for effect on sensitive, threatened, and endangered species and species proposed for listing.

4. Avoiding all adverse impacts to species, and their habitats, whose viability has been identified as a concern and prescribe measures if necessary to prevent adverse impacts to those species and their habitats to ensure that actions do not result in loss of species viability or create a significant trend towards Federal listing.

5. Assisting states in achieving their goals for conservation of endemic species.

Scope of Analysis

The orange hawkweed, Hieracium aurantiacum, population sites in the Blue Buck Creek watershed currently cover a total of 11 acres. The Blue Buck Hawkweed Treatment Project area covers the existing 11 acre orange hawkweed population and up to three additional acres to take into consideration the potential for population spread. For the purposes of this sensitive plant analysis, the Blue Buck Creek Catchment is the area being evaluated.

The plant analysis for this project covers species on the 2008 Regional Forester’s Special Status Species Lists, which includes the Federally Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species (TE&P) and Sensitive Species List and the Strategic Species

3-25 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

List, provided under the Interagency Special Status & Sensitive Species Program (ISSSSP, January 2008). It also covers Other Rare or Uncommon Species that are on the List of Plants Tracked by the Washington Natural Heritage Program (WNHP, February 2008) or species of concern that are known or suspected to occur on the Methow Valley District. A list of all species considered in this evaluation is provided in Appendix D. The WNHP database records and the Forest Service NRIS TES plants database were reviewed for known special status plant locations in the analysis area. No records for any special status species were previously documented in the orange hawkweed treatment areas. The risk assessment to special status plants potentially in the area was based on information provided by these databases and past surveys. The treatment sites were surveyed on July 9th and 16th, 2008 as part of this analysis to confirm the presence or absence of any of the species on the above mentioned lists and other rare or uncommon species.

Throughout this document, Special Status Species refers to all Federally Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed, Sensitive and Strategic Species.

Affected Environment

The orange hawkweed populations occur along wet to moist roadsides with shallow ditches of water (running or standing water depending on time of year) at the upper slope of past harvest units and along Blue Buck Creek at the base of the old timber sale units harvested in the 1980’s. Past timber sales in the project area include Split, Blue, and Blue Fly. The area burned in the Tripod Fire of 2006. Forested areas not harvested burned with high severity with few live trees remaining. Charred trunks with few branches and no canopy cover remain. Undergrowth in these areas is lush with lupine and arnica. Young tree regeneration in harvest units experienced little mortality. Western larch, lodgepole pine, subalpine fir, and Douglas-fir continue to grow in high density on the steep slopes. Seepy areas with Sitka alder and lush, moist site species occur scattered across the steep slopes.

At the base of the steep slope, Blue Buck Creek flows through a broad, flat riparian area where the main orange hawkweed population occurs. The riparian area was clearcut during the 1980 timber sale. Mature mountain alder currently exists along the creek banks and scattered throughout the broad bottom. Conifer tree regeneration consists of small, scattered Engelmann spruce, averaging 3 to 5 feet tall, in the riparian bottom. Charred, cut tree stumps remain; most likely Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir. The area is currently a wetland meadow dominated by several species of sedges, willows, and other wetland herbaceous species. Vegetation is lush and dense. Rivulets of water (channels approximately 1 to 2 feet wide and banks 1 to 2 feet deep) flow throughout the bottom with areas of standing water and deeply saturated soils. The banks of Blue Buck Creek, for the most part, are densely vegetated. The orange hawkweed occurs as large to small patches to scattered individuals throughout the wetland. Signs of past livestock use are noticeable. Other weeds present include Canada thistle and dandelion.

A complete list of plant species found in the treatment areas can be found in the project files.

Federally Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species (TE&P)

3-26 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

The Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests have four plant species on the Federally Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed (TE&P) species list. Two of these species, Hackelia venusta and Sidalcea oregano var. calva, are endemic to the Wenatchee National Forest and do not occur and are not suspected to occur on the Okanogan National Forest. Howellia aquatilis and Spiranthes diluvialis, both Federally Threatened species, are suspected to occur on the Okanogan National Forest, however, have yet to be documented as occurring on this forest and are not known to occur within the project analysis area. Although there is suitable habitat for Spiranthes diluvialis on the Methow Valley Ranger District, the species has not been documented after conducting several inventories over the years in suitable habitat. There is no Howellia aquatilis pond habitat in or nearby the hawkweed treatment areas.

Sensitive and Strategic Species

There are 118 Sensitive Plant Species and eight Strategic Plant Species known or suspected to occur on the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests. There are no Sensitive or Strategic Plant Species known to occur within the treatment sites or project area. There is a high potential for sensitive Carex species to occur in moist to wet habitats within the project area; however, past disturbance activities reduce the likelihood for these species to be found in the vicinity of the treatment sites. Saw-leaved sedge, Carex scopulorum var. prionophylla, is the dominant sedge in the wetland, and of the eight sedges identified in the area, none are sensitive.

Other Rare or Uncommon Species

A population of tall agoseris, Agoseris elata, occurs in the northern portion of the project area in Beaver Meadows which lies approximately 1 ½ to 2 miles to the north of the proposed treatment sites. Formerly a sensitive species, Agoseris elata is currently listed as an Other Rare or Uncommon Species and is on the WNHP’s Review List. Many populations of Agoseris on the Methow Valley District that were originally documented as A. elata are being revisited to determine correct species identification. Several A. elata populations are being re-determined as pink agoseris, A. lackschewitzii, previously thought to be the pink form of A. elata, but now classified as a distinct, separate species and under taxonomic review with its status subject to change. Currently, A. lackschewitzii is also listed as a Rare or Uncommon Species. The Agoseris population in the project area was last revisited in 2007 when a Rare Care survey of Beaver Meadows was conducted. This particular population is thought to be A. lackschewitzii, though it has not been verified as such yet. Beaver Meadows is a mid-elevation, moist to wet meadow with a mix of obligate and faculatative wetland species. Both Agoseris species grow in similar habitats to orange hawkweed - moist, open meadows - and have the potential to occur in other suitable habitats within the project area. Although the treatment sites do possess suitable Agoseris habitat, only orange agoseris, A. aurantiaca, was observed.

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 - No Action

3-27 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

Under the no action alternative, with no treatment to control orange hawkweed, the orange hawkweed population will continue to expand by rhizomes and stolons and new sites in suitable habitat will most likely be established by seed dispersal. A reproductive orange hawkweed plant possesses 10 to 30 flower heads; each flower head produces approximately 12 to 30 seeds. Therefore, one plant is capable of producing up to 900 seeds. Seeds are dispersed by wind, water, wildlife, livestock, and humans. Nearby suitable habitat that orange hawkweed may spread into includes harvest units, roadsides, riparian areas, moist meadow openings and other open, disturbed sites. Also, the 2006 Tripod fire created extensive high intensity burned areas that now provide additional suitable habitat for orange hawkweed to expand into. Many of the plant associations in the project area are classified as moist or mesic forest associations with the potential for water tables to increase with canopy removal (Lillybridge 1995). Since canopy removal has occurred with the Tripod fire, the conversion to wetter sites in many of the burned areas is likely. These moist, disturbed sites will be conducive to orange hawkweed establishment.

No treatment of the orange hawkweed population in the long-term may cause indirect effects to Special Status Species and potentially suitable sensitive plant habitat. The spread of the current existing orange hawkweed population in the wetland and into new sites would decrease the amount of area of native plant communities since orange hawkweed tends to form monocultures, out-competing native vegetation for resources and producing phytotoxins in the soil that inhibit the growth of other native plants (Wilson 1999). Monocultures of orange hawkweed alter the structure and species composition of meadow communities and thereby degrade habitat. The loss of native plant habitat may decrease the amount of habitat available for Special Status Species. With no action, the orange hawkweed could also foreseeably spread into the moist, open area of Beaver Meadows. If this were to happen, orange hawkweed would most likely adversely impact the species composition, structure, and diversity of the meadow community which would likely cause a decline in the Agoseris elata population and adversely affect population viability.

Although wind dispersal of orange hawkweed seeds is limited to about 1 km (Wilson 2008), seed dispersal by wildlife and humans/vehicles has the potential to be much further. Beginning with Beaver Meadows 2 miles to the north of the Blue Buck orange hawkweed population and continuing to spread up to 30 miles further north is a 1300- acre system of wetland meadows with unique plant communities with habitat which is particularly suitable and vulnerable to orange hawkweed invasion. This area includes Roger Lake Research Natural Area and the Tiffany Botanical Area. Several populations of 19 different special status species and other rare or uncommon species occur throughout this area. See Table 3.2-1 for a complete list of these species and the special area(s) in which they occur. With the potential for orange hawkweed to invade these meadow habitats and change the community structure by crowding out native species and degrading diversity and habitat, Special Status Species occurring in these areas would be at risk for becoming more sensitive and/or threatened which could lead to Federal listing.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action: Herbicide Application & Geo-textile Cloth

Under this alternative, a combination of herbicide treatment and covering suitable and appropriate hawkweed sites with a geo-textile cloth will be used. Suitable and

3-28 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

appropriate sites will require that the area be a monoculture of orange hawkweed at least 100 square feet in size or adjacent to a road with relatively flat topography with little in the way of stumps, downed wood, or shrubs. Upland sites outside of riparian reserves will be treated by spot spraying with picloram (Tordon). Wet and riparian sites 0 to 15 feet of a stream or water will be treated by hand-wicking the aquatic formulation of glyphosate (Rodeo). Orange hawkweed sites that occur from 15 feet and out to the

3-29 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

Table 3.2-1. List of sensitive species in special areas at potential risk from orange hawkweed invasion. Scientific Name Common Name R-6 ISSSSP State Status The Meadows Roger Lake Tiffany Status Area RNA Botanical Area Agoseris elata Tall agoseris None Sensitive Present Present Agoseris Pink agoseris None Review Group Present lackschewitzii 2 Botrychium Twin-spiked moonwort Sensitive Threatened Present paradoxum Carex atrosquama Blackened sedge Strategic Review Group Present Present 1 Carex capillaris Hairlike sedge Sensitive Sensitive Present Carex heteroneura Varied-nerve sedge None Sensitive Present Present (epapillosa) Carex magellanica Poor sedge Sensitive Sensitive Present ssp. irrigua Carex media Intermediate sedge Sensitive Sensitive Present (norvegica) Carex tenuiflora Sparse-leaved sedge Sensitive Threatened Present Carex vallicola Valley sedge Sensitive Sensitive Present Mimulus suksdorfii Suksdorf’s Monkey-flower Sensitive Sensitive Present Oxytropis campestris Slender crazyweed Sensitive Sensitive Present var. gracilis Parnassia kotzebuei Kotzebue’s grass-of- Sensitive Sensitive Present parnassus Potentilla nivea Snow cinquefoil Sensitive Sensitive Present Present Rubus acaulis Nagoonberry Sensitive Threatened Present Salix glauca Glaucous willow Sensitive Sensitive Present Salix tweedyi Tweedy’s willow None Sensitive Present Present Saxifraga cernua Nodding saxifrage Sensitive Sensitive Present Saxifraga rivularis Pygmy saxifrage None Sensitive Present Status Explanations: R-6 ISSSSP Status: Region 6 Interagency Special Status & Sensitive Species Program (as of January 2008) Includes Federal, Sensitive, & Strategic Species Washington Natural Heritage Program State Status: Sensitive – Vulnerable or declining and could become Endangered or Threatened in Washington. Threatened – Likely to become Endangered in Washington. Review Group 1 & 2 – Of potential concern but needs more field or taxonomic work to assign another rank.

3-30 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

riparian habitat conservation area boundary will be treated with clopyralid (Transline) applied by hand spraying directly onto the plant from a few inches above the plant using a low pressure nozzle. Follow up treatments and monitoring will continue to occur until 2018 and until all existing rhizomes and seeds have been eradicated. The amount of herbicide used each season will decrease as the population decreases and is expected to be less than half of that treated the previous year.

Federally Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species (TE&P)

Since there are no documented populations or suspected potential habitat for TE&P species in the treatment areas, there will be no direct adverse effects to any of these species with the use of herbicide treatment.

Sensitive and Strategic Species

Since there are no known populations of any Sensitive or Strategic Species in the treatment sites or project area, the use of herbicide application and geo-textile cloth will not directly adversely impact any of these species.

Other Rare or Uncommon Species

Since there are no known populations of any Other Rare or Uncommon Species in the treatment sites, the use of herbicide application and geo-textile cloth will not directly adversely impact any of these species. The population of Agoseris elata in Beaver Meadows will not be adversely affected by the actions of this alternative.

Due to the dense cover of herbaceous species in the treatment area, there will be some unavoidable mortality of non-target herbaceous species that are growing in direct contact with orange hawkweed plants. Glyphosate is a non-selective herbicide, however, once glyphosate is in the soil, it has little potential to be taken up by non-target plants because it binds strongly to soil particles (Tu 2005). Moreover, glyphosate cannot penetrate woody bark (Tu 2005), therefore, the potential for negative effects to willow and other woody species is minimal. Clopyralid is more selective than glyphosate and has little effect on grasses, other monocots, and mustards (Tu 2005). Since orange hawkweed plants will be treated by spot spraying or hand-wicking with a backpack sprayer, the drift potential is minimal. Herbicide applicators will be familiar with other native species that look similar to orange hawkweed in order to minimize unnecessary mortality of non-target species.

Native existing vegetation is expected to colonize and grow into areas previously occupied by orange hawkweed; however, seeding with a native grass mix will occur if determined necessary.

Geo-textile cloth will not be placed over any Special Status Species or Other Rare or Uncommon Species. Geo-textile cloth will remain in place until it is assured that the orange hawkweed rhizomes and stolons have been killed off. Areas that have had geotextile cloth applied will be reseeded, if necessary, with native grass species and/or revegetated with native vegetation after the cloth has been removed. The use of geotextile cloth will kill all unwanted plants and seeds without the use of chemicals; however, it will also eliminate desirable species. After the cloth is removed, the bare ground will be conducive to weed recolonization and will require revegetation. There are

3-31 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

conflicting reports of the soil conditions that could be created by using geo-textile cloth. The lack of light and increased soil temperatures under the cloth can cause changes to the soil, creating sterile conditions that may deter plant regrowth. Other reports indicate that conditions under the cloth can create a nutrient-rich soil that may enhance revegetation of both desirable and undesirable species (Tu 2005).

Control of this orange hawkweed population with herbicide application and geo-textile cloth is expected to improve native plant habitat and Special Status Species habitat by containing and eventually eradicating the orange hawkweed population and preventing its spread into other areas where it may affect other native plant communities and sensitive plant populations. Most notably, controlling this population is expected to prevent its spread into the nearby Beaver Meadows and prevent it from adversely affecting the Agoseris elata population.

Alternative 3 – Mechanical Treatment

Under this alternative, treatment would entail clipping and bagging orange hawkweed flower heads and covering suitable and appropriate hawkweed sites with a geo-textile cloth. Suitable and appropriate sites will require that the area be a monoculture of orange hawkweed at least 100 square feet in size or adjacent to a road with relatively flat topography with little in the way of stumps, downed wood, or shrubs.

Removing flowering stalks will reduce seed production and spread in the short-term; however, this method will stimulate stolon growth so that the existing population will expand by rhizomes and stolons. Removing flowering stalks would require several visits over the growing season to ensure clipping of new stalks that would continually come up. Due to the high labor intensity of several treatments per season and the necessity of repeated visits every season and the time increase involved due to the expansion of hawkweed plants and flowering stalks each season, this method would unlikely be feasible or effective. Long-term control and eradication with this method will not be possible.

Geo-textile cloth will not be placed over any Special Status Species or Other Rare or Uncommon Species. Geo-textile cloth will need to remain in place for at least seven years (the life span of orange hawkweed seed in the soil) until it is assured that the orange hawkweed rhizomes, stolons, and seeds have been killed off. Areas that have had geo-textile cloth applied will be reseeded, if necessary, with native grass species and/or revegetated with native vegetation after the cloth has been removed.

Federally Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species (TE&P)

Sensitive and Strategic Species

Since there are no known populations of any Sensitive or Strategic Species in the treatment sites or project area, the use of mechanical treatment and geo-textile cloth will not directly adversely impact any of these species.

3-32 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

Other Rare or Uncommon Species

Since there are no known populations of any Other Rare or Uncommon Species in the treatment sites, the use of mechanical treatment and geo-textile cloth will not directly adversely impact any of these species.

No direct effects to Special Status Species will occur with mechanical treatment. With mechanical treatment, any potential Special Status Species found in the area would not be at risk from the small likelihood of adverse impacts caused by herbicide drift. However, indirect effects may occur to Special Status Species and potentially suitable habitat. The enlargement of the existing orange hawkweed sites and the spread of the population into new sites would create an increased risk to native plant communities by decreasing the amount of area available to native plants since orange hawkweed tends to form monocultures, out-competing native vegetation for resources and producing phytotoxins in the soil that inhibit the growth of other native plants. The loss of native plant habitat may decrease the amount of habitat available for sensitive plant species. With mechanical treatment, the orange hawkweed could also foreseeably spread into the moist, open area of Beaver Meadows.

Cumulative Effects

Past, present, and future foreseeable actions include timber harvest, livestock grazing, weed control, road maintenance, recreation, and firewood gathering. Each of these activities has the high potential to spread orange hawkweed seeds to new areas and continue to negatively impact native plant communities and potential special status plant habitat.

The desired future condition for Special Status Plants is to ensure that management practices provide environmental conditions and trends that contribute to the long-term viability of Special Status Species and their native habitats.

The affects of herbicide treatment on Special Status Species, Other Rare and Uncommon Species, and non-target native species would be minor compared to the long-term adverse affects of orange hawkweed spread and its impacts to Sensitive Species and other native plants. With no treatment or mechanical treatment, the continued risk would exist for orange hawkweed to spread into other suitable habitats such as riparian areas, moist meadows, open and disturbed sites, sensitive plant habitats, and designated special botanical areas. To prevent the further displacement of native plant communities and orange hawkweed invasion into special status plant habitat, Alternative 2 is the most effective option for stopping the spread and eradicating orange hawkweed.

Consistency Findings

Based on surveys, current site conditions, and site management for Special Status Plant Species and Other Rare or Uncommon Plant Species, this project complies with the provisions outlined in Forest Service Manual direction 2670 which requires activities not result in the loss of species viability or will not result in a species becoming Threatened or Endangered or create a trend towards Federal listing.

3-33 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

This project will have no adverse affects, will not contribute to a loss of viability, and will not contribute to a trend towards Threatened or Endangered or Federal listing of any Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive species within the project area. This is consistent with the Forest Plan Forestwide Standard and Guideline 6-19. Native plant communities are expected to benefit from reduced orange hawkweed competition.

3.3 Hydrology

Affected Environment

General Location

The potential orange hawkweed treatment areas (11 acres) are located in the Blue Buck Creek catchment (5526 acres) of the upper reaches of the sixth field Upper Beaver Creek subwatershed. Upper Beaver Creek watershed contains about 40,100 acres. The Upper Beaver Creek flows into the Beaver Creek watershed, which drains into the Methow River, just east of Twisp, WA., about 15 miles below the potential treatment areas.

Features of Areas of Concern in the Site (e.g. riparian areas, domestic water sources, poorly drained soils, etc.)

The proposed treatment areas are on national forest lands, along the 4225400 and 4225485 Roads. The four proposed treatment areas total about 11 acres (Appendix C). Two of the proposed treatment areas are partially inside the RHCA of Class IV, intermittent streams. For those two treatment areas, there is a potential of approximately 1100 feet of perennial and intermittent stream and associated RHCAs with populations of orange hawkweed. The other two treatment areas are at least 900 feet and as much as 1150 feet from mapped intermittent streams. No mapped lakes or wetlands are in the vicinity of the proposed treatment areas. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Floodplain and Wetland inventory shows about 273 acres of wetlands and water bodies in the Upper Beaver Creek subwatershed. Just over 1 acre of wetlands and water bodies occur in the Blue Buck catchment, and the proposed treatment areas are not in the general vicinity of the wetland.

The 2004 303(d) list no reaches within the Upper Beaver Creek subwatershed and has just one reach with a Category 5 parameter, water temperature, in the Methow River near Pateros, WA about 50 miles down stream of the project area. 303(d) listed water bodies indicate a violation of Washington State water quality standards.

In 2006 the Tripod fire burned about 51% of the Upper Beaver subwatershed. About 13,000 acres (of the 40,100 acres) had a moderate to high burn severity. In the Blue Buck Creek catchment, 98% of the 5526 acres were burned and most of it was in the moderate to high fire severity classes. The potential treatment area of 11 acres was in the high severity burned areas.

Much of the Blue Buck watershed had emergency treatments to reduce the potential damage to downstream property and human life. Certified wheat straw was applied by

3-34 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

helicopter to give about 70% ground cover (1 ton/acre of straw). In addition emergency road treatments were completed to protect the roads from high intensity runoff. Ditches were cleared of debris, so they would be able to carry expected increases in overland flow. Road surfaces were graded and existing relief culverts were cleaned to divert road ditch water to safe runoff locations. Additional relief culverts were installed on the steeper roads to keep ditch water from accumulating and causing road damage. Hydro- mulching of the disturbed road cuts and fills was completed to control erosion and retard infestations of other noxious weeds. In addition, a culvert was replaced near the mouth of Blue Buck Creek to increase the likelihood that it would pass the expected higher streamflow. Effectiveness monitoring of BAER related noxious weed treatments are likely continuing in 2008 and any necessary re-treatments will occur if the 2007 treatments were not effective.

Water Resources

While no water quality information was directly collected in the Blue Buck catchment, water quality was believed to be good as it supported an isolated population of bull trout. Since the 2006 Tripod Fire, stream sedimentation has increased, as would be expected following a wildfire with large areas of high and moderate burn severity. The increased stream sediment loads are likely to remain in the stream channel until a snowmelt flood with a recurrence interval of 5-20 years to carry the sediment out of the Blue Buck catchment. In addition, a large flood would also cause channel erosion in some reaches.

Estimated average prefire peak streams flows for Blue Buck Creek are 95 cfs (Higginson, 2006). Higginson’s post-fire flood estimate for Blue Buck Creek was a potential increase of 400% for the first three years following the fire. Potential peak flow increases would begin to decrease after the second year, as vegetation becomes established. Estimates by Robichauld (2008) suggest after about 7 years the risk of potentially damaging peak flow events are nearly at pre-fire levels in other fires he has investigated.

Increased streamflows often occur following wildfires due to a combination of the loss of ground cover, decreased infiltration, a reduction in evapo-transpiration, reduced water storage, and snowmelt modification. Although the magnitude of increase varies, moderate to high severity burn areas often produce an increase in runoff.

Estimated average low stream flows based upon Hoffman and Orsborn (1978) for Blue Buck Creek are about .4 cfs or 180 gallons per minute.

Orange hawkweed affects the water resource by allowing additional soil erosion which leads to stream sedimentation where it crowds out native or other desirable vegetation.

Environmental Consequences Direct and Indirect Affects

Alternative 1 No Action

3-35 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

This alternative would not treat existing orange hawkweed sites. Existing orange hawkweed populations would spread by rhizomes and stolons; new sites would also establish via seed dispersal in nearby clearcuts where the noxious weed populations currently exist. The existing 11 acres of orange hawkweed populations would increase into disturbed sites, such as roads and clearcuts. Other clearcuts in the Blue Buck catchment would eventually become infested with orange hawkweed through seed production from existing populations. Orange hawkweed will spread to roadsides and created openings, which include clearcuts and high intensity burned areas in the Tripod fire.

Larger populations of orange hawkweed would reduce available soil water to desirable vegetation. This would reduce desirable cover on the soil and increase soil erosion. It would also reduce soil nutrients available to other plants and soil microorganisms reducing vigor and potential ground cover by desirable plants.

There would be no risk of chemical contamination to water or other effects associated with weed control activities.

Locally, this option would increase the required time for recovery of the burned areas to pre-fire erosion and stream sedimentation conditions. On a broader scale, this alternative would have no impact on stream flows or water temperature of the Methow River.

Cumulative Effects for No Action

Populations of orange hawkweed would eventually expand to its full potential in the Blue Buck catchment. This would decrease soil protection by vegetation and increase the risk of stream sedimentation due to a reduction in ground cover compared to no noxious weeds present.

Other ongoing and future activities, such as permitted grazing, dispersed recreation and firewood gathering, would spread seeds to fully occupy areas within the Blue Buck catchment and areas outside the watershed. The risk for increased stream sedimentation as a result of higher erosion rates from infested sites would increase.

Alternative 2 Proposed Action – Herbicide Application and Manual Treatment

All existing sites will be treated with chemicals or by mechanically covering infected areas where appropriate. Appropriate areas have dense orange hawkweed populations that can be successfully covered with tarps or long lasting material to block sunlight and raise soil temperature to high levels to kill seeds and plants. This alternative would stop or substantially reduce seed production and spread by stolons or rhizomes. Maintenance treatments in subsequent years would be required with herbicides or physical covering until all existing seed source has been depleted. From the extent herbicides are initially used, the herbicide use would decrease in subsequent years. The amount used each year should be less than used the previous year.

Eleven acres of existing orange hawkweed would be treated for this analysis, and up to another 25% more acres for any new areas, since the inventories in the summer of 2007

3-36 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

indicated a potential for a total of about 16 acres. The aquatic formulation of glyphosate (Rodeo) would be used in wet areas and riparian buffers. The surfactant would be LI- 700 or Agri-dex. Application rates will not exceed label directions. Both surfactants have a low toxicity for fish. Application will be directed to individual orange hawkweed plants by wicking (rubbing wet material, soaked with Rodeo herbicide solution, onto each plant) or hand spraying with a backpack sprayer directly onto the plant from less than an inch to a few inches above the plant.

Movement into Surface or Shallow Ground Water

Glyphosate can get to the surface water through two ways. The first is through leaching by overland flow or shallow ground water flow. The second is through aerial drift when sprayed. According to the Glyphosate Risk Assessment (USDA Forest Service 2003), Glyphosate binds tightly to soil particles, once it reaches the soil and practically no chemical is leached from the soil particles. It may drift from the site during application, and AGDRIFT was used to analyze the glyphosate concentration, or other suitable herbicide with the same amount of active ingredient as the glyphosate applied in a similar fashion, in surface water from the spray drift at distances from water—1, 10, 50 and 100 feet. In each case, the concentration of glyphosate was much less than the 60 parts per million that was the 96 hour LC50 of the Rodeo formulation of glyphosate for rainbow trout. The highest concentration was about .009 parts per million (the graph shows concentrations in parts per trillion) as shown in Figure 3.3-1.

Figure 3.3-1 Concentration Levels When Sprayed 10ft. From Stream

Figure 3.3-1 shows the concentration along the 1100 feet of Blue Buck Cr. when spraying glyphosate within 10 feet of the stream. After the stream leaves the treatment area, the glyphosate or other allowable herbicide concentration drops quickly as it is diluted with water from above the spraying. The lower concentration levels (in the dotted and dashed lines) reflect a lower concentration over time and its movement downstream.

3-37 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

Figure 3.3-2 below shows the glyphosate or other allowable herbicide concentration from spray drift when spraying was done at 50 feet. Concentration levels drop to even lower levels when the herbicide is sprayed 50 feet from the stream.

Figure 3.3-2 Concentration Levels When Sprayed 50 ft. From Stream

Figure 3.3-3 below shows the concentration of glyphosate or other allowable herbicide sprayed at 100 feet. The concentration is extremely low in parts per million when sprayed 100 feet from the stream (the graph shows parts per trillion). This represents about .0009 parts per million. Figure 3.3-3 Concentration Levels When Sprayed 100 ft. From Stream

3-38 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

A final run was peformed for spraying at 1 foot from the water’s edge. Results of the AGDRIFT analysis show in Figure 3.3-4, that the concentration from drift would be about .009 parts per million.

Figure 3.3-4 Concentration Levels When Sprayed 1ft. From Stream

The AGDRIFT analysis suggests spraying glyphosate or other allowable herbicide as close as 1 foot to the water’s edge would result in a concentration of glyphosate which would still be substantially below the 96 hour LC50 level for glyphosate of about 60 ppm. A buffer of about 10 feet on each side of the stream which was treated by wicking would reduce drift levels of glyphosate to about .0014 ppm as in Figure 3.3-1 above. There would be no drift from wicking the vegetation.

Besides spray drift, the herbicide can get into surface or ground water by shallow ground water movement. The fastest rate of herbicide movement would be in saturated soils. The Darcy equation for water movement through saturated soils was used to estimate the potential distance of herbicide movement. The Darcy equation is discussed by Oklahoma State University (http://soilphysics.okstate.edu/toolkit/water/infil.html). The Darcy equation estimates the hydrologic conductivity (the rate water flows through a saturated soil) and the potential between the points of water movement (simplified: slope gradient on which the soil is located) to give an estimated rate and distance of saturated soil-water movement. The hydrologic conductivity for a sandy loam soil is estimated by Okalahoma State University to be about 13 cm/day (saturated soil conditions) in a vertical profile, so any slope less than 90° would move slower under normal atmospheric pressures. Saturated soil conditions would occur for 5-10 days a year (most likely when snow melt is occurring at a moderate to rapid rate, and the water is infiltrating into the soil. Saturated soil conditions would end as soon as the snow was melted. An exception for longer periods of saturated soil movement would be where there is standing water, and saturated soil conditions would occur during the period of standing water. These sites would be treated as water bodies, like streams and the appropriate buffers for the type of herbicide used would be used. For comparison and potential worst case analysis, higher hydraulic conductivities were also analyzed in Figure 3.3-5.

3-39 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

This assumes herbicides are soluble in the soil-water and would be transported at the same rate soil-water moves through the soil.

Figure 3.3-5 Saturated Soil Water Movement (Total Feet) By Soil Hydraulic Conductivity and Slope Gradient Soil Hydraulic Conductivity 13 25 50 100 (cm/day) Î Slope Gradient (Degrees) 5 10 20 5 10 20 5 10 20 5 10 20 Î Days of Saturated Soil Conditions 5 days .1 .3 .7 .3 .7 1.5 .7 1.5 2.8 1.5 2.8 5.6 7 days .2 .5 .9 .5 .9 2.1 .9 2.1 3.9 2.1 3.9 7.8 10 days .3 .7 1.3 .7 1.3 3.0 1.3 3.0 5.6 3.0 5.6 11.2

The most likely situation for movement in this analysis is shown in the lower left cells for a hydraulic conductivity of 13 cm/day for sandy loam soils. The movement through soils with a 20° slope (36% slope) is just over a foot in 10 days. In the most extreme situation shown in this analysis, soil water would move about 11.2 feet in 10 days if the soil hydraulic conductivity was 100 cm/day (lower right corner cell in Figure 3.3-5).

Cloypyralid is proposed for use greater than 15 feet from open water. Picloram is proposed for use in upland areas outside of Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs). Cloypyralid has a half life of about 25 days (studies range 8 to 250 days). Picloram half life ranges from 18-300 days. The half-life is higher in sandy loam soils, and is generally considered to be an effective herbicide for two growing seasons, about 12-14 months. Both herbicides are water soluble and can be carried in surface water runoff or shallow saturated water flow in the soil. Cloypyralid would be effective for a single growing season and would move the distances in Figure 3.4-5. Since picloram is considered effective for 2 seasons, it would move twice the distance as shown in Figure 3.3-5 above.

If picloram and/or cloypyralid are properly applied outside of appropriate buffers to surface water, there is little risk these herbicides would leach to streams in the project area.

The R6 2005 FEIS disclosed the characteristics of each of the 3 herbicides proposed for use. Under worst-case scenarios, minor, short-term adverse effects to beneficial water uses were found to be possible. However, in this project, the small amount of treatment relative to the size of the area, and the herbicide use buffers proposed, virtually eliminates these adverse effects from actually occurring. The R6 2005 FEIS noted that drinking water standards would be maintained with the type of herbicide use proposed.

Soil Erosion and Stream Sedimentation

Herbicide use following label instructions would effectively kill the target noxious weed populations. There is a risk that non-target vegetation would be killed or injured, even

3-40 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

with single-plant herbicide application by hand spraying or hand wicking. When the target and non-target vegetation is killed by herbicides, there is an increased risk of soil erosion and runoff following intense rainfall events. The increased risk would continue until vegetation becomes re-established. Planting or seeding immediately following the herbicide treatments may reduce the increased risk period of erosion and potential increases in stream sedimentation.

The herbicide treatment would be expected to have no impact on stream flows or water temperature of the Methow River.

Fabric Ground Cover

A fabric ground cover would have little effect on stream sedimentation. If the material tears apart or otherwise blows into the stream, it could cause localized channel erosion. Over a larger area this alternative would have no impact on stream flows or water temperature of the Methow River.

Alternative 3- Manual and Mechanical Treatments All existing sites will expand by rhizomes and stolons. Treatment will reduce seed production and dispersal to little, if any. Orange hawkweed would eventually expand into much of the three existing clearcuts that now contain the hawkweed.

Hand pulling or mowing and scraping (as in road maintenance) would decrease ground cover in the short term. There would be an increased risk of surface soil erosion, as might occur following intense precipitation. Over time the disturbed treatment area would increase as the orange hawkweed population increased, increasing the risk of stream sedimentation. Each year the risk would be the highest immediately following the site disturbance.

Cumulative Effects for Action Alternatives

This cumulative effects analysis considers the effects on water resources from past actions over the past 10 years, along with present actions and reasonably foreseeable future actions. A complete list of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions is listed in Chapter 2. Only those activities that have affected the water resource are considered in this cumulative effects analysis. The cumulative effects analysis is limited to the Blue Buck catchment.

Past Actions

Road maintenance will continue in the Upper Beaver Creek subwatershed. There will likely be a slight increase in stream sedimentation at road stream crossings, were in- sloped roads are bladed and/or ditches are annually cleaned. This will not add to direct and indirect effects of the use of herbicides or fabric ground covers.

3-41 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

Past timber sales have occurred creating disturbed sites where the orange hawkweed has become established in three of the old units. Other created openings exist, but have no known infestations of orange hawkweed, but are potential sites for future infestation. There would be no planned mechanical ground disturbing activities to change runoff patterns.

Livestock grazing, noxious weed control of other species, dispersed recreation and firewood gathering have occurred. Proposed orange hawkweed treatments would not create cumulative effects on water resources which occurred because of the livestock grazing, past noxious weed control or dispersed recreation activities.

Present Activities

Ongoing activities include livestock grazing; noxious weed control, road maintenance, recreation, and firewood gathering. Proposed treatments of orange hawkweed would not increase the current impacts on water resources from the present activities. Livestock grazing on treated orange hawkweed sites may spread seeds from plants which were missed in the initial treatments. This would spread orange hawkweed populations and impact native plant populations and associated stream sedimentation.

Ongoing road maintenance of grading and ditch cleaning may spread existing populations where seeds are directly spread by the equipment working where orange hawkweed plants occur.

Recreation and firewood gathering involves vehicle traffic that may transport orange hawkweed seeds from within adjacent Forest lands and potentially off national forest system lands. Transported seeds would sprout and the negative aspects of orange hawkweed would occur at those locations.

Reasonably Foreseeable Actions

Current and future herbicide applications, fabric applications and manual seed head removal would occur for at least 10 years. As orange hawkweed populations decrease the herbicide use would decrease. Monitoring of future orange hawkweed populations would determine where and how much herbicide would be used. Decreased orange hawkweed populations would benefit native plant populations and improve vegetative cover, improving soil protection and lowering the risk of stream sedimentation.

There would be no cumulative effects on the 303(d) listing for water temperature in the Methow River near Pateros from ongoing or foreseeable actions.

3-42 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

3.4 SOILS

Regulatory Framework

Forest Plan Soil Standards and Guidelines According to section 2520.3 of FSM 2521, R6 Supplement 25000-98-1 management practices must be designed and implemented to maintain or improve soil and water quality, emphasizing protection over restoration. When initiating new activities: 1. Design new activities that do not exceed detrimental soil conditions on more than 20 percent of an activity area. (This includes the permanent transportation system.) 2. In areas where less than 20 percent detrimental soil conditions exist from prior activities, the cumulative detrimental effect of the current activity following project implementation and restoration must not exceed 20 percent. 3. In areas where more than 20 percent detrimental soil conditions exist from prior activities, the cumulative detrimental effects from project implementation and restoration must, at a minimum, not exceed the conditions prior to the planned activity and should move toward a net improvement in soil quality. The complete (FSM 2521, R6 Supplement 2500-98-1) document relating to Soil Quality Standards is in the analysis file.

Scope of Analysis The project area is defined as land area within the orange hawkweed site boundaries. Individual GIS layers and literature were used for analysis.

Affected Environment Geology/Geomorphology The analysis area is dominated by glacial and fluvial landforms. Glacial fluvial deposits occur in the valley bottom with glacial drift occurring on adjacent slopes. Dissected glaciated slopes dominate the area. Bedrock is composed of Cretaceous or older high- grade metamorphic bedrock (Stoffel 1990). The primary rock units of this group consist of medium to coarse-grained tonalities, granodiorites, and quartz monsonites. Typically, these rock units are hard and resistant to weathering, forming prominent ridges. Soil weathering products are normally quite coarse and lack fine silt and clay fractions. Topographic expression in the project area has been described in the in-service publication Landtype Associations of Central Washington (USDA, Forest Service 2004a). Continental glacial processes have shaped all landforms within the project area. This process also helps to explain soil properties and the occurrence of soils across the landscape. Two dominant landform groups occur within the analysis area, Ja8 and Jb2 (USDA, Forest Service 2004a).

Dissected Glaciated Mountain Slopes This landform occurs on relatively steep, high relief mountain slopes with moderately narrow ridgetops and steep sideslopes. Slopes form relatively V- shaped valleys. Landforms were shaped by fluvial erosion and locally with some continental glaciation. Slope gradients range from 35-65%.

3-43 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

Glacial till deposits if present, occur on north-facing slopes. Differential surface erosion influences topographic expression with south-facing slopes being steeper and more highly dissected. Slopes are dissected by a relatively high density of confined, moderate to high gradient streams in a sub-parallel to weak dendritic pattern. (Ja8, Jb2)

Soil Classification Soils occur in rather predictable patterns, which have been verified by field assessments completed by Forest Service Soil Scientists. A soil survey is complete in the analysis area Okanogan-Methow Highland Area, (USDA-NRCS 2004). Soil classification nomenclature conveys specific soil properties that are explained in the “Soil Properties” section below (USDA-NRCS, 2005). Two soils occur in site locations: Aquic Dystrocryepts, 0-15% slopes and Bluebuck, sandy-skeletal, isotic Vitrandic Eutrocryepts

Soil Environments Both soils are Inceptisols which are weakly developed soils occurring in warm, dry climates. These soils have relatively shallow, dark-colored surfaces that are very light- colored when dry. This feature suggests that organic matter with high base saturation is present, but not to the level that would completely darken the surface soil. Aquic Dystrocryepts are seasonally wet due to fluctuating water tables and close to perennial water. These soils have a high rock content and poor soil development.

Soil Interpretations Refer to Table 3-4 “Relative Soil Interpretations“in the 2005 National Soil Survey Handbook for each representative soil. The NRCS, NASIS (National Soil Information System) was used to determine soil interpretations within the analysis area.

Available Soil Water (holding capacity) The project area occurs in a relatively warm, dry area. Soil moisture stress locally has a substantial effect on vegetation growth and vigor. Volcanic ash soils within the analysis area have very low bulk density with extremely high pore space. Soils with high pore space also have relatively high water holding capacities. The depth of volcanic ash would strongly influence the amount of available soil water for many plant species, especially those that have relatively shallow root systems. Since orange hawkweed is stoloniferous mat forming plant, bare soil is reduced as is water infiltration. Less water is available for other plants.

Soil Erosion Soils in the site areas have course sandy loam textures with mixed ash content. Soils are friable and have weak structure. This characteristic can result in erosive conditions if site features are not limiting hydrologic processes. Currently orange hawkweed is dominating the sites and stabilizing the soils.

Detrimental Soil Compaction/Displacement Past timber sale activity created disturbance by skid trails and landings. These disturbed sites were opportune areas for orange hawkweed to establish as native plant populations were limiting.

Sites dominated by orange hawkweed have an adequate root system that breaks up the soil. Orange hawkweed is stoloniferous growing plant and works well as an erosion mat keeping soil in place.

3-44 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

Orange hawkweed is an attractant to livestock with moderate to high nutritive values. Concentrated livestock use on the sites has caused increased compaction.

Soil Productivity/Soil Microorganisms Productivity of the soils within the project area would vary depending on a variety of both physical and chemical properties. These properties generally include, but are not limited to: slope, aspect, elevation, precipitation, soil type, and soil depth, available water capacity of the soil, soil drainage and surface organic matter of the soil.

Changes in plant communities caused by non-native plant invasion can have large effects on the soil food web since the biota involved in nutrient cycling is powered by root exudates and decomposing vegetation from the plant community (Hobbie 1992).

Orange hawkweed clonally reproduces and aggressively spreads by stolons. It easily out-competes native plants and favors disturbed or moist locales. Organic matter is limiting and recruited from orange hawkweed leaves.

Often microorganism activity is highest in the surface organic duff layer and surface mineral soil. Duff from needles is absent in Orange hawkweed sites

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 No Action Orange hawkweed would continue to spread by stolon and seed into suitable habitats in the analysis area and beyond. The aggressiveness of orange hawkweed would out- compete adjacent native plant populations. Sites would become singularly dominated by orange hawkweed.

Orange hawkweed is an attractant to livestock. Overgrazing would increase soil compaction and decrease water infiltration. Livestock have the potential to spread seeds to new sites.

Alternative 2 Proposed Action – Herbicide Application and Manual Treatment Treat upland sites by spot spraying with picloram (Tordon) or clopyralid (Transline). Treat wet sites or those within 15 ft of open water by hand-wicking aquatic formulation of glyphosate (Rodeo). This would prevent spread, reduce sites, and would eventually eradicate the weed in the analysis area.

Detrimental Soil Disturbance (Compaction) No mechanical equipment would be used in herbicide applications. Backpack sprayers would be used. Trampling by feet would incur minimal to no soil compaction.

Detrimental Soil Displacement/Erosion There may be some bare soil exposed and short term erosion when orange hawkweed is initially removed while new vegetation is established on sites. Orange hawkweed is a mat forming plant and soil stabilizer. The geotextile ground cover would stabilize soils but if dislodging occurs it has the potential to remove soil.

3-45 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

Soil Productivity/Soil Microorganisms The abundance of soil microbial biomass is generally related to the organic matter content of soils (Brady and Weil 1999). Orange hawkweed sites would have reduced organic matter input and faster decay rates than native plant populations. This would decrease soil microbe diversity and size.

Orange hawkweed is allelopathic to other plants, and produce secondary compounds that can directly increase the population of soil microbes capable of metabolizing this compound, while decreasing the populations of other microbes (Sheley and Petroff 1999). These changes will affect the soil food web and nutrient cycling, and may have impacts on the native plant community.

The direct effects of herbicides on soil microbes are generally tiered from information on the product labels and the SERA Risk Assessments referenced in the R6 2005 FEIS (USFS 2005a). The SERA risk assessments display the effects of herbicides on soil microorganisms under typical and maximum application rates on the product label. These effects are based primarily on reviews of literature that have assessed the toxicity of each herbicide according to the increased persistence of residues as application rates increase (USFS 2005a). The potential effects on soil microbes are summarized in a comprehensive risk rating of toxicity (low, moderate, high) for each herbicide and listed in Figure 3.4-1.

The direct effects of herbicide applications proposed in this project on soil microbes are expected to be negligible due to evidence from research and practicable applications rates. Application rates were analyzed under the R6 FEIS in order to compare residue accumulations with threshold toxicity levels of concern identified for anadromous fish (USFS 2005a). These threshold values are below those allowed by the Environmental Protection Agency in most cases.

The effects of herbicide applications on microorganisms are also influenced by the application method and rate. Herbicides in this action alternative are spot applied or wicked on individual plants having a low risk of accumulating residues on the soil surface which are available to microbial assimilation.

Toxicity, persistence and mobility in the soil environment of clopyralid, glyphosate, and picloram are included in Figure 3.4-1 of this analysis. Soil properties influencing mobility and persistence are discussed in the existing conditions section of this report. The duration of the toxic effects is primarily determined by the half-life of the applied herbicide that is available for microbial assimilation (Figure 3.4-1). The half-life of each herbicide is influenced by the chemical characteristics of the herbicide (i.e. degradation rate and pathway), soil properties, and the soil microbes. The coarse sandy soils are easily leached so residual herbicide site accumulations are reduced. Below is a summary of effects of clopyralid. glyphosate, and picloram. Detailed information is in the R6 FEIS (USFS 2005a). Additional discussions on clopyralid, glyphosate and picloram concerning water quality are discussed in the Hydrology Specialist Report. The use of needle punched geotextile ground fabric would allow water to penetrate but the dark color of the fabric has the potential to heat up and not only kill orange hawkweed but also cause damage to soil mycorrhizae.

Picloram

3-46 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

Picloram would be used in upland sites. It has longer soil persistence than clopyralid and glyphosate. Picloram has proven effective in controlling orange hawkweed and would only be used in upland sites outside of Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas. Proposed application would ensure that orange hawkweed plants are targeted and minimal herbicide will impact adjacent plants or bare soil. Picloram does not bind strongly with soil particles and is highly mobile and persistent in soil from 1 month to several years. Picloram is primarily degraded by soil microbes and also can be leached by rain and degraded by sun. Picloram can move off-site through surface or subsurface runoff (Tu M. et al. 2005).

Glyphosate The aquatic formulation of glyphosate would be used on orange hawkweed plants within 15 ft of open water. Glyphosate binds readily to soil particles and absorbed prilmarily through plant foliage. This makes glyphosate less likely to become mobile or leach. Movement for these herbicides through the soil is less than clopyralid and picloram. Glyphosate is readily metabolized by soil microbes. It is non-volatile and degraded by soil microbes. Glysophate works best when directly applied to the plant as it loses effectiveness when it binds to soil and less likely to be taken up by plants (Tu, M. et al, 2005). This would also lessen glysophate to enter water through surface or subsurface runoff. It would work well in riparian vegetation and seasonal wet soils and be more effective than clopyralid or picloram.

Clopyralid Clopyralid would be used on plants greater than 15 ft from open water. It acts similarly as picloram acting as an auxin-mimic herbicide, but it is more selective than picloram (Tu, M. et al. 2005). It does not bind with soils and has the potential to be highly mobile. It is degraded by soil microbes and not susceptible to photo or chemical degradation. It is moderately persistent in soils, less than picloram and similar to glyphosate, see Figure 3.4-1. Clopyralid would be preferred over picloram as it is less persistent and less toxic to soil microbes.

Mass Wasting If orange hawkweed is removed and the soil is bare for any length of time there could be soil movement on steeper slopes.

Figure 3.4-1 General Research Findings of Pertinent Herbicide Characteristics Relating to Soils (USDA 2008) Herbicide Toxicity to Adsorption Degradation Activation Soil Microbes path and half Mechanism life Clopyralid low strong Soil microbes Plant growth 14 to 29 days regulator (very selective to broad leaves: post emergent) Glyphosate low strong Soil microbes Inhibits 3 amino 30 days acids and protein synthesis (Non- selective:

3-47 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

quickly absorbed by leaves with rapid movement through plant; no root absorption) Picloram Can inhibit low Soil microbes Plant growth microbial 90 days regulator growth (Selective: rate and season dependant; pre- emergent and soil active)

Alternative 3 – Mechanical Treatment Clipping and bagging flower heads would not require the use of herbicides. This treatment could reduce seed production for the year but could stimulate stolon growth. This alternative reduces potential for new adjacent sites from seed dispersal, but enlarges existing sites.

Detrimental Soil Displacement/Erosion There may be some bare soil exposed and short term erosion when orange hawkweed is initially removed while new vegetation is established on sites. The geotextile ground cover would stabilize soils but if dislodging occurs it has the potential to remove soil.

Soil Productivity/Soil Microorganisms There would be no impacts to soil microorganisms by herbicides. Clipping and bagging flower heads would be less effective at decreasing orange hawkweed populations than herbicides. Only the seed production would be targeted and not the stolons or roots. Plant energy would be diverted from seed production to stolons and root production. Increased root systems would cause orange hawkweed to spread, but new populations by seeds would be reduced. There would continue to be a concern for decreased soil microorganisms due to the presence of orange hawkweed. The use of needle punched geotextile ground fabric would allow water to penetrate but the dark color of the fabric has the potential to heat up and not only kill orange hawkweed but also cause damage to soil mycorrhizae. Mass Wasting If orange hawkweed is removed and the soil is bare for any length of time there could be soil movement on steeper slopes.

Consistency Finding Action Alternatives 2 and 3 would be consistent with Regional Forest Plan standards and guidelines for achieving soil quality objectives. Herbicide application or manually

3-48 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

removing plant heads would keep treatment sites within the 15% allowable detrimental soil as described by the Okanogan Forest Plan. This would show a net improvement for soils in treatment units.

Cumulative Effects This cumulative effects analysis considers the effects on soils from past actions going back over 20 years, along with ongoing actions and reasonably foreseeable future actions that have been proposed at this point in time. A complete list of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions is listed in Chapter 2. Only those activities that have affected soils are considered in this cumulative effects analysis. Because effects on soils are localized, this cumulative effects analysis is limited to the treatment sites.

Details regarding impacts of past activities have already been discussed in the existing condition information presented at the beginning of this soils section. Past timber sales; Split, Blue and Blue Fly occurred in the 1980’s and overlap with the sites. There would be no planned mechanical ground disturbing activities to add to more detrimental soil. Ongoing activities include livestock grazing, weed control, road maintenance, recreation, and firewood gathering. The Volstead unit of the Beaver Allotment overlaps the sites. These units were rested in 2007 and are planned to be rested in 2008 and 2009. In the absence of grazing, trampling would be eliminated which would also eliminate additional soil compaction. It would also allow native plants to re-vegetate after weed treatments. Seed spread by livestock would also be eliminated but may still occur with wildlife. Livestock grazing on orange hawkweed sites in the future have the potential to spread seeds. This would increase orange hawkweed populations and have detrimental impacts to native plant populations and associated soil microbes. Road maintenance would not be a contributor to new orange hawkweed populations if equipment is adequately cleaned and washed. The road system is closed from October 1 to March 31 of each year for non-motorized hunting. This would limit weed spread and benefit soil microbes.

Recreation and firewood gathering would involve vehicle traffic that may transport orange hawkweed seeds from within adjacent Forest lands and from off Forest populations. If seeds are transported and get established there would be negative impacts to native plant populations and associated soil microbes. Current and future herbicide applications and manual seed head removal would occur for an estimate of 10 years. However, as orange hawkweed populations decrease the amount of herbicide applications will also decrease. Monitoring of present and future orange hawkweed populations would determine this need. This would decrease or eliminate orange hawkweed populations and benefit native plant populations and associated soil microbes.

There would be no cumulative effects on the soil resource as a result of implementing Alternative 1. No manual or herbicide treatments are planned. Alternative 2 would have the most soil impacts with the use of herbicides. Soil microbes would be affected differently by each herbicide with picloram having the greatest impact on soil microbes and longest residual soil time. Alternative 3 would have fewer impacts on soil microbes than Alternative 2 and potentially more indirect impacts on soil microbes than Alternative 1 as orange hawkweed root growth would be stimulated by seed head removal. Alternative 1 has the greatest potential for orange hawkweed spread than Alternatives 2 and 3 as no herbicides would be used or seed heads removed. New populations of

3-49 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

orange hawkweeds are most likely to occur under Alternative 1 than Alternatives 2 or 3. Alternative 2 would provide the best results in eliminating orange hawkweed. This may inhibit soil microbes in the short term but has long term benefits to soil microbes and soil productivity as native vegetation becomes re-established.

3.5 Range Management

Affected Environment

Permitted Use on the Beaver Allotment

Most of the project area falls within the Volstead pasture of the Beaver grazing allotment. The Beaver Meadows area is the only portion of the project area that is outside of any grazing allotment. The Beaver Allotment is 43,947 acres with 4 pastures (separated grazing areas). The grazing system is a deferred-rest rotation. Currently the permit allows 140 cow/calf pairs to graze from 5/10-9/30, which equals 887 animal unit months (AUMs). This system utilizes two early season grazing pastures (Burns Canyon and Cougar) grazed and rested on alternating years, one mid season unit (Volstead) and one mid-late season unit (Middle Fork). The Loup Loup and Wolf units within the Frazer allotment are grazed in conjunction with the Beaver allotment as needed to allow flexibility in grazing strategies and/or providing for more rest for units in both allotments. The pastures are mainly divided by natural barriers.

Livestock movement and grazing management is facilitated by utilizing fences, water developments, corrals, and stock driveways. Range management practices such as salt distribution, riding and grazing rotations are implemented through annual coordination between the District Rangeland Management Specialist and the permittee (rancher).

Current Management

The Tripod Fire Burned Area

The Volstead Pasture has been rested since the 2006 Tripod Fire, where much of the pasture burned. Only the Volstead pasture is being rested to provide for vegetation recovery under a modified allotment grazing strategy. When standards are met that indicate sufficient vegetation recovery has occurred, the management of the allotment will return to that of the pre-fire grazing system as described above. Currently there is over 5000 acres of high severity burned area that has not recovered vegetatively and is highly susceptible to orange hawkweed invasion.

Figure 3.5-1 Volstead pasture acres within the Tripod Fire. Total % Acres Allotment Acres by Burn Severity Acres within Tripod High Mod. Low Fire 16,034 77% 5,568 4,294 2,473

Grazing impacts

3-50 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

Livestock grazing on the Beaver allotment currently is not likely to be a major contributor to the spread of orange hawkweed; however some spread potential by cattle exists. Cattle along with wildlife may be vectors of spread. The Montana Natural Resources Conservation Service explains that each hawkweed seed is ribbed, and the ribs have minute barbs that enable them to stick to hair, fur, or if grazed, they can be spread through the digestive tract (http://www.mt.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/ecs/invasive/technotes/InvasiveTN_16/biology_e cology.html). Cattle use within the Volstead pasture has been observed to be the highest on the Volstead Creek area and to be relatively low within the Upper Blue Buck Creek hawkweed sites. The overall trends for orange hawkweed indicate that traffic along roads, and the movement of seed by wind and water along riparian corridors, are the main vectors at this time. The vehicle traffic can include the livestock management traffic by the permittee that could contribute to the spread of invasive plants if the vehicle comes from an infested area or drives through an infested area. Similarly, the permittee seldom travels on the roads associated with the hawkweed with a low likelihood of spread associated with allotment management.

Road placement, past timber harvest activities, and fence locations combined with water access and steep topography can result in the virtually unavoidable concentration of cattle, creating localized area of high use. Invasive species can be easily established and dispersed from these areas. These areas of high use have been constantly monitored by the range management staff and no orange hawkweed populations have been identified in these areas (see Compliance Checks and Monitoring).

The Annual Operating Instructions for the Beaver Allotment include measures to manage weeds. Based on the Forest-wide Integrated Noxious Weed Management Program, continued instruction is given to the permitttee annually with emphasis given to weed prevention and early detection to facilitate rapid treatment response. The permittees’ assistance is strongly encouraged in locating noxious weed sites. The orange hawkweed population in Blue Buck Creek was discussed in detail with the permittee prior to the 2008 grazing season.

Grazing permittees are not allowed to feed weed-infested hay to their livestock on National Forest System lands, which could be a potential source of new infestations. The Beaver allotment permittee does not use hay on National Forest

Compliance Checks and Monitoring

Both riparian and upland allowable use standards are being met on the Beaver allotment. Allotment inspections, resource condition and end of season monitoring are conducted to ensure management direction as outlined in the Annual Operating Instructions (AOI, annual management instructions to the permittee) is followed. Allotment resource condition monitoring takes place throughout the grazing season. This day-to-day monitoring allows for adjustments to the instructions, if necessary, as a response to a change in resource conditions. End of season monitoring is completed on allotments as a measure of compliance with the allowable forage use standards and is also an indicator of successful management.

3-51 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

Riparian Areas

Riparian areas (interface between stream and upland) are currently meeting PACFISH standards. Monitoring is conducted in areas of highest use. Percent streambank alteration by livestock is determined using the Streambank Alteration method (Cowley, Burton, and Smith. 2006), which was developed for PACFISH. Monitoring is conducted within established Designated Monitoring Areas (DMAs). Riparian conditions within the allotments are meeting Forest Plan standards under PACFISH on all capable range with the exception of a few hot spots where localized high use areas may exceed 30%. The allowable use standard for Streambank Alteration is not to exceed 20% current year alteration by livestock.

Upland Areas

The upland forage within the allotments is meeting Forest Plan utilization standards on all capable range with the exception of a few spots where these localized high use areas may exceed 60%. These areas are typically seeded domestic grasses. Road placement, past timber harvest activities, and fence locations combined with water access and steep topography can result in the virtually unavoidable concentration of animals. These infrequent hotspots occur in spite of Forest Service range managers and permittees effort to implement best management practices and the terms of the AOI. A good portion of the native bunchgrass and pinegrass range within the allotments typically receives light to moderate use or may not be grazed at all. This is primarily due to the relative distance from water, the timing of grazing and the window of palatability of these forage species.

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 No Action

Implementing the No Action Alternative would not be beneficial to livestock grazing on the Beaver allotment as the presence of invasive species would increase. The current condition for the project area shows a trend for increasing invasive species within the Beaver allotment. This trend is recognized regionally in the Pacific Northwest Invasive Plant Program 2005 R6 FEIS that invasive plants spread at a rate of 8-12 percent annually. Current management of orange hawkweed is having little success. Without more aggressive treatment than is currently occurring, orange hawkweed would likely continue to displace palatable native vegetation and reduce forage on the Beaver allotments. Loss of native plant communities may continue to occur as orange hawkweed occupies and out-competes native species. Once orange hawkweed begins to dominate these communities, a loss of species diversity, composition, and ecosystem function could occur. Orange hawkweed plants would continue to spread into areas that are not currently infested, such as recently burned Tripod Fire area. Once orange hawkweed becomes established, these areas would likely serve as seed source with potential to invade the adjacent pastures in the Beaver allotment and potentially adjacent grazing allotments on the Forest.

3-52 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

This alternative would not meet the desired future condition of the area which is to “retain healthy native plant communities that are diverse and resilient, and restore ecosystems that are being damaged, and to provide high quality habitat for native organisms throughout the forest, and assure that invasive plants do not jeopardize the ability of the forest to provide goods and services communities expect” (Region 6 Invasive Plant FEIS, 2005, Chapter 2.4.1).

Specific to Range management, the Okanogan National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 1989) established Forest management goals. The orange hawkweed sites are within Management Area 25. The most pertinent goals to Range management are found in Management Area 25, which are to intensively manage the range resources to achieve a high level of range outputs while protecting the basic productivity of the land and providing for the production of wildlife, recreation opportunities, and other resources (USDA Forest Service 1989, Management Area 25, Page 4-103). This alternative would not meet the goal of protecting the basic productivity of the land.

Alternative 2 Proposed Action – Herbicide Application and Manual Treatment

This alternative would meet the 2005 Region 6 Invasive Plant FEIS desired future condition and the Okanogan Forest Plan goals for Range management in Management Area 25.

The long-term effects of implementing the Proposed Action alternative on the Beaver allotment would be the retention of currently available forage, reduction in spread from existing and unknown future sites, and recovery of native vegetation in areas currently impacted by orange hawkweed.

Under the proposed action it is acknowledged that more herbicides would be available in the environment during implementation as a potential hazard to livestock and livestock managers. As part of the 2005 Region 6 Invasive Plant FEIS, risk assessments were conducted on the three herbicides proposed for this project by Syracuse Environmental Research Associates (SERA), Inc. The herbicides picloram and clopyralid were found to have low toxicity to mammals with exposures well below levels of concern under proposed application rates. For glyphosate, the risk assessment found that mortality is plausible to some large vegetation-eating mammals at the highest application rates only. For all three herbicides, the risk of exposure to workers and public was far below levels of concern except in the case of a spill with picloram. If label directions are followed and proper handling methods are implemented, this is expected to be of no concern to livestock and livestock managers.

The use of Geo-textile fabrics would have little to no effect on livestock grazing nor would the livestock have detrimental impacts to the fabric. The only potential impact would be that the cattle could trample the treated area after the fabric is removed and disturb or graze the reestablishing vegetation. The fabric that is proposed would be durable enough to withstand most cattle traffic. When adequate vegetation recovery of the Tripod Fire is attained and cattle grazing continues in this area, it is expected that the relatively low level of livestock use in this area will remain similar to that of the pre-fire levels and there will be abundant roadside forage. There would be enough alternative forage available that cattle would not have special attraction to these areas and the detrimental impacts of the grazing to the treated area would be negligible.

3-53 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

The Proposed Action Alternative will allow invasive plant treatments on approximately 11 gross acres within the Volstead pasture. Approximately 4.4 net weed site acres would be treated. Control and eradication of orange hawkweed would not delay the Tripod Fire vegetation recovery and would meet the desired future condition within the project area. A key part of this effort would be early detection and response for any new infestations.

Alternative 3- Manual and Mechanical Treatments

This alternative would not meet the 2005 Region 6 Invasive Plant FEIS desired future condition or the Forest Plan goals for Range management in Management Area 25 (see Alternative 1 effects discussion).

With mechanical treatment, orange hawkweed would likely continue to displace palatable native vegetation and reduce forage on the Beaver allotments but to a lesser extent than Alternative 1. Orange hawkweed populations would continue to spread vegetatively and expand into areas that are not currently infested. Not all seed production would be prevented with a potential of seed dispersal and establishing new sites. Vegetative spread and seed dispersal would be reduced but would continue to serve as seed source with potential to invade the adjacent pastures in the Beaver allotment and potentially adjacent grazing allotments on the Forest.

Cumulative effects

The following activities would have a cumulative effect on Range and will be considered in this cumulative effects analysis: timber harvest, road construction and maintenance, Tripod Fire, Tripod BAER helimulching and hydroseeding, and noxious weed treatment. The other activities would not have a cumulative effect on Range and are not considered. A complete list of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions is listed earlier in Chapter 3. The geographic boundary for this cumulative effects analysis is the entire project area including all of the Volstead pasture within the Beaver grazing allotment, and the temporal boundary is the period of time when the activities associated with this project are occurring from the mid1980s to 10 years post-project.

Past Actions

Tripod Fire suppression activities in 2006 involved dozer lines and handlines with many created clearings for drop points, safety zones, staging areas, and helispots. These areas were seeded with a seed mix for weed competition and soil stabilization. There is a potential that these clearings would be beneficial to cattle movement and facilitate grazing distribution, but may be detrimental by creating new drift corridors into sensitive areas or to areas outside the permitted pasture. Livestock mitigation measures of increased riding and compliance checks along with good management practices such as proper salting and maintenance of water developments would reduce the impacts of the drift.

Tripod Fire removed the overstory and has opened the canopy to sunlight. The increase in sunlight will create additional transitory range in the area. The transitory range

3-54 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

duration for an average conifer stand in the northwest is approximately 10-20 years (Baumgartner, 1989). There is a high likelihood that an increase in transitory range will be beneficial to cattle movement and facilitate grazing distribution

Logging activity and associated secondary roads were completed in conjunction with timber sales. Road construction increased livestock access throughout the Volstead pasture and the timber harvest was a factor in increasing transitory range in the pasture. These past activities have increased the overall livestock distribution with an increase in use within the clearcuts that the hawkweed populations are in but the associated increase in improved distribution since the 1980s has remained relatively low.

Tripod BAER, hydromulching treatments of 2006 and 2007 were conducted on roadsides within the burned areas within the Volstead pasture. There is a potential that the establishment of these grasses may attract cattle and change distribution patterns that would increase access to the roadside orange hawkweed populations with potential to spread the weeds. Similarly, Tripod BAER, helimulching treatments of 2006 and 2007 where conducted on some of the high severity burned areas within the Volstead pasture. There is a potential that the increase in litter will increase the rate of vegetation recovery and improve the transitory range and attract cattle to these areas with the potential to increase access to the orange hawkweed populations.

Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities

Livestock grazing will continue on the Beaver allotment. The Volstead pasture will continue to be rested until an adequate level of vegetation recovery has been achieved. Grazing will continue in the adjacent pastures while the Volstead pasture is rested. There will continue to be some drift of cattle from these pastures into the Volstead pasture with potential to access and spread the orange hawkweed populations. Range management techniques such as adjusting the timing, intensity, and duration of use, salting, riding, and improving water developments and fences, would continue to be used on the Beaver allotment to obtain desired distribution of cattle.

Road maintenance would continue which would continue to facilitate current cattle movement patterns.

Ongoing noxious weed treatment will continue within the Volstead pasture and reduce the potential for spread of weeds from other sites by cattle into the orange hawkweed treatment areas as the area is revegetating.

Conclusion The cumulative effect of the past, present, and future actions may increase cattle access to the orange hawkweed populations and increase the spread of orange hawkweed. However, implementing the proposed action would reduce the population of the hawkweed at a similar rate that cattle access would increase and the effect would be negligible. Ongoing weed treatments on other sites within the Volstead pasture will reduce the potential of spread into the treated areas and would not reduce the effectiveness of revegetation of the treated area.

3-55 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

3.6 Aquatic Resources

Regulatory Framework

The proposed Blue Buck Hawkweed project occurs on land managed under the Okanogan and Wenatchee Land and Resource Management Plans (Forest Plan, USDA Forest Service 1989 and 1990). The Decision Notice and Environmental Assessment for the Interim Strategies for Managing Fish-producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and Portions of California (PACFISH, USDA and USDI, 1995) amended the Forest Plan.

The project alternatives, which include the design criteria and mitigation measures described in Chapter 2, were designed to be consistent with the 2005 R6 Invasive Plant EIS, Biological Opinions (BO) from National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries (NOAA 2005/03140) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS 1-7-05-7-0653), and the Forest Plan standards and guidelines as amended.

Okanogan Forest Plan This plan (page 4-2) states, “Fish habitat will be managed to maintain or enhance its biological, chemical, and physical qualities”. Emphasizing proper management activities on lands adjacent to streams, lakes, and wetlands can protect aquatic habitat. The desired condition for aquatic and riparian resources (page 4-5) includes: Riparian areas will continue to display riparian ecosystem values. Habitat to support threatened and endangered species will be protected in accordance with recovery plans. Fisheries habitat for rearing, spawning, and migration will be in an improved state.

Fisheries (page 4-31): 3-1 Maintain or enhance biological, chemical, and physical qualities of forest fish habitats.

PACFISH PACFISH has five components: Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs), Riparian Goals, Riparian Management Objectives, Key Watersheds, and Watershed Analysis. How the five components of PACFISH relate to the project and project area is explained below:

1. PACFISH Riparian Goals (USDA and USDI 1995:C-4) for the project area provide the framework for the aquatic resources analysis, and were identified as follows: Maintain and Restore: Water quality to a degree that provides for stable and productive riparian and aquatic ecosystems.

2. Riparian Management Objectives (PACFISH, page C-6) describe good anadromous habitat. The numeric values given in PACFISH are intended to be modified to reflect suitable conditions for a given region. Stream survey data is used to define proper function for levels of large wood and pools. All Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs) for forested stream systems include channel structure and temperature, which

3-56 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

will not be affected by the proposed project because there will be no ground disturbance. These RMOs are analyzed in and consistent with the Programmatic Biological Assessment from NOAA and US FWS (NOAA 2005/03140 & FWS 1-7-05-7-0653) for the Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Environmental Assessment

3. RHCAs (USDA and USDI 1995:C-6): RHCA widths are described under PACFISH (USDA and USDI 1995) and range from 300 feet on either side of fish bearing streams and lakes to 100 feet along non-fish bearing intermittent streams. The PACFISH Standard and Guidelines for applying herbicides in RHCAs are as follows:

General Riparian Area Management (page C-17) RA-3 Apply herbicides, pesticides, and other toxicants, and other chemicals in a manner that does not retard or prevent attainment of Riparian Management Objectives and avoids adverse effects on listed anadromous fish. RA-4 Prohibit storage of fuels and other toxicants within RHCAs.

4. Key Watersheds (USDA and USDI 1995:C-19): Key Watersheds were established to “provide a pattern of protection across the landscape where habitat for anadromous fish would receive special attention and treatment. Priority within these watersheds would be to protect or restore habitat for listed stocks, stocks of special interest or concern, or salmonid assemblages of critical value or biodiversity (USDA and USDI 1995:C-19)”.

The project area is within the Middle Methow River 5th field watershed, which contains fish species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and is considered a PACFISH Key Watershed.

5. Watershed Analysis (USDA and USDI 1995:C-19): A Watershed Analysis has been completed for the Middle Methow River (USDA 1997). No issues were identified with the proposed action.

The Endangered Species Act (ESA), Forest Plan direction, and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require that consultation be completed with respect to effects of proposed activities on Endangered, Threatened, Sensitive, and Management Indicator Species, Critical Habitat, and Essential Fish Habitat. The species and habitat of concern in the project are described later in this section. Consultation on effects to ESA listed species will be conducted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA) prior to issuance of the FEIS and ROD for this project. Consultation is not required if the Forest Service project biologists determine that there will be “No Effect” to listed species and habitat.

Analysis Methods

Information used to establish the baseline conditions for aquatic and riparian habitat, fish population trends, and their distribution came from several sources including field observations, stream and fish distribution inventories, and watershed analyses/assessments.

Through this analysis, the best available information and science was considered and used.

3-57 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

Okanogan Forest Plan standards (USDA Forest Service 1989a:4-30 to 4-32), PACFISH goals, and RMOs (USDA and USDI 1995:C-3) and standards most pertinent to the desired conditions at the 5th field HUC watershed scale were tracked through the analysis. Effects from herbicide application to water chemistry and fish species were predicted using the Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants Final Environmental Impact Statement (USDA 2005) and the Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc (SERA) risk assessments for glyphosate.

The effects from the use of any herbicide and additives depends on the toxic properties (hazards) of that chemical, the level of exposure to that chemical at any given time, the duration of that exposure and the documented laboratory dose/response to the specific chemical. The Region 6 Invasive Plant FEIS (2005a) used the herbicide risk assessments displayed in Table 7 to evaluate the potential for harm to non-target plants, wildlife, human health, soils and aquatic organisms from the herbicides considered for use in this EIS. This section summarizes the known information about herbicides and additives, discusses the approach taken in this EIS, and discloses the uncertainties associated with herbicides and additives.

The Forest Service contracts with SERA to conduct ecological risk assessments, specifically on fish species, for herbicides that may be proposed for use on National Forest System lands. All toxicity data, exposure scenarios, and assessments of risk are based upon information in the Forest Service/SERA Risk Assessments unless otherwise noted.

Forest Service/SERA Risk Assessments use peer-reviewed articles from the open scientific literature and current EPA documents, including Confidential Business Information. Specific methods used in preparing the Forest Service/SERA Risk Assessments are described in SERA, 2001-Preparation. Only information that is not derived from the relevant Forest Service/SERA Risk Assessments is specifically cited in this section. The risk assessments and associated documentation is available in total in the administrative record for this EIS. Estimates of risk are not absolute; rather, they are relative and based on assumptions and 3-95 Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2005 evolving toxicity data. Risk assessments have inherent limitations; these are discussed later in this chapter.

Aquatic habitat was evaluated at the 6th and 5th field HUC, to assess if streams meet the PACFISH goals and objectives (USDA and USDI 1995:C-4 to C-6) and if the project would hinder attainment of these objectives. There are no relevant RMOs, because they deal with channel structure and temperature, so the project will be designed to meet the objectives of maintaining the present water quality levels.

Analysis Area

The project lies within the 166,477 acre Middle Methow River 5th field watershed and the 40,100 acre Upper Beaver Creek 6th field sub-watershed. Indirect effects can occur downstream but will be limited to the assigned project area that extends down stream to RM 13.3 of Beaver Creek and with an area of approximately 13,840 acres. The downstream end is over 4.5 stream miles away. This area with be the analysis area for aquatic resources.

3-58 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

In 2006 the Tripod fire burned about 51% of the Upper Beaver subwatershed. About 13,000 acres (of the 40,100 acres) had a moderate to high burn severity. In the Blue Buck Creek subdivision, 98% of the 5526 acres was burned and most of it was in the moderate to high fire severity classes. The potential treatment area of 11 acres was in the high severity burned areas.

Much of the Blue Buck watershed had emergency treatments such as hydro-mulching and weed free straw placement to reduce the potential for erosion from the burned hillsides. In addition emergency road treatments such as culvert improvements, roads cleared, and surfaces graded. Effectiveness monitoring of BAER related noxious weed treatments are likely continuing in 2008 and any necessary re-treatments will occur if the 2007 treatments were not effective.

This analysis includes sensitive fish species, streams, and associated RHCAs in the project area of the Upper Beaver Creek 6th field subwatershed. Streams in the Action Area include Blue Buck Creek from the mouth to RM 3.7 and upper Beaver Creek from RM 13.3 up to RM 15.7, which is the just above the upper extent of proposed treatment areas and downstream to where there would be no effects.

Affected Environment

Fish

The project area contains habitat for bull trout and possibly redband rainbow trout. Bull trout are federally listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act and redband rainbow trout are listed as Sensitive under the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species. These species are also designated as Management Indicator Species. The project area does not support Chinook or coho salmon, species for which Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) has been designated under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

Bull Trout: Listed as Threatened by the FWS June 1, 1998 (63 FR 31647, 64 FR 17110). Bull trout in the Methow River sub-basin are included in this population segment. There are four additional population segments listed in the lower 48 states. Additionally, the coterminous United States population of bull trout in the lower 48 states was listed as Threatened on November 1, 1999 (64 FR 58910). Although, this rule consolidates five bull trout population segments into one listed taxon, each is considered unique and significant. These population segments are treated as interim recovery units for Section 7 purposes until an approved recovery plan is developed.

At the time of listing, bull trout abundance in the Upper Columbia Basin was relatively low, with the exception of the Lake Wenatchee subpopulation, which was “strong” and increasing or stable. Most of the subpopulations exhibited “depressed” or unknown trends and consisted of a single life-history form. Bull trout are designated as “occupancy unknown” in the Okanogan and Lake Chelan sub-basins. The FWS Draft Recovery Plan indicates that bull trout in the Wenatchee, Entiat, and Methow core areas persist at low abundance (FWS 2002).

3-59 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

Eastern brook trout is a non-native trout species stocked within the Upper Columbia Basin that competes with bull trout for food and space. In addition, brook trout can hybridize with bull trout and adult brook trout are known to feed on juvenile bull trout. Hybridization “dilutes” the bull trout gene pool and can result in offspring that are often sterile, reducing bull trout production rates. Brook trout can also displace bull trout from rearing areas. In some streams, brook trout are so well established that they may have greatly reduced the numbers of bull trout in them (FWS 2002).

Critical Habitat: Critical habitat is defined in Section 3(5)(A) of the ESA as “the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special management considerations or protection.” NOAA designated critical habitat for UCR spring-run Chinook and UCR steelhead on September 2, 2005 (70 FR 52630). See maps in the analysis file for a map of critical habitat for spring-run Chinook and steelhead. The FWS designated critical habitat in a revised rule making for bull trout on September 26, 2005 (70 FR 56212). There were no areas of critical habitat designated in the final rule for the Methow River population of bull trout due to areas of habitat exclusions applied by the Secretary of Interior.

Rainbow/Redband Trout are listed as species of concern by the USFWS and are on the Regional Forester Sensitive Species List. Redband rainbow trout are present in most 5th field watersheds in the project area. The species is declining over its historic range in the northwest. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife stocked non-native rainbow trout in streams and lakes since the 1920s and continues today. Rainbow trout in the Methow River subbasin have an historic genetic influence from costal rainbow due to the extensive fish stocking (Proebstel, et al, 1998). Although little data on the local population level is available, the Forest Service fisheries biologist believes the numbers are declining locally.

Other Species of Interest Eastern Brook Trout is a non-native trout species stocked within the Upper Columbia Basin that competes with bull trout for food and space. In addition, brook trout can hybridize with bull trout and adult brook trout are known to feed on juvenile bull trout. Hybridization “dilutes” the bull trout gene pool and can result in offspring that are often sterile, reducing bull trout production rates. Brook trout can also displace bull trout from rearing areas. In some streams, brook trout are so well established that they may have greatly reduced the numbers of bull trout in them (FWS 2002). Historically, the WDFW stocked eastern brook trout throughout the Methow Valley basin; the species maintains strongholds in most 5th field watersheds.

Fish Distribution

Blue Buck Creek and Upper Beaver Creek In 2006, the Tripod Fire burned most of Blue Buck Creek. Prior to the fire there were about 20 bull trout in the creek and a few in the mouth of upper Beaver Creek. Redband rainbow trout also used the lower 0.3 miles of Beaver Creek above the confluence with Blue Buck Creek. There is a natural falls that blocks these species from going higher in Beaver Creek (Table 3.6-1). This area used to not be accessible by fish because of irrigation dams that block fish on lower Beaver Creek. Restoration efforts removed the barriers and now fish have access to the upper part of the watershed. Snorkel surveys in 2007 found no bull trout in Blue Buck Creek and Beaver Creek, in the analysis area.

3-60 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

The fire either forced the fish to move out or heated the water and killed the fish. With the restored access to this area, the Forest Service hopes that the improved fish passage in lower Beaver Creek will help repopulate Beaver and Blue Buck Creek with bull trout.

Figure 3.6-1. Sensitive fish distribution in project area.

Blue Buck Beaver Creek Sensitive Fish Species Status Creek (RM 14 to 16.5) Bull Trout Federally Threatened 3 0.29 Forest Service Redband Rainbow Trout 0 0.29 Sensitive Species

Streams

The analysis area has an estimated 14.3 miles of perennial stream and it includes 10 miles of Blue Buck Creek and 4.3 miles of upper Beaver Creek down to where they meet. The recent Tripod fire burned much of the RHCAs and resulted in little canopy coverage but high quantities of large wood. There is little to no evidence of human manipulation or disturbance except for a few road crossings. Stream habitat indicators potentially affected by the proposed project are water chemistry, sediment, and riparian vegetation.

Water Chemistry There are no known streams or stream reaches within the Beaver Creek watershed that are impaired for water chemistry (in this context water chemistry refers to the presence of herbicides, pesticides, or other chemicals). Herbicide application along roads and aerial use of fertilizer was used after the Tripod Fire to control invasive plants along roads and to promote native tree growth. Perennial streams were buffered from treatment however, some likely was available for run off to streams for 60 days or more because urea is held by the soil and is utilized or volatilizes rapidly (60 days). Other than cases like this, the use of herbicides or other chemicals within the Methow Valley has not been a common occurrence.

Sediment Surface fine sediments, in 2004 and 2007, were at or exceeded the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s standards for properly functioning for bull trout in almost every reach of Beaver Creek and Blue Buck Creek in both survey years. The amount of surface fine sediments does not appear to have increased after the Tripod Fire. The lack of landslides and bank erosion in the streams immediately after the fire is the likely reason surface fine sediments have not increased. This could change in the future if landslides occur in the watershed. The table below summarizes the % surface fine data from pebble counts conducted in the two survey years. The difference in the results is likely due to the selection of the pebble count sites, not an increase of decrease in the amount of surface fine sediments. Existing sediment levels are functioning at risk.

3-61 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

Figure 3.6-2: Comparison of Surface Fine Sediment Data in Beaver Creek and Blue Buck Creek 2007 vs. 2004 Stream, Reach and River Mile 2007 % 2004 % Surface Increase Surface Fines Fines < 6 mm (Decrease) in <6 mm Surface Fines Beaver Creek Reach 4 (RM 11.1 to 13.7) 18% 21% -3% Beaver Creek Reach 5 (RM 13.7 to 14.0) 19% 30% -11% Blue Buck Creek Reach 1 (mouth to RM .8) 22% 26% -4% Blue Buck Creek Reach 2 (RM 0.8 to 2.2) 24% 17% +7% Blue Buck Creek Reach 3 (RM 2.2 to 2.8) 30% Not surveyed n/a Average of All Stream Reaches 22.2% 24.5% -2.3%

Riparian Vegetation The Tripod Fire of 2006 burned much of the riparian vegetation along Blue Buck Creek and upper Beaver Creek. Young vegetation is present along these streams but is being out-competed by orange hawkweed along the banks in two areas of Blue Buck Creek. The rapid growth and propagation of invasive plants, such as orange hawkweed, allows them to out-compete many native plants. This competitive advantage results in the loss of functional riparian communities, loss of rooting strength and protection against erosion, decreased slope stability, and increased sediment delivery to streams, impacting water quality (Donaldson 1997), and potentially degrading habitat for aquatic organisms.

Environmental Consequences

Effects of invasive plant treatment methods to aquatic organisms were evaluated and discussed in detail in the R6 2005 FEIS and it’s Appendix P, the corresponding Biological Assessment (USDA Forest Service 2005c), project files, and SERA risk assessments (2001, 2003, 2004). The “worst case” exposure scenarios do not account for factors such as timing and method of application, animal behavior and feeding strategies, seasonal presence or absence within a treatment area, and/or implementation of Project Design Criteria unique to this EA. Therefore, risk is overestimated when compared to the actual applications proposed in this EA.

The two alternatives developed in this EA are consistent with the R6 2005 FEIS and the corresponding Biological Assessments for the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS No: 2005/03140) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS Reference Number 1-7-05- 7-0653). Common to both action alternatives is a comprehensive set of Project Design Criteria, designed to limit the probability and/or magnitude of adverse effects.

Alternative 1 Under this alternative, Orange Hawkweed would continue to spread in the project area RHCAs and provide a source for future infestations. If the Orange Hawkweed is untreated, it could spread and out-compete native riparian vegetation from growing after the Tripod Fire. This could reduce the functioning condition of riparian vegetation and stream bank stability. For example, the competitive advantage of Orange Hawkweed could prevent deep rooted native vegetation from forming along stream banks that could lead to reduced protection against erosion and bank stability. This could lead to

3-62 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

increased sediment delivery to important fish streams. Impacts related to contamination, sedimentation, and temperature would not occur.

Cumulative Effects for No Action Populations of orange hawkweed would eventually expand across the project area, likely resulting in decreased function of riparian vegetation along sensitive fish streams. Important native plants would be out-competed in many areas that provide important bank stability. The spread of Orange Hawkweed would contribute to other sources such as grazing, dispersed recreation, and firewood collection.

Alternative 2

Direct and Indirect Effects

The lethal potency of herbicides for aquatic species are commonly expressed in concentration levels that kill 50% of fish after being in contaminated water for 96 hours. These values are typically expressed as time-specific LCx values where LC is the lethal concentration and x is the estimate of the proportion of fish that die – e.g., 96 hour LC50. The LC50 values are defined as either parts-per-million (ppm) or micrograms per liter (mg/l), both are the same. The higher the LC50 value, the less toxic a chemical is because it takes more of it to kill 50 fish. The chronic no-observed-effect-concentration (NOEC), when available, is used to define no observed mortality in studies but there may be sub-lethal effects. When NOEC levels are not defined, the accepted value is 1/20 of the LC50 value. Nearly all studies done on toxicity of herbicides on cold water species were done to rainbow trout, which is the standard surrogate for all salmon and trout species (Fairchild et al. 2007).

According to the SERA report (SERA 2003), the LC50 value for the Rodeo form of glyphosate for rainbow trout ranged from 60 to over 1,000 parts per million (ppm). This means it took concentrations of between 60 and 1,000 ppm of Rodeo in water to cause 50% of the total number of fish to die from exposure. According to the SERA report (2003), NOEC levels for salmon and trout with glyphosate, which are considered sensitive species to herbicides, range between 0.36 ppm and 2.57 ppm. Experimental data indicates that the surfactant Agri-Dex has LC50 values greater than 1,000 ppm and LI-700 was 130 ppm for rainbow trout (SERA 1997). NOEC levels for these are not well defined in the literature but the 1/20 value for these would be 50 ppm for Agri-Dex and 6.5 for LI-700. The SERA report for the monoamine salt formulation of clopyralid, which is the form this project proposes to use, indicated the LC50 for rainbow trout was 700 mg/L. Using the accepted 1/20 value of the LC50, the NOEC is assumed to be 35 ppm. This was similar to a more recent study done by Fairchild et al (2007), who found the toxicity of rainbow trout being 700 mg/L and the LC50 for bull trout was 802 mg/L (NOEC value for bull trout of 40.1 ppm). Picloram is the most toxic of the three proposed herbicides, with LC50 value of 5.5 mg/L (SERA 3003). However, this herbicide will only be used outside of RHCAs, and for Blue Buck Creek and Beaver Creek, this distance is 300 feet on either side of the stream. The lowest reported NOEC for cold water fish with picloram is 0.29ppm for cutthroat trout (SERA 2003)

The project hydrologist used the AGDRIFT model to predict herbicide concentrations in Blue Buck Creek and other streams when spot-spraying the proposed herbicides within 1, 10, 50, and 100 feet of streams. This analysis is based on local precipitation levels and soil types. The concentration ranged from 0.009 ppm at 1 foot down to 0.0009 ppm

3-63 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

at 100 feet. At the highest concentration and with the closest modeled application, the modeled concentration would be 40 and 300 times lower than the NOEC levels for salmonids for the herbicides used in RHCAs. Picloram is proposed for use at least 300 feet from fish streams, 150 feet from perennial non-fish bearing, and 100 feet from intermittent streams. This herbicide would not reach any stream before it becomes inert due to the rate it could reach a stream from surface run-off or via subsurface flow.

Based on the literature and SERA reports (2003) cited above, we do not expect any direct effects resulting in mortality from the proposed herbicide treatments. However, there may be some sub-lethal effects that would go undetected. However, based on the very low predicted concentrations predicted, we expect these effects to be minimal and not of the magnitude to affect spawning, rearing, or foraging behaviors. These anticipated effects are within the scope of affects analyzed in the R6 Invasive Plant Program EIS (p. 4-119 & 4-120).

Indirect effects to fish from glyphosate and clopyralid appear to be minimal. Toxicity levels on aquatic invertebrates are most common for Daphnia, which is a small crustacean used as a surrogate for freshwater invertebrates. Toxicity levels for Daphnia with glyphosate and clopyralid are 350 mg/L and over 700 mg/L, respectively. At these levels, we assume these herbicides would be unlikely to have any lethal effect to aquatic invertebrates present in streams adjacent to the project area. Glyphosate appears to be toxic to aquatic plants while clopyralid is reported to be minimally toxic to aquatic plants (SERA 2003). Based on this information and the predicted concentrations for the herbicides used in RHCAs, we assume indirect effects to the food base for trout and aquatic plants would be insignificant.

See the hydrology section for affects to water chemistry.

Potential sediment effects would be minimal because all application would be done by hand. Any increase in sediment as result of this alternative would be immeasurable and would not affect any fish species present.

Glyphosate is not a selective herbicide and there is potential for some native riparian vegetation to be killed from the application. However, by hand wicking, people applying the herbicide will be able to avoid most if not all native vegetation. Clopyralid is selective and with careful application, would have only minimal effects to riparian vegetation.

The indirect effects from this project to fish and their habitat would be minimal. . These anticipated effects are within the scope of affects analyzed in the R6 Invasive Plant Program EIS (p. 4-121 & 4-122).

Overall, the direct and indirect effects to fish and their habitat would be minimal. Based on the literature cited above, the concentrations predicted in adjacent creeks would not result in any direct physical effects leading to mortality. There may be some sublethal effects, but they likely would be insignificant on their normal behaviors. Indirectly, there may be some minor effects but not enough to affect spawning, rearing, or holding behaviors in the project area. We expect no affects to fish or their habitat at the 6th or 5th field watershed scale. These anticipated effects are within the scope of affects analyzed in the Okanogan Forest Land Management Plan PRMP/EIS (p. 4-119 to 4-122).

3-64 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

Alternative 3- Manual and Mechanical Treatments According to the Hydrology section, there would be an increased risk of surface soil erosion. A fabric ground cover would have little effect on stream sedimentation. These activities would have little to no affect to fish or their habitat from sedimentation. Potential increases in sediment would be too small to measure and well within the range of natural variability.

The effectiveness on the hawkweed plant would be low. This could lead to more spread, resulting in less ground available for native riparian vegetation to grow. Streambank stability would be negatively affected in the long-term.

Cumulative Effects

This cumulative effects analysis considers the effects on fisheries resources from past actions over the past 10 years, along with present actions and reasonably foreseeable future actions. A complete list of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions is listed in Chapter 2. Only those activities that have affected the fisheries resource are considered in this cumulative effects analysis. The cumulative effects analysis is limited to the Blue Buck subdivision.

Past Actions

Road development has occurred in the Upper Beaver Creek subwatershed. This has led to an increase in stream sedimentation at road stream crossings, were in-sloped roads are bladed and/or ditches are annually cleaned. Fish habitat quality declined after the roads were built over the years.

Past timber sales have occurred that removed some of the wood source for fish streams. However, most streams in the project area now have adequate wood levels from the Tripod Fire.

Livestock grazing has resulted in a reduction of bank stability and increased sediment levels. Improved range management has reduced these effects over the years.

Present Activities

Ongoing activities include livestock grazing; noxious weed control, road maintenance, recreation, and firewood gathering. Proposed treatments of orange hawkweed would not increase the current impacts on fisheries resources from the present activities. Livestock grazing on treated orange hawkweed sites may spread seeds from plants which were missed in the initial treatments. This would spread orange hawkweed populations and impact native riparian plant populations and associated stream sedimentation.

Ongoing road maintenance of grading and ditch cleaning may have a slight increase in stream sediment levels. However, current practices are much more protective of fish streams.

3-65 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

Reasonably Foreseeable Actions

Only grazing and some road maintenance are foreseeable actions in the project area that could affect fish habitat. Grazing will eventually occur in the project area after it recovers more from the Tripod Fire. There will be some stream bank, riparian vegetation, and sediment impacts but they would be minor due to steep terrain and active management. Future road maintenance would result in reduced sediment input.

The cumulative effect of the two proposed actions would be to improve the recovery of riparian vegetation. As the hawkweed sites decrease, there would be more native vegetation to protect stream banks and provide shade.

The effects from the herbicides in Alternative 2 may result in minor sublethal effects but it is unlikely because of the predicted low concentration levels in creeks. Any small effect from the herbicides would not result in any cumulative effect to fish or their habitat at the site scale or at the 6th or 5th field watershed scale. These effects are consistent with those analyzed in the R6 Invasive Plant EIS (pg 4-122 & 4-123)

Consistency Finding

The design criteria and mitigation measures listed in Chapter 2 were used to ensure that all of the alternatives are consistent with the Forest Plans as amended by PACFISH. Action Alternatives would meet management objectives to maintain conditions in RHCAs, maintain stream temperatures, prevent chemical contamination, maintain large wood within channels, and provide for long term woody debris input. They would also meet Forest Plan standards and objectives (given the riparian buffers) and Aquatic Conservation Strategy and PACFISH objectives at the 6th and 5th field watershed scale.

Standards and Guidelines The aquatic and riparian Standard and Guidelines are met as follows:

Okanogan Forest Plan 3-1 is addressed through alternative design and mitigation measures.

PACFISH (see PACFISH Riparian Management Objectives Consistency Analysis in project analysis file) RA-3 and RA-4 is addressed through alternative design and mitigation measures.

Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) Consultation

The proposed project would result in a No Affect to spring Chinook and steelhead because they are not present in the area. The project would result in a May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect to bull trout. The project is consistent with and covered under Aquatic Restoration Biological Opinions from the US Fish and Wildlife Service and

3-66 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA) (FWS BO: 8330.F0055(07) & NOAA BO: FS: P/NWR/2006/06530 for Riparian Area Invasive Plant Treatment.

PACFISH Riparian Management Objectives Both the alternatives would be consistent with the PACFISH Riparian Management Objectives. To assess consistency with the RMOs, we described if the proposed project would maintain or restore healthy and functioning aquatic and riparian resources. The rationale for this determination is as follows:

1. Water quality to a degree that provides for stable and productive riparian and aquatic ecosystems.

The predicted concentrations in adjacent creeks from the project would be below the NOEC for fish and well below the LC50 for aquatic invertebrates. Effects to aquatic and riparian plants would be minimal from the predicted stream concentrations. It is very unlikely there would be any reduction of water quality that supports riparian an aquatic resources at the site project scale. There would be no affect at the 6th field or 5th field watershed scale.

2. Stream channel integrity, channel processes, and the sediment regime (including the elements of timing, volume, and character of sediment input and transport) under which riparian and aquatic ecosystems developed. Treating the weeds on the banks may increase soil on streambanks but the two sites would have an insignificant effect to the reach scale. As native vegetation reestablishes, these areas would diminish. Because there are only two sites on Blue Buck Creek, all other areas would be able to recover at a natural rate. The project would not prevent any natural aquatic or riparian processes from occurring at the site, 6th or 5th field watershed scale.

3. Instream flows to support healthy riparian and aquatic habitats, the stability and effective function of stream channels, and the ability to route flood discharges.

Instream flows are unlikely to be affected by the proposed project. There would be no affects to stream flow from this project. Please see the Hydrology report for details.

4. Natural timing and variability of the water table elevation in meadows and wetlands. Water tables are unlikely to be affected by the proposed project. There would be no affects to stream flow from this project. Please see the Hydrology report for details.

5. Diversity and productivity of native and non-native plant communities in riparian zones. Eradicating the noxious weed would improve the productivity of native riparian plants in the long-term. Glyphosate is not selective and it may kill some native plants but by hand wicking, the likelihood of this would be very low. The few sites

3-67 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

are just a small fraction of the project area and would not affect the production of native plants at the 6th or 5th field watershed scale.

6. Riparian vegetation to: provide an amount and distribution of large woody debris characteristic of natural aquatic and riparian ecosystems, provide adequate summer and winter thermal regulation with riparian and aquatic zones, help to achieve rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, and channel migration characteristics under which those aquatic and riparian systems developed.

Eradicating the noxious weed would improve the productivity of native riparian plants in the long-term. Glyphosate is not selective and it may kill some native plants but by hand wicking, the likelihood of this would be very low. There is a large source of wood for streams from the Tripod Fire; this objective would not be affected. Treating the weed would not affect stream temperature because the plant does not provide any shade. Orange Hawkweed provides little to no bank stability and removing it would allow native vegetation that does provide good bank stability to establish. There would be no short-term negative effects to this objective, but long-term, this objective would improve by the treatments at the site scale. There would be no negative or positive affect at the 6th or 5th field watershed scale.

7. Riparian and aquatic habitats necessary to foster the unique genetic fish stocks that evolved with the specific geo-climatic region.

The project would have a slight negative effect to aquatic and riparian habitats in the short-term. Some riparian plants may be killed and there may be sub-lethal effects to native fish and aquatic invertebrates. This would be at the site scale. There would be no negative effects at the 6th or 5th field scale. In the long-term, the habitat would be in better condition without the weed, specifically, riparian vegetation would be more established on stream banks at the site scale. Because the project is so small, there would be positive effect at the 6th or 5th field scales.

8. Habitat to support populations of well distributed native and desired non- native plant, vertebrate, and invertebrate populations that contribute to the viability of riparian-dependent communities. Removing the weed would increase habitat for native plants to establish. Herbicide effects to aquatic organisms would be minimal in the short-term and no affect in the long-term at the site scale. No affects at the 6th or 5th field watershed scale.

3.7 Human Health

Invasive plant treatments may result in risks to human health. One of the alternatives analyzed in this document includes the application of herbicides. The health and safety of forestry workers may be at risk from exposure to herbicides, and the public may be exposed to herbicides through direct contact, drift, eating contaminated foods, or drinking contaminated water. Workers include applicators, supervisors, and other personnel directly involved in the application of herbicides. The public could be exposed

3-68 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

through the drift of herbicide spray through contact with sprayed vegetation, or by eating contaminated food items such as berries or edible mushrooms. The public may also be exposed by eating game or fish containing herbicide residues, or by drinking water that contains such residues.

Alternative 2 of the Blue Buck Orange Hawkweed project proposes the use of 3 herbicides: picloram, clopyralid, and the aquatic formulation of glyphosate. Picloram and clopyralid would be applied by spot spraying individual plants using a back-pack sprayer. Glyphosate would be applied by hand-wicking individual plants using a backpack sprayer.

Environmental Consequences

Comparison of Alternatives

Alternatives 1 and 3 Alternative 1 is the no action alternative. Alternative 3 proposes only manual and mechanical treatments of orange hawkweed. Neither proposes herbicide treatments. There would be no exposure to herbicides and no effect to human health.

Alternative 2 Alternative 2 proposes the use of 3 herbicides to treat orange hawkweed. Herbicide application is the only known treatment that is effective at preventing spread and reducing/eradicating existing populations of orange hawkweed. The proposal is to hand- wick and spot-spray from backpack units to minimize the amount of herbicide applied and to minimize herbicide drift and effects to non-target species. We would use glyphosate, clopyralid, and/or picloram which all were authorized for use in the 2005 Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program EIS.

Treatments would include spot spraying upland sites with picloram (Tordon) or clopyralid (Transline). Orange hawkweed plants that are in wet areas or within 15 feet of streams would be treated by hand-wicking the aquatic formulation of glyphosate (Rodeo). Application of herbicides by hand-wicking involves using a long handled tool with a wick at the end, soaked with glyphosate, that allows the applicator to treat target species while reducing impacts of herbicide on non-target species. Plants greater than 15 feet from open water would be treated with clopyralid by spot-spraying with a backpack sprayer directly onto the plant from less than an inch to a few inches above the plant.

Application rates will not exceed label directions. Herbicides would be applied with a nozzle that produces droplet sizes in the 200-800 µm range to decrease the amount of drift from herbicide application.

The human health effects from the use of any herbicide depend on the toxic properties (hazards) of that herbicide, the level of exposure to that herbicide at any given time, and the duration of that exposure. Potential techniques to minimize human exposures to herbicides include: selecting herbicides with low toxicity and low application rates; using application methods that minimize off-target movement and non-target exposures; reducing contamination of potential drinking water by using streamside no-spray zones; providing personal protective equipment for applicators, public notification and posting of

3-69 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

treated areas. Each of these measures are included in the proposed action or in the mitigation measures (page 2-3 and 2-4).

Under normal conditions, members of the general public should not be exposed to substantial levels of any of these herbicides. Members of the public would generally not be in the areas infested with orange hawkweed during herbicide application.

The R6 2005 FEIS analyzed the type of herbicide use proposed and disclosed the potential for people, especially herbicide applicators, to become sick or injured from herbicide exposure. The human health hazards associated with each herbicide active ingredient were evaluated by a thorough review of available toxicological studies. Toxicity studies were evaluated individually for scientific quality, and cumulatively for all similar studies. These procedures are detailed in the EIS Appendix Q: Human Health Risk Assessment. Appendix Q also details the potential for health effects on sensitive subgroups of the human population from the use of herbicides proposed in this EIS.

At typical application rates, the proposed action in alternative 2 is not associated with exposure scenarios over a threshold of concern for the public, workers, and/or drinking water (R6 2005 FEIS Appendix Q). A list of references that includes assessing risk to human health is contained in Appendix A.

3.8 Other Required Disclosures

Social Groups, Civil Rights and Environmental Justice

Civil Rights would not be affected by the Blue Buck Orange Hawkweed project. The project includes Forest Service employee accomplished work. The U. S. Department of Agriculture prohibits discrimination in its employment practices based on race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital and family status.

Executive Order 12898 (59 Fed, Reg. 7629, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address, as appropriate, any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations and low-income populations. No minority and poor communities are located adjacent to the planning area.

The proposed action would have any disparate effects on any consumers, minority groups, women, civil rights, or social/ethnic groups. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in its programs based on race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, and marital or familial status.

Floodplains and Wetlands

No impacts to designated floodplains or wetlands are projected. Treatments would occur in some Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas and effects are described in the hydrology, aquatics, and botany sections. Floodplains and wetlands would be protected through mitigation measures, which conform to Executive Orders 11988 and 11990.

3-70 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

Prime Range Land, Farm Land and Forest Land

The proposed action complies with the Federal Regulations for prime land. Lands within the analysis area do not qualify as “prime” forest land. Effects to forestland are described earlier in this chapter. The Blue Buck Hawkweed analysis area does not contain any prime rangeland or prime farmland. Therefore, none of the alternatives would have any effect on prime rangeland and farmland.

Inventoried Roadless Areas

None of the proposed activities in the Blue Buck Hawkweed project would change the roadless character of any inventoried roadless areas.

Wild and Scenic Rivers

None of the proposed activities in the Blue Buck Hawkweed project would take place within areas designated as potentially eligible for wild and scenic river designation.

Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential of Alternatives

With relation to national and global petroleum reserves, the energy consumption associated with the proposed action would be insignificant. Energy consumption associated with this project would be insignificant at the local, regional or national scale.

American Indian Treaty Rights

No American Indian Treaty Rights would be affected by the Blue Buck Hawkweed project. The Tribal governments for the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation and Yakama Nation were contacted during government to government consultation; no concerns about the project were raised by either tribal government.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Effects

There are no known substantial, irreversible, or irretrievable commitments of resources connected with the proposed action. Fossil fuel needed for operations and transportation associated with this project would be irreversibly lost, but this is insignificant in the context of regional, national or global use.

3-71 Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

Chapter 4 Consultation and Coordination with Other Agencies

The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, state and local agencies and tribes during the development of this environmental assessment:

Agencies U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Sally Nicholson, Seattle Public Utilities

Tribes Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation Yakama Nation

Interdisciplinary Team

The following individuals were involved in the preparation of this document:

John Rohrer – Team Leader and Terrestrial Wildlife Kelly Baraibar – Writer/Editor Mel Bennett – Water Resources Gene Shull – Aquatic Resources Annie Greene – Soils Dean McFetridge – Range and Invasive Plants Linda Knight – Sensitive Plants

4-1

Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

Appendix A

Chapter 1

McFetridge, Dean. 2008. Invasive Plants Comparison of Alternatives. Invasive Plant Specialist Report, June 3, 2008. Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests. Methow Valley District Office, Winthrop, WA. 8 pages.

Okanogan County Weed Board. 2008. Information available online at http://www.okanogancounty.org/nw/ (February 25, 2008).

USDA Forest Service. 1988a. Final environmental impact statement for the management of competing and unwanted vegetation. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR. 100+ pp.

USDA Forest Service. 1989d. Managing competing and unwanted vegetation, mediated agreement to the record of decision for the environmental impact statement for managing competing and unwanted vegetation. Appendix K Related Legal History for FEIS for the Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants. Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/invasiveplant-eis/ (August 31, 2006).

USDA Forest Service. 1989a. Okanogan National Forest land and resource management plan. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Okanogan, WA. Available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/colville/cow/previous-fp/okanogan/index.htm (December 28, 2006).

USDA Forest Service. 1994. Chewuch River Watershed Analysis. Okanogan National Forest. Winthrop Ranger District. November 1994.

USDA Forest Service. 1997a. Middle Methow Watershed Analysis. Okanogan National Forest. Methow Valley Ranger District.

USDA Forest Service. 1999. Okanogan National Forest Integrated Weed Management Environmental Assessment. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Region. Okanogan, WA.

USDA Forest Service. 2001d. Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests. Guide to Noxious Weed Prevention Practices.

USDA Forest Service. 2002a. Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests weed management and prevention strategy and best management practices. USDA Forest Service, Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests. Version 1.0. 21 pp.

A-1

Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Glyphosate-Human Health and Risk Assessment and Ecological Risk Assessment: Final Report. Prepared for USDA Forest Service by Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. Submitted by Patrick R. Durkin. Fayetteville, New York. 281 pages. Internet Reference: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/invasiveplant-eis/Risk-Assessments/04a03_glyphosate-final.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Picloram-Human Health and Risk Assessment and Ecological Risk Assessment: Final Report. Prepared for USDA Forest Service by Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. Submitted by Patrick Durkin. Fayetteville, New York. 133 pages. Internet Reference: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/invasiveplant-eis/Risk-Assessments/04a03_picloram-final.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Cloypyralid -Human Health and Risk Assessment and Ecological Risk Assessment: Final Report. Prepared for USDA Forest Service by Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. Submitted by Patrick Durkin. Fayetteville, New York. 154 pages. Internet Reference: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/invasiveplant-eis/Risk-Assessments/04a03_ Cloypyralid -final.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 2004 . National Strategy and Implementation Plan for Invasive Species Management. October 2004. 24 pp. Available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/publications/Invasive_Species.pdf (April 12, 2007).

USDA Forest Service. 2005a. Final Environment Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants. Portland, OR. Available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/invasiveplant- eis/FEIS.htm (August 30, 2006). R6 FEIS

USDA Forest Service. 2005b. Record of decision for the final environmental impact statement for the Pacific Northwest Region invasive plant program preventing and managing invasive plants. R6-NR-FHP-PR-02-05. Portland, OR. Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/invasiveplant-eis/FEIS.htm (August 30, 2006). 2005 PNW ROD

Chapter 2

No references cited

Chapter 3

3.0 Invasive Plants Cynthia Snyder and Michael Shephard, USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region, State and Private Forestry. Leaflet R10-TP-129, June 2004, http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/spf/fhp/leaflets/orange_hawkweed.htm

Roger L. Sheley and Janet K. Petroff., 1999, Biology and management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds, Meadow and Orange Hawkweed, Linda M. Wilson and Robert H. Callihan: 238-245

A-2

Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

Robert H. Callihan, Linda M. Wilson, Joseph P. McCaffrey, and Timothy Miller, 1997, Hawkweeds, Pacific Northwest Extension Publication #499, U of I, OSU, and WSU, http://info.ag.uidaho.edu/pdf/PNW/PNW0499.pdf

3.1 Wildlife

Almack, J.A., W.L. Gaines, R.H. Naney, P.H. Morrison, J.R. Eby, G.F. Wooten, M.C. Snyder, S.H. Fitkin, and E.R. Garcia. 1993. North Cascades Grizzly Bear Ecosystem evaluation; final report.

Apps, C. D. 2000. Pages 351-372 in Ruggiero et al. Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, CO.

Christy, R. E. and S. D. West. 1993. Biology of bats in Douglas-fir forests. USDA Forest Service PNW-GTR-308.

Copeland, Jeffrey. 1996. Biology of the wolverine in central Idaho. M.S. Thesis, University of Idaho. 138 pp.

Fritts, S. H. and L. N. Carbyn. 1995. Population viability, nature reserves, and the outlook for gray wolf conservation in North America. Restoration Ecology 3:26- 38.

Gaines, W.L., P.H. Singleton, and R.C. Ross. 2003. Assessing the cumulative effects of linear recreation routes on wildlife habitats on the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-586. USDA Forest Service. 79pp.

Haggerty, Sarah and Kent Woodruff. 1997. Survey of potential peregrine falcon nest sites in north-central Washington. Unpublished Forest Service report, Methow Valley Ranger District files. 59 pp.

Hayward, G.D. and J. Verner, tech. Editors. 1994. Flammulated, boreal, and great gray owls in the United States: A technical conservation assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-253. Fort Collins, CO, USDA Forest Service. 214 pp.

A-1

Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

Krebs, John. 1999. Wolverine ecology and habitat use in the North Columbia Mountains: progress report. BC Environment, Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program, Nelson, British Columbia.

McKelvey, K.S., Y.K. Ortega, G.M. Koehler, K.B. Aubry, and J.D. Brittell. 2000. Pages 307-336 in Ruggiero et al. Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, CO.

Partners in Flight. 2001. East-slope Cascades conservation plan. Unpublished rpt. 86p.

Powell, R. A. and W. J. Zielinski. 1994. Fisher, chapter 3 in American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United States; the scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores. USDA Forest Service general technical report RM- 254, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.

Ruediger, B., J. Claar, S. Gniadek, B. Holt, L. Lewis, S. Mighton, B. Naney, G. Patton, T. Rinaldi, J. Trick, A. Vandehey, F. Wahl, N. Warren, D. Wenger, and A. Williamson. 2000. Canada lynx Conservation assessment and strategy. USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service. Forest Service Publication #R1- 00-53, Missoula, MT. 142pp.

Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, G.M. Koehler, C.J. Krebs, K.S. McKelvey, and J.R. Squires. 2000. Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, CO. 480pp.

United States Department of Interior. 2004. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 12-month finding for a petition to list the west coast distinct population segment of the fisher (Martes pennanti); proposed rule. Federal Register volume 69, No. 68.

3.2 Botany

Lillybridge, T.R. et al. 1995. Field guide for forested plant associations of the Wenatchee National Forest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-359. Portland, OR: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 335 p. In cooperation with: Pacific Northwest Region, Wenatchee National Forest.

Tu, M. et al, 2005. The Nature Conservancy Weed Handbook. Available online at http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/products/handbook.

USFS, 2008. Intergrated Special Status and Sensitive Species Program. Available on line at http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/agency-policy.

Wilson, Linda M. and Robert H. Callihan. 1999. Meadow and orange hawkweed. Pages 238-245 in Roger Sheley and Janet Petroff. Eds. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis.

Wilson, Linda M. 2008. Manager. Invasive Plant Management Program. British of

A-2

Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Lands. Personal communication.

WNHP, 2008. Washington Natural Heritage Program. Available online at http://www.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk.

3.3 Hydrology

Higginson, Brad. 2006. Tripod Complex Burned Area Emergency Response. Hydrology Specialist Report, September 8, 2006. Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests. Okanogan Valley Office, Okanogan, WA. 14 pages.

Hoffman, Andrew and John Orsborn. 1979. Discharge estimates for streams in the Methow basin. Washington State University, Dept of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Pullman, WA. 6 pages.

Oklahoma State University. nd. Steady-state water flow in homogeneous media. Internet reference: http://soilphysics.okstate.edu/toolkit/darcy1/index.html

Robachald, Pete. 2008. Personal Communication at BAER Team Leader Training at Spokane, WA concerning the rate of soil vegetation recovery following wildfire. Dr. Robachauld is a civil engineer at the USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Lab, specializing in evaluation of post-wildfire land treatments.

Teske, Milton E, Sandra Bird, David Eastery, Scott Ray, and Steven Perry. 2002. A user’s guide for AGDRIFT 2.0.05: A Tiered Approach for the Assessment of Spray Drift of Pesticides. CDI report No. 01-02. Stewart Agricultural Research Services, Inc. macon, MO. 135 pages.

A-1

Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

3.4 Soils

Brady, N.C., and R.R. Weil. 1999. The nature and properties of soils. 12th Edition. 881 pp. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hobbie SE. 1992. Effects of plant species on nutrient cycling. T.R.E.E. 7:336–339. Sheley RL Petroff JK (editors.) 1999. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon.

Stoffel K.L., compiler, 1990, Geologic map of the Oroville 1:100,000 quadrangle, Washington: Washington Division of Geology and Earth resources Open File report 90- 11, 58 p, 1 plate.

Tu, M. et al, 2005. The Nature ConservancyWeed Handbook. Available online at http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/products/handbook USDA Forest Service. 2004. Landtype associations of North Central Washington, Final Report. Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests, Wenatchee, WA.

USDA NRCS. 2004. Soil Survey Okanogan-Methow Highlands Area, Okanogan County, Washington. Natural Resources Conservation Service, Spokane, WA.

USDA NRCS. 2005. National Soil Survey Handbook, Title 430-VI. Available online at http://soils.usda.gov/technical/handbook/ (March 27, 2007).

USFS (USDA Forest Service). 2005a. Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Final Environmental Impact Statement. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. R6-NRFHP-PR-02-05.

USFS (USDA Forest Service). 2008. Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Final Environmental Impact Statement. USDA Forest Service, Deschutes-Ochoco National Forests and Crooked River National Grasslands.

3.5 Range Management

Cowley, E.r., T.A. Burton, and S.J. Smith. 2006. Monitoring streambanks and riparian vegetation – multiple indicators. Techincal Bulletin No. 2005-02, Version 2.0. Boise, ID: Idaho State Office, USDI BLM. 134 pages.

USDA Forest Service. 1989. Okanogan National Forest land and resource management plan. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Okanogan, WA.

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants. Portland, OR. Available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/invasiveplant- eis/FEIS.htm (August 30, 2006). R6 FEIS

USDA Montana NRCS. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Internet reference: http://www.mt.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/ecs/invasive/technotes/InvasiveTN_16/biology_ec ology.html.

A-2

Environmental Assessment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

3.6 Aquatic Resources Proebstel, D. S., R. J. Behnke, S. M. Noble. 1998. Final Report: Identification of Salmonid Fishes from Tributary Streams and Lakes of the Mid-Columbia Basin. USFWS and Colorado State University. World Salmonid Research Institute.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2002. Recovery plan for bull trout. In draft. Website: pacific.fws.gov/bulltrout/recovery.

Fairchild, James, Ann Allert, Linda S. Sappington, Karen J. Nelson, and Janet Valle. 2007. Using accelerated life testing prodecures to compare the relative sensitivity of rainbow trout and the federally listed threatened bull trout to three commonly used rangeland herbicides (picloram, 2,4-D, and clopyralid). Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 623–630

SERA (Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc.). 1997a. Effects of surfactants on the toxicity of Glyphosate, with specific reference to Rodeo. SERA TR 97- 206-1b February 6, 1997.

A-1

Environmental Assess ment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

Appendix B

Orange Hawkweed Integrated Weed Management Project Spill/Release Control Plan

The purpose of this plan is to ensure that the Methow Valley Ranger District is in compliance with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Hazard Communication Standard (HCS), 29CFR 1910.1200, the USDA Forest Service Health and Safety Code Handbook (FSH 6709.11), the Forest hazardous Materials, Spill/Release Emergency Action, and Hazard Communication Plan, as well as other applicable pesticide application, control, spill and disposal laws.

Paige Balling is the overall hazardous materials management program coordinator for the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests, acting as the representative of the Forest Supervisor. The Methow Valley Ranger District hazardous materials spill/release program coordinator is Jennifer Zbyszewski. District coordinators act as representatives for the District Ranger.

Each employee involved with the project will be familiar with the District and Forest Hazardous Materials Spill/Release Emergency Action and Hazard Communication Plan. Each employee involved with herbicide projects will also be informed of the hazardous properties of chemicals in the work place, and measures to take to protect themselves from the potential harmful effects of these chemicals. Contractors would be required to be familiar with that portion of the Plan that deals with hazardous material spill/release emergency action.

Copies of the Pesticide Information Profiles and Spill Plan are located in MSDS Right to Know Station at the Methow Valley Ranger District. They are available to all employees. The Job Hazard Analysis for herbicide handling and use is located in the Right to Know Station as well. This plan follows Forest Service Handbook 2109.14, chapter 30.

Noxious weed herbicide treatments will be accomplished by contractors and by Forest Service employees holding a Washington State Department of Agriculture Pesticide Applicator License. Any pesticide storage on National Forest Land or transport in Forest Service vehicles will follow procedures and guidelines in FSM 2109.14 chapter 40: Storage, Transportation, and Disposal. Herbicide mixing and loading sites will be located away from streams or ponds, in areas where the soil will not allow penetration of any spilled material, and where fast and through cleanup is possible. Secondary containment will be used while mixing. All containers will be stored securely on vehicles inside a catch basin. The project spill plan will include a list of contents of a Vehicle Spill Kit. Vehicle spill kits will be with the applicator at all times during project activity. Communication will be maintained with Forest Central Dispatch during herbicide application.

B-1

Environmental Assess ment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

Pesticide Poisoning Symptoms:

Clopyralid: May cause very slight temporary corneal eye injury, prolonged skin contact may cause moderate irritation with local redness, very low toxicity if swallowed, vapor concentrations are attainable which could be hazardous on a single inhalation exposure and excessive vapor exposure may cause eye, nose and throat irritation. Long duration periods of inhalation at higher levels of concentration can cause death.

Glyphosate: Skin or eye irritation possible during loading, mixing or application. Nausea and dizziness may also be present. Acute toxicity will occur if swallowed in concentrated form; death could occur with ingestion of ½ cup or less of concentrate.

Picloram: Substantial but temporary eye irritation is possible. Rash may occur with exposure to skin.

Notification List of Key Personnel or Agencies (ref. FSH 2109.14, chapt. 30)

Local physicians familiar with diagnosis and treatment of pesticide poisoning Aero Methow Rescue Service 509-997-4013 Methow Valley Family Practice (Twisp) 509-997-2011 Mid-Valley Hospital (Omak) 509-826-1760 Deaconess Medical Center (Spokane) 509 473-7100 Poison Control Center 800-222-1222 Brewster Hospital 509-689-2517

Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests Central Dispatch 509-884-3473 Forest Hazardous Materials Coordinator, Paige Balling 509-664-9251 Methow Valley Ranger District Hazmat Coordinator, Jennifer 509-996-4021 Zbyszewski

Forest Pesticide Use Coordinator Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests, Mel Bennett 509-826-3164

Chemtrec, EPA Listed and DOE Emergency Pesticide Information The National Pesticide Information Center (NPIC) 800-858-7378 Poison Control Center 800-222-1222 DOE, National Response Center to report spills 800-424-8802 DOE, Okanogan area office to report spills (Central Region) 509-575-2490 Chemtrec Hazmat Communication Center 800-262-8200

Law Enforcement Okanogan County Sheriff 800 572-6604 or 911 Washington State Patrol (Wenatchee) 509 663-9721 or 911 Winthrop City Police 509-996-2160 or 911

B-2

Environmental Assess ment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

Sources of Equipment and Operators for Spill Cleanup: Spill kit personnel at project, communications and hand tools shall be sufficient to control possible spills. The following equipment will be available with spray vehicles used to transport the herbicides.

• Emergency phone numbers • Labels and MSDSs of all pesticides on hand • Copy of the Spill Plan • Personal Protective Equipment required by label • Heavy plastic bags for material storage • 10 lbs. of absorbent materials (cat litter, vermiculite, paper, etc.) or the equivalent in absorbent pillows • Shovel • Water • Sturdy plastic container that closes tightly and will hold the largest quantity of pesticide on hand • First aid supplies • Fresh water (at least 3 gallons; bring extra for wash-up after application) • Soap (dish soap or hand soap) • Towels • Change of clothes • Additional items required by labeling

CLEAN UP OF PESTICIDE SPILLS

Minor Spills (less than 5 Gallons): Keep people away from spilled chemicals. Rope off the area and flag it to warn people. Do not leave unless someone is there to confine the spill and warn of the danger. If the pesticide was spilled on anyone, wash it off immediately. Confine the spill. If it starts to spread, dike it up with sand and soil. Use absorbent material such as cat litter, absorbent pillows, soil, sawdust, or absorbent clay to soak up the spill. Shovel all contaminated material into a leak proof container for disposal. Dispose of it, as you would excess pesticides. Do not hose down the area, because this spreads the chemical. Always work carefully and do not hurry. Control access to the area until the spill is completely cleaned up. Notify the District Ranger and District Pesticide Coordinator of the minor spill.

Major Spills (Greater than 5 Gallons): The cleanup of a major spill may be too difficult for you to handle, or you may not be sure of what to do. In either case, keep people away, give first aid if needed, and confine the spill. Then call Chemtrec or the State pesticide authorities for assistance. Notify the District Ranger, District Pesticide Coordinator, and the Forest Pesticide Coordinator of any major spill. If a major pesticide spill occurs on a highway, have someone call the highway patrol or the sheriff for help. (Carry these phone numbers with you.) Do not leave until responsible help arrives.

The applicator will have an inventory of all pesticides currently in possession during application on National Forest System land, including manufacturer name and address, product name, chemical name, EPA registration number, and the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS). Applicator will insure that all pesticide containers are labeled with the correct identity of the pesticide, appropriate hazard warnings, and the name, address

B-3

Environmental Assess ment Blue Buck Hawkweed Project

and emergency notification phone numbers of the chemical manufacturer, importer, or responsible parties.

Contractors, if used, will notify appropriate State and Federal agencies of spill and disposal plans. Contractor will be responsible for cleanup of all spills and disposal of contaminated soil, water, equipment, cleanup materials or other contaminated products at an approved disposal facility.

B-4 Vicinity Map Blue Buck Hawkweed Project Methow Ranger District

Project Area

P e b b le C re e k 11 12 07 08 09

14 13 18 17 16 #Pearrygin Peak Hawkweed Sites T 3 5 R 2 2 E T 3 5 R 2 2 E TT 33 55 RR 22 33 EE k e e r

r k e e v e a r e C B k c u B

e u l B 24 23 19 20 21

0 0.25 0.5 1 26 25 30 29Miles 28 Mapped March 20,2008 by greed . C:/../met/project/weeds/2008/OrangerHawkweed 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 3700000 23

3 7 0 0 6 5 Propos0 ed Action Project Area Map W Old Baldy i Baldy Creek ld e 27 26 25 30 29 # 26 r C 28 27 re Blue Buck Hawkweed e k

S o u th F o r J k im B o C u r ld e e e r 32 k C re e 34 35 36 31 k 33 34 W 35 es t F or k S al mo n C re ek

03 02 01 06 05 04 03 02

P e b b le C r e e k 10 11 12 07 08 09 10 11 Tripod Peak # k G 0 e ra 3 e n 3 r ite 00 C 7 Cr 3 k ee 0 c k 0 u 3 B 0 0 e 7 lu 3 B 17 15 14 13 Pearrygin Peak 18 16 15 14 -2 -1 009300-5.59 59 # 5 5. 0- Hawkweed Starvation Mtn. 5009300 30 09 Site # 50

4 01 2 2. 2 50 HC 5 50084 32 4 CE 9 C 0 5 1 0 0 4 8 4 19 2

24 0 23

22 0 20 2 21 22 0 8 23 5

4 4

0 5 8 38 5008100 2 7 4 8 2 0 5 2 0 4 3 5 8 0 4 1 5 5 4 2 3 2 2 2 4 4 5 2 0 4 2 4 9 6 5 2 4 3 7 4 3 8 2 6 5 5 0 2 4 0 5 1 2 5 5 150 0 6 4 4230155 230 3 0 7 2 4 4 0 27 26 25 30 28 27 0 26 0 4 2 0 4 2 5 5 0 2 2 29 1 2 2 0 3 1 5 3 2 5 2 5 4 2 2 5 4 7 4 4 3 6 5 2 5 3 4 0 2 4 k 0 ee 545 r 4 22 r C 2 4 4 ve 3 2 a 0 5 2 Be 4 2 5 Blue Buck Mtn. 5 1 5 3 4 0 0 2 5 5 3 8 0 35 5 2 0 0 # 4 0 8 2 5 2 4 0 2 42 1 34 0 5 36 25 0 2 35 29 31 32 3 33 5 2 2 3 34 4 2 4 Cou 0 42 gar C 4 25 ree 4 4 k 5 32 2 2 4 4 2 0 0 2 423010 0 5 4 4 3 01 5 02

0 0 5 2

2 5 5

4 1 3 04 5 5 5 3 4

1 2 3 2 4 06 0 3 2 2 2 23 4 4 02 2 4 4 0 03 0 5 2 05 03 3 0 3 4235100

0 0 0 2 3

1 4 4

V 0 9 2 0

3 5 ek o 3 1 5 3

0 8

2 e 5 r 5 5 5 ls

C 3

1 1 2 3 n t 1

e 5 5

0 2 e 2 ow 4 5 4 6 a 2

3 4 8 B 3 1

d 2 2

2 5 4 4 4 4 3 C 4 42 2 r 2 2 35 4 7 195 e 2 2 e 0 9 5 5 k 7 1 0 3 2

5 9 0 0 3 1

5 3 0 0 5 5

5 7 2 3 3 3 2 5 2 0 2 4 4 8 2 11 5 0 4 11 1 4 2 3 1 5 2 2 3 1 4 2 9 2 10 - 5 12 08 4 1 4 L 0 07 10 2 4 2 5 2 9 . 2 0 3 2 3 2 k - 4 e 2 8 5 re 6 0 2 5 1 3 g C 4 5 7 4 2 n 2 5 0 tni 09 5 3 1 7 2 h 5 52 ig 3 2 5 2 4 L 2 22 0 4 3 4 4 0 2 3 4 050 2 C 4230 4 -1 6 2 42 4 25 260

2 0

14 2 6 5 16 15 1 15 n 13 2 5 yo 3 18 17 3 14 an rk 2 C 0 o 020 ne F 30 4 esto dle 42 PLip egend Mid 4235024 22 k 50 ree 23 r C 4 Orange_Hawkweed ve 42 ea 25 B 06 7 ork 0 63 F 42 -1 th 250 C ou 00 22 ProjectA2re3a 24 S Miles 0 0.25 0.5 1 21.05 2 21 22 23 ³ 50 1B 0 DF01FB0.01 Mapped Apr 72, 20058by gjr 19 1:48,000 c:\...Projec4t\weed\2008\blue buck Appendix D Region 6 Special Status & Sensitive Plant Species Documented or Suspected to Occur on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest (January 2008 Revision) Vascular Species Scientific Name R-6 ISSSSP State Status Presence Habitat** Status on Forest Agoseris elata N/A Sensitive Documented On the Oka. this species is found between 4000-7760’ on S to W aspects in moist to wet swells and Tall Agoseris (D) meadows primarily in the subalpine and alpine habitats. Habitat in Washington is associated w/ moist to dry meadows, open woods, and exposed rocky ridge tops on various aspects from low elevations to timberline between 2900 and 7800’. Agoseris lackschewitzii N/A Review Group 2 D On the Oka. this species is found between 4000-7760’ on S to W aspects in moist to wet swells and Pink Agoseris meadows primarily in the subalpine and alpine habitats. Habitat in Washington is associated w/ moist to dry meadows, open woods, and exposed rocky ridge tops on various aspects from low elevations to timberline between 2900 and 7800’. Agrostis borealis Sensitive Sensitive D Known on the Okanogan from mainly alpine meadows above 7000’ elevation. Mesic to moist meadow Northern Bentgrass habitats near streams and wetlands. Anemone nuttalliana Sensitive Threatened D In Washington it is known to occur around 5700’ to 6000’ growing in more open areas on small benches Pasqueflower where soil has been exposed in rocky areas. Habitat range prairies, open meadows, and mountain slopes mostly on well drained soil. Antennaria parvifolia Sensitive Sensitive D Dry, open places, openings in PIPO,forests, on sand and gravel substrates, often riparian in the foothills Nutall’s Pussy-toes of the Columbia basin. Astragalus arrectus Sensitive Threatened D Regional endemic to Columbia basin, Palouse, and west-central ID. Grassy hillsides, sagebrush flats, Palouse Milk-vetch river buffs to open PIPO forests. Astragalus microcystis Sensitive Sensitive Suspected In eastern Washington the species occurs on gravelly to sandy areas from riverbanks to open woods Least Bladdery Milk-vetch (S) from 1400’ to 6200’ elevation. Associated species include Gaillardia aristata, Gilia aggregate, and Melilotus alba. Botrychium ascendens Sensitive/ Sensitive D On the Oka. this species is found on most aspects (S, SW, SE, W) with gentle to flat topography Upward-lobed Moonwort Federal Species between 5800’ to 6300’ in moist meadows in glacial cirques. Habitat in Washington ranges from 2100’ of Concern to 6000’ in moist microsites in meadows and moist deciduous and conifer forests, Botrychium crenulatum Sensitive/ Sensitive D On the Oka. This species is found in moist riparian habitats comprised of dense red osier dogwood Crenulate Moonwort Federal Species (COST) and cottonwood (POTR2) and is associated with moist coniferous riparian zones dominated by of Concern western red cedar(THPL), Engelmann spruce (PIEN), and subalpine fir (ABLA) from 3100’ to 5800’ in elevation. In Washington, it appears to favor similar forested habitats and elevations between 2000’ and 4000’ in Stevens, Ferry, and Pend Orielle counties. Botrychium hesperium Sensitive Threatened D Moist to dry meadows from low elevation prairies to alpine meadows. Documented on the Okanogan in Western Moonwort a small opening at the base of a glacial moraine in an alpine larch (LALY) forest at 6900’. On the Colville NF it is known from moist to dry meadow openings in dry forest habitats between 2900’ and 3700’. Botrychium lineare Sensitive/ Threatened S This is species and the Federal Register describes the habitat as being found in a variety of montane Slender Moonwort Federal Species forest or meadow habitats. Known occupied habitats include deep grass and forb meadows, under of Concern trees in woods, and on shelves on limestone cliffs, mainly at higher elevations. It also occurs as an early seral species in open habitats dominated by low-growing forbs. In open forest habitats it is associated with strawberry (FRVI), pussy-toes (Antennaria spp), northern bedstraw (GABO), cinquefoil (Potentilla), snowberry (SYAL), reedgrass (Calamagrostis spp), fescue (Festuca spp), Engelmann spruce (PIEN), w. red cedar (THPL), Douglas-fir (PSME), ponderosa pine (PIPO), lodgepole (PICO), and aspen (POTR). Generally thought to be associated with moist to dry meadows from low elevation prairies to alpine meadows. Botrychium montanum N/A Watch List D On the Methow District this species occurs in moist shady forests of western red-cedar and spruce/ Mountain Moonwort sub-alpine fir, red-osier dogwood thickets, riparian areas along streams, pond margins, and seeps. Also found along open canopy, grassy meadows and trail edges.

Page 1 of 12 Vascular Species Scientific Name R-6 ISSSSP State Status Presence Habitat** Status on Forest Botrychium paradoxum Sensitive/ Threatened D On the Oka. This species is known to be associated with dry meadows in floodplains in gentle to flat Twin-spiked Moonwort Federal Species terrain between 5600’ and 6450’ elevation. In other areas of the state it is found between 2800’ and of Concern 6550’ elevation in a variety of habitats which include sagebrush (Artemisia) habitat, dry meadow communities associated with floodplains and stream terraces, and moist coniferous forests in association with western red cedar (THPL), western hemlock (TSHE), and grand fir (ABGR). Botrychium pedunculosum Sensitive/ Sensitive S Known sites in the state occur between 2460’ and 6200’ elevation in moist riparian, moist to dry Stalked Moonwort Federal Species meadows found in a moist forest mix of species such as PIEN, PICO, POTR, COST, THPL, ABGR, of Concern LAOC, and ABLA. Generally thought to be associated with moist to dry meadows from low elevation prairies to alpine meadows. Carex atrosquama (C. atrata Strategic Review Group 1 D Wet to moist soils along outlet streams, in wet subalpine and alpine meadows above 6100’. Frequently var. atrosquama) associated species are Trollius laxus, Caltha leptosepala, Carex scopulorum, Phleum alpinum, and Blackened Sedge Valeriana sitchensis. Carex capillaris Sensitive Sensitive D Known from two sites on the Okanogan associated with moist meadows along sandy lake shores from Hair-like Sedge 3800’ to 6500’. Other habitat includes stream banks, wet ledges in moderate to high elevations up to about timberline. Carex chordorrhiza Sensitive Sensitive D One population known in the State. It occurs in wetland at 4480’ in the Subalpine fir forest zone. Cordroot Sedge Dominant conifers in the area are Engelmann spruce, Subalpine fir, and lodgepole pine. It grows in muck soils hummocks interspersed in predominantly a Carex lasiocarpa community with other associates including Carex magellanica ssp. irrigua, Spiranthes romanzoffiana, and Galium trifidum. Carex comosa Sensitive Sensitive D In the state it known to be associated with floating mats of vegetation in muck and peat wetlands. Bristly Sedge General habitats are marshes, lake-shores, and wet meadows from 50’ to 2000’ elevation. Associated spps may include Carex utriculata, Potentilla palustris, Typha latifolia, Spriraea douglasii, Dulichium arundinaceum and Phalaris arundinacea. Carex dioica var gynocrates Sensitive Sensitive D In the state it is found on the tops of hummocky terrain in wet PIEN habitats between 3500’ and 5400’ Yellow Bog Sedge elevation. Washington habitats include sphagnum bogs, forested wetlands and other wet marshy places between 2600’ and 3800’. Associated species include Carex disperma, C. lanuginose, C. capillaris, C. leptalea, Equisetum arvense, Rubus pubescens, Ledum groenlandicum, Betula glandulosa, Alnus incan, Salix spps, PIEN, and PICO. Carex heteroneura N/A Sensitive D Stream margins in open forests and moist meadows in the subalpine to alpine zones. (C. epapillosa) Blackened Sedge Carex macrochaeta Sensitive Threatened S Habitat is often moist or wet, open places, and frequently is found near the coast in seepage areas, Large-awned Sedge around waterfalls, in wet meadows, and along streams and lakes. In Washington, populations were found near a seepage area close to a slide alder (Alnus sinuata) thicket and on basalt cliffs at the base of a waterfall. Carex magellanica ssp. Sensitive Sensitive D In Washington, this taxon has been found in fens, bogs, shady wet meadows, shrub wetlands, and irrigua marshes, often growing in peat soil, at 1640 to 7000 ft (500 to 2134 m) elevation. Associated species Poor Sedge include sphagnum, sedges (Carex spp.), tall cottongrass (Eriophorum polystachion), woodrush (Luzula sp.), western red cedar (Thuja plicata), rose spirea (Spiraea douglasii), Sitka alder (Alnus sinuata), prickly currant (Ribes lacustre), thinleaf huckleberry (Vaccinium membranaceum), strawberryleaf raspberry (Rubus pedatus), largeleaf avens (Geum macrophyllum), purple marshlocks (Potentilla palustris), elephanthead lousewort (Pedicularis groenlandica), western Labrador tea (Ledum groenlandicum), roundleaf sundew (Drosera rotundifolia), lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), pioneer violet (Viola glabella), willows (Salix spp.), and rushes (Juncus spp.). Carex media Sensitive Sensitive D Wet stream banks, subalpine and alpine rich moist forb meadows. Often associated with wet site Salix (C. norvegica) species, Trollius laxus, Caltha leptosepala, Carex species, and Senecio paciflorus. Intermediate Sedge Carex pauciflora Sensitive Sensitive S In Washington sites are found in association with Western hemlock, Mt Hemlock, Western red cedar, Few-flowered Sedge and Pacific silver fir. Other associated species are ledum, vaccinium species, and rusty menziesia

Page 2 of 12 Vascular Species Scientific Name R-6 ISSSSP State Status Presence Habitat** Status on Forest Carex proposita Sensitive Threatened D It occurs in rocky alpine and subalpine habitats often at treeline with Larix lyallii, Pinus albicalus, Abies Great Smokey Mt. Sedge lasiocarpa and/or Pinus contorta. Other species frequently associated with this species are: Erigeron aureus, Empetrum nigrum, Carex phacocaphala. Carex nardina, Antennatia alpina, Lupinus ledidus, Carex breweri, Potentilla diversifolia, Phlox diffusa, Vaccinium scoluporum, Oxyria diguna, Festuca ovina brachyphylla., Erigeron salsihii, Anemone drummondii, Arenaria obtusiloba, Luzula spicatum, Phlox dufusa, Penstemon davidsonii, Silene acaulis, Vaccinium deliciosum or Vaccinium caespitosum. Carex rostrata Sensitive Sensitive S In Washington sites are associated with quaking or floating peat in w/ Carex lasiocarpa along lake Beaked Sedge shorelines between 4500’ and 5000’ elevation. Other associated species include Carex limosa, Menyanthes _rifoliate, Pedicularis groenlandica, Droser anglica, Eriophorum polystachion, Nuphar polysephalum and Equisetum fluviatele. Generally habitat is thought to be around ponds and swampy meadows, mid to high elevations. Carex saxatilis var. major N/A Watch List D On the Okanogan it is found above 5000’ in shallow wetlands, bogs, margins of ponds and streams with Rock Sedge shallow standing water. Sites may become dry during drought years. Often forms monoculture stands in shallow water. Carex scirpoidea var. Sensitive Sensitive D Moist alpine meadows bordering talus slopes, dry to moist meadows, and talus with some soil scirpoidea development between 5900’ and 7600’. Associated species are: Carex breweri, Anemone Canadian Single- Spike drummondii, Haploppus Lyalii, Erigeron compositos, Carex nigricans, Juniperus communis, and Pinus Sedge albicalus. Carex stylosa Sensitive Sensitive S Saturated and seasonally flooded fibrous and sphagnum peat soils or sloping wetlands with surface Long-styled Sedge seepage, silver fir and mountain hemlock zone. Carex sychnocephala Sensitive Sensitive D Habitats, which include the known sites, are associated with permanently saturated, moist, or wet soils Many-headed Sedge along lake shores and marshes from 1000’ to 3000’ elevation. Some sites are somewhat alkaline, Substrates vary from rather rocky to sandy and silty soils. Associated species include Scirpus maritimus, Cyperus aristatus, Polygonum persicaria, Rumex maritimus, Conyza Canadensis, Aster brachyactis, Ranunculus sceleratus, Epilobium spp, Cirsium vulgare and C. arvense. Carex tenuiflora Sensitive Threatened D One site known that occurs at 5800’ in a bog/fen wetland. Dominant associate is sphagnum moss and Sparse-leafed Sedge other associates are: Carex limosa, Carex utriculata, Carex camescens. Carex vallicola Sensitive Sensitive D In the state, this species is only known on the Okanogan. It is primarily found in dry meadow Valley Sedge communities with big sagebrush (ARTR) between 4300’ and 6800’ in elevation. Habitat in general is described as moist to moderately dry slopes from the foothills to moderate elevations in the mountains, often with sagebrush or aspen. Castilleja cryptantha Sensitive/ Sensitive D Often found in high elevation meadows frequently associated Antennaria lanata, Potentlla flabellifolia, Obscure Indian Paintbrush Federal Species Polygonum bistortoides, Lupinus, Danthonia, Poa, , Carex luzulina, Aster alpinus, Ligusticum grayii, of Concern Phyllodoce empetriformis, Gentiana calycosa, and Antennaria Chaenactis thompsonii Sensitive Sensitive D Known to occur in mid-montane forest habitats with ABLA, PSME, and/or PIAL. Some other associated Thompson’s chaenactis species are: Aspidotis, Eriogonum spps, Gallium, Collomia, Gilia aggregata, Arctostaphylos nevadensis, Lomatium CF cuspidatum, Douglasia nivalis, Achillea millefolium, Cryptantha, Monardella, Physaria, Cheilanthes, and Phlox. Chrysosplenium tetrandrum Sensitive Sensitive D Found in gentle terrain along steam banks and seeps where water accumulates or other wet sites in Northern Golden-carpet woods with densely vegetated creek bottoms, damp mossy hummocks. Picea engelmanii dominated riparian often associated with Alnus incana, Ribes lacustre, Equisetum, and Cornus stoloniferous. Cicuta bulbifera Sensitive Sensitive D It is known to occur between 1930’-3700’ in elevation in muck soils or standing water associated with Bulb-bearing Water Hemlock marshes, stream, lake, or pond margins where Carex utriculata is often the dominant sedge. Coptis aspleniifolia Sensitive Sensitive S Know to occur in Pacific silver fir (Abies amabilis) and Mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana ) forest Spleenwort-leaved habitats. Other species frequently associated with these sites are: Tsuga heterophylla, Thuja plicata, Goldthread Vaccinium alaskaense, Menziesia ferruginea, Rubus spectabilis, Cornus canadensis, Maianthemum dilatatum, Linnaea borealis, Blechnum spicant, Oplopanax horridum, Acer circinatum, Berberis nervosa, Vaccinium parvifolium, Tiarella unifoliata, Chamaecyparis nootkatensis, Clintonia uniflora, Taxus brevifolia, Vaccinium ovalifolium, Rubus pedatus, Listera cordata. Picea sitchensis, Alnus rubra,

Page 3 of 12 Vascular Species Scientific Name R-6 ISSSSP State Status Presence Habitat** Status on Forest Menziesia ferruginea, Gymnocarpum dryopteroides, Polystichum munitum, Dryopteris austriaca, and Athyrum filis-femina. Coptis trifolia N/A Threatened S Coptis trifolia often grows in habitats ranging from muskegs to deep woods. The Washington population Goldthread is growing in a cedar bog. Associated species include bog Labrador tea (Ledum groenlandicum), deer fern (Blechnum spicant), black crowberry (Empetrum nigrum), bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), salal (Gaultheria shallon), sphagnum (Sphagnum spp.), western red cedar (Thuja plicata), bluejoint (Calamagrostis canadensis), false lily of the valley (Maianthemum dilatatum), rush (Juncus spp.), sticky tofieldia (Tofieldia glutinosa ssp. brevistyla), and broadleaf starflower (Trientalis borealis ssp. latifolia). Corydalis aquae-gelidae N/A Sensitive S Occurs primarily in the western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) and Pacific silver fir (Abies amabilis) Clackamas corydalis Federal Species zone, (Franklin and Dyrness 1973), at elevations ranging from 2500 to 3800 feet. It is found growing in of Concern or near cold flowing water, including seeps and small streams, often occurring within the stream channel itself. Cryptogramma stelleri Sensitive Sensitive D Seeps and moist shaded places in cliff crevices in moderate to steep slopes 3000’ to 6000’. Most Steller’s Rockbrake frequently sited on calcareous substraights, growing in mats of moss and along seepage cracks, at bases of overhanging cliffs. Cypripedium fasciculatum Sensitive/ Sensitive D Habitat is mid to late seral PSME or PIPO stands with a dense closed herbaceous layer and various Clustered Lady’s Slipper Federal Species shrub layer. Mostly on northern aspects. Elevations range from 1200’ to 5000’. Associated species of Concern are Pachystima myrsinites, Holodiscus discolor, Spiraea betulifolia, Berberis nervosa, Calamagrostis rubescens, Arnica cordifolia and Carex geyeri. In moist to rather dry and rocky open coniferous forests east of the cascades. Cypridepium parviflorum Sensitive Threatened D It is found in bogs, wet forest habitats, and in the channeled scablands of eastern Wash. it occurs Yellow Lady’s Slipper around the periphery of ponds and in low, moist areas, generally in close association with red osier dogwood (COST) and aspen (POTR). It is also known to be associated with snowberry (SYAL) that is adjacent to COST communities with a ponderosa pine (PIPO) overstory between 2100’ and 3440’ elevation. Delphinium viridescens Sensitive/ Threatened D This is a Wenatchee Mountain endemic found in dry Pinus ponderosa - Pseudotsuga menziesii forest Wenatchee Larkspur Federal Species habitats where mesic to moist sites are found as indicated by associated species such as: of Concern Hydrophyllum fendleri, Alnus sinuata, Dodecatheon spp., Salix scouleriana, Symphoricarpos albus, Achillea millefolium, Actaea rubra, Veratrum viride, Crataegus spp, Rudbeckia, Aconitum, Holodiscus discolor, Heracleum lanatum, Urtica, Thalictrum occidentalis, Senecio, and Angelica. Draba aurea Sensitive Sensitive D Well drained alpine meadows that are seasonally moist, krumholz, dry meadow, and talus slope Golden Draba habitats between 6800’ to 7400’. Favors southerly aspects. Associated species: Draba cana, Elmera racemosa, Potentilla spp., Carex spp. Vaccinium scoparium, Vaccinium caespitosum. Penstemon davidsonii, Arctostaphylos uva-ursi, Lupinus lepidus, Polemonium elegans, Festuca ovina, and Juniperus communis. Draba cana Sensitive Sensitive D Found in alpine fellfields on mid to upper slopes frequently in steep terrain from 5900’ to 7800’. Draba Lance-leafed Draba cana appears to favor dry rocky exposures. Associated species are Antennaria alpina, Carex phaeocephala, Erigeron compositus, Lupinus lepidus, Potentilla spps, Arenaria obtusaloba. Penstemon davidsonii, Juniperus communis and/or Arctostapholus uva-ursi Dryas drummondii Sensitive Sensitive S Thought to be associated with calcium rich areas. Known to occur between 2000’ and 6750’ in Yellow Mountain Avens elevation in open gravelly areas often above timberline or at lower elevations along streams. Eleocharis rostellata Strategic Sensitive S The species is known from salt marshes along the coast and in alkaline or highly calcareous situations Peaked Spike-Rush inland, often around hot springs. In WA, the species is known from streambanks, lake margins, around springs and in marshes. Associated species include porcupine sedge (Carex hystericina), slender sedge (C. lasiocarpa), woolly sedge (C. lanuginosa), berula (Berula erecta), western St. John’s wort (Hypericum formosum), American bulrush (Scirpus americanus), creeping (continued): spike-rush (Eleocharis palustris), jointed rush (Juncus articulatus), giant helleborine (Epipactis gigantea), yellow monkey-flower (Mimulus guttatus), western witchgrass (Panicum occidentale), and western centaury (Centaurium

Page 4 of 12 Vascular Species Scientific Name R-6 ISSSSP State Status Presence Habitat** Status on Forest exaltatum). Elevation 500 to 1850 feet. Erigeron salishii Sensitive Sensitive D Alpine species found on typically flat,southerly exposed ridge lines, mountain tops, fellfields, and upper Salish Fleabane slopes from 6800’ to 8690’. Associated species are often Potentilla nivea, Potentilla uniflora, Lupinus lepidus, Erigeron compositus, and lichens. Eriophorum viridicarinatum Sensitive Sensitive D Only known from one location on the Okanogan at 6000’ elevation in fens/bogs, wet meadows, and Green-keeled Cottongrass wetland margins. Eritrichium nanum var. Sensitive Sensitive D Alpine ridges in relatively stable granitic scree associated with alpine cushion plant communities on elongatum gentle slopes, in exposed gravelly soil between 7300’-8300’. Some associated species are Lupinus Pale Alpine Forget-me-not lepidus, Smelowskia calycina, Phlox hoodii, Carex breweri. Eucephalus vialis N/A Species of S Open woods west of the cascades between 500’ and 3150’. Typically found on uplands dominated by (Aster vialis) Concern Douglas-fir in association with drier forest hardwoods such as Pacific madrone, golden chinquapin, and Wayside Aster Oregon white oak. Galium kamtschaticum Sensitive Watch List S Moist, cold coniferous forests, in Cascades often on low angle slopes with saturated soils, under dense Boreal Bedstraw shrub or lady fern thickets, in old-growth forest canopy gaps, and in the silver fir/devil’s club Alaska huckleberry plant association. Gentiana glauca Sensitive Sensitive D Frequently associated with wetland transition zones on hummock topography, seeps, wetlands in Glaucous Gentian basins and on alpine benches between 6800 and 8000’ in the northeast portion of the Pasayten Wilderness. Gentianella tenella Sensitive Sensitive D Appears to favor subalpine and alpine meadows and wetlands with gently sloping terrain between 6800’ Slender Gentian and 7100’ with southerly aspects. Frequently associated with Sibbaldia procumbens, Vaccinium cespitosum, Potentilla and Carex spps. Geum rivale Sensitive Sensitive D On the Oka this species is found in an open stand of lodgepole pine (PICO) and Engelmann spruce Water Avens (PIEN) with an understory of skunkleaf polemonium (POPU9) at 6440’. In other places in the state it is associated with saturated lakeshores, streambanks, marshes, and meadows often with rich organic soils between 2500 and 6400’ in elevation. It does not occur under heavy shrub cover. In general the habitat is described as along streambanks, lakeshores, bogs, and wet meadows. Geum rossii var. depressum Sensitive Endangered D A high elevation alpine or krummholz habitat species associated with Pinus albicaulis, Carex sp., Ross’s Avens Luzula hitchcokii, Lupinus lepidus var. lobbii, Artemisia trifucata, Phlox diffusa, Arenaria capillaris, Antennaria, Senecio, Silene acaulis, Potentilla, Sedum, Saxifraga bronchialis, S. oppositifolia, Polemonium pulcherrium, Artemisia, Arabis sp. Githopsis speculariodes N/A Sensitive D This species is found on the dry hillsides along the north shore of Lake Chelan in the transition zone Common Blue-cup between forested and non-forested habitats between 200 and 2500 feet. Populations sizes are generally small and scattered. Hackelia hispida var. Sensitive Sensitive D Dry forest and shrub steppe habitats, often in rocky bluffs and cliff micro-habitats. Rocky talus at disjuncta elevations of 600 to 2100 feet. Associated species include fern-leaved lomatium (Lomatium Sagebrush Stickseed dissectum), whiteleaf phacelia (Phacelia hastata), fiddleneck (Amsinckia lycopsoides), branched phacelia (Phacelia ramosissima), and roundleaf alumroot (Heuchera cylindrica). Hackelia tayloria (H. ssp. N/A Threatened D High elevation species associated with Pinus albicaulis, Abies lasiocarpa, Larix lyallii, Silene suksdorfii, novum) Haplopappus greenei, Lomatium brandegei, Senecio elmeri, Arenaria obtusiloba, Lupinus lepidus, Taylor’s Stickseed Campanula scabrella, Senecio fremontii, Eriogonum niveum, Achillea millefolium, Heuchera. Phacelia sericea, Eriogonum pyrolifolium, Sedum, Castilleja, Penstemmon fruticosis, P. davidsonii, Juniperus sp., Artemisia sp., Phacelia hastata, Solidago multiradiata, Eriophyllum lanatum, Crytograma. Hackelia venusta Federally Endangered D Found in dry open bunchgrass forest habitats. In 'Non-cliff sites it is associated with Pseudoroegneria Showy Stickseed Endangered spicata, Hieracium albertinum, Penstemon subserratus, Phacelia hastata, Lupinus wyethiii, Delphinium nuttallianum, Achillea millefolium, Eriogonum ovalifolium, Bromus tectorum, Eriophyllum lanatum, Cryptantha simulans, Lomatium triternatum, Ceanothus velutinus, Chaenactis thompsonii, Pseudotsuga menziesii. In Cliff sites: Eriogonum compositum, Penstemon subserratus, Pseudoroegneria spicata, Poa spp., Galium multiflorum, Phlox diffusa, Heuchera spp., Mimulus alsinoides, Cheilanthes gracillima. Also with Holodiscus discolor, Pinus ponderosa, Pachystima myrsinites, Acer glabra var. douglasii,

Page 5 of 12 Vascular Species Scientific Name R-6 ISSSSP State Status Presence Habitat** Status on Forest Arabis holboellii var. retrofracta, Spiraea betulifolia, Eriogonum sp., Cerastium cf nutans, Prunus emarginata. Heterotheca oregano Sensitive Threatened D Heterotheca oregona grows on sand and gravel bars along rivers. In Washington, this species was Oregon Goldenaster found on a sandy riverbank at the edge of a Douglas fir-ponderosa pine (Pseudotsuga menziesii-Pinus ponderosa) forest at an elevation of 2600 ft (792 m). Howellia aquatilis Federally Threatened S It occurs mostly in small, vernal ponds, although some of the ponds may retain water throughout the Howellia Threatened year. Soils are rich in organic matter and frequently contain partially decomposed leaves, stems, and wood. Habitat is in lower elevations between 10’ and 2300’. Associated species include aspen (POTR), Sium suave, Sparganium, Utricularia, Potamogeton sp, and Phalaris arundinacea. Illiamna longisepala Sensitive Sensitive D Found from sagebrush/bitterbrush steppe to ponderosa pine forests in the low to mid elevations Longsepal Globemallow between 500’ to 4500’. Often found along gravelly stream sides in open shrub-steppe and open PIPO and PSME forests to open hillsides in microsites not immediately adjacent to a stream channel. Generally, dry, open hillsides, gravelly streamsides and open ponderosa pine forests. Juncus howellii Sensitive Threatened D Juncus howellii prefers moist areas in the mountains. In Washington, this species was found in a wet, Howell’s Rush bouldery area at the base of a basalt cliff in a riparian zone at an elevation of 2840 ft (866 m). Associated species include glaucous willowherb (Epilobium glaberrimum), bedstraw (Galium sp.), clasping arnica (Arnica amplexicaulis), horsetail (Equisetum sp.), and violet (Viola sp.). Loiseleuria procumbens Sensitive Threatened D Known to occur only above 6000’ in elevation in heather communities in the North Central Cascade Alpine Azalea mountains. Habitat is suspected to be associated with bogs in the lowlands and montane forest zones and in dry to mesic heath and tundra communities in the alpine zone. Luzula arcuata Sensitive Sensitive D Typically found above 7000’ in elevation in moist boulder talus crevices above timberline and often near Curved Woodrush mountain summits. Lycopodium dendroideum Sensitive Sensitive S Habitat is dry to moist forests, bog edges, rocky or sandy places in the lowlands to montane zones. Treelike Clubmoss Known in WA state between 800’ and 3650’ in elevation in the moist forest zones that range from western hemlock to Pacific Silver fir and mountain hemlock to subalpine fir and cool moist Douglas-fir zones. Found both sides of the Cascades. Mimulus patulus Sensitive Threatened D In Washington the species was found on ephemeral seeps, moist basalt, and very fine gravel on top of Stalk-leaved Monkey-flower bedrock in a small drainage from 1000 to 2000 feet (300-600 m) elevation. Associated species include: common monkeyflower (Mimulus guttatas), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), Oregon twinpod (Physaria oregana), stoneseed (Lithospermum sp.) and spring draba (Draba verna). Mimulus pulsiferae Sensitive Sensitive D On the Okanogan, this species is, upon verification, has turned out to be a very rare Mimulus patulus Pulsifer’s Monkey-flower that is now being considered for addition to both the state and R-6 list. The only sites documented in the state are on the Okanogan. Further taxonomic work is needed to confirm species on all the sites. M. pulsiferae / M. patulus sites are found in seasonally moist rock out crops and moist depressions in flat terrain in our ponderosa pine (PIPO) and dry Douglas-fir (PSME) forest types. In general this species habitat is in seasonally moist, open places often in exposed mineral soil from the foothills and valleys to the mid elevations east of the cascades. Mimulus suksdorfii Sensitive Sensitive D Known from a steep talus and scree slope above timberline at 7100’ with a south aspect on the Suksdorf’s Monkey-flower Okanogan. It is suspected to occur in wet to dry open places from the lowlands to high in the mtns. Mimulus washingtonensis N/A Extirpated from D Wet, moist, rocky, open slopes at low elevations. Possibly extinct or extirpated from Washington. Washington Monkey-flower Washington Montia diffusa Sensitive Sensitive D Moist forests at lower elevations Branching montia Nicotiana attenuata Sensitive Sensitive D Dry sandy bottom lands, dry rocky washes, and in other dry open places from 400’ to 10,000’. Has Coyote Tobacco been reported to occur with Elymus cinereus and common weedy species such as mullein (VETH), knapweed (CEDI), Russian thistle (SAKA), and cheatgrass (BRTE). Oxytropis campestris var. Sensitive Sensitive S It is known from alpine habitat found near the summits of Mt. Chopoka and Rock Mtn in N. Central WA. gracilis Suspected habitat is wide ranging from mesic to dry meadows, grassy slopes, sandy or gravelly Slender Crazyweed riverbanks and terraces, and forest opening from lowlands and steppe to alpine zones.

Page 6 of 12 Vascular Species Scientific Name R-6 ISSSSP State Status Presence Habitat** Status on Forest Packera porteri Strategic Review Group 1 D In Washington this species was found on an unglaciated nunatak (a hill or mountain once surrounded Porter’s Butterweed by glacial ice) in deposited volcanic sediments and shifting talus at 7800 feet (2377 m) elevation. Associated species include whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis), common juniper (Juniperus communis), and Davidson’s penstemon (Penstemon davidsonii). Parnassia kotzebuei Sensitive Sensitive D From moderate to high elevations in the mountains. Known from 2 sites on the Okanogan ranging from Kobzebue’s Grass-of- 4800’ to 6700’ elevation on north aspects in moderate to steep terrain associated with cliff edges and at Parnassus the base of talus slopes in moist seeps. Pedicularis rainierensis Sensitive Sensitive D Pedicularis rainierensis is generally found in moist alpine meadows, open coniferous forests, and on Mt. Rainier Lousewort rocky slopes. Often it grows near streams, and it is known to occur throughout some lake basins. Common associates include Phyllodoce empetriformis (pink mountain heath), Vaccinium deliciosum (Cascade bilberry), Valeriana sitchensis (Sitka valerian), Carex nigricans (black alpine sedge), C. spectabilis (showy sedge), Aster alpigenus (tundra aster), Veronica cusickii (Cusick’s speedwell), Saxifraga ferruginea (rusty hair saxifrage), Anemone occidentalis (white pasque flower), and the various Pedicularis (lousewort) species. Pellaea brachyptera Sensitive Sensitive D Known from 1100’ to 2500’ elevation in the state. Habitat is associated with dry rocky slopes low to mid Sierra Cliff-brake elevations in open bunchgrass communities with scattered ponderosa pine. Pellaea breweri Sensitive Sensitive D Phlox diffusa, Erioganium umbrellalum, Artemesia. Brewer’s Cliff-brake Penstemon eriantherus var. Sensitive Sensitive D This taxon occurs on west facing slopes of small canyons, and in dry and rocky habitats in the foothills whitedii of the Cascade Range and in the Columbia Basin from 525 to 3835 feet (160-1160 meters) elevation. It Whited’s Penstemon has been observed in antelope bitterbrush/Indian ricegrass (Purshia tridentata/Oryzopsis hymenoides), purple sage/wheatgrass (Salvia dorrii/Agropyron spicatum) and rabbitbrush/bluebunch wheatgrass (Chysothamnus nauseosus/Agropyron spicatum) plant communities. Petrophyton cinerascens Sensitive/ Endangered D Only known from cliffs along the Columbia River in dry rocky habitat associated with Heuchera Chelan Rockmat Federal Species cylindrica, the lichen Physconia leucoleiptes, Amelanchier alnifolia, Penstemon procerus, Leptodactylon of Concern pungens, and Eriogonum spp.

Phacelia minutissima Sensitive/ Endangered D Found at mid elevations in the mountains and is known to be associated with Veratrum californicum, Dwarf Phacelia Federal Species Alder, Aster foliaceus, Haplopappus hirtus, Delphinium spps of Concern

Physaria didymocarpa var. Sensitive Sensitive D In dry forest habitats known to occur with Agropyron spicatum, Sedum stenopetalum, Chrysothamnus didymocarpa nauseosus,. Lomatium greyi, Eriogonum umbellatum. Common Twinpod Pilularia americana Sensitive Threatened D In Washington, Pilularia americana has been found in the middle zones of vernal pools from 1930 to American Pillwort 2310 feet (588-704 meters) elevation. Associated species at one or more sites include mosses, annual hairgrass (Deschampsia danthonioides), tiny mousetail (Myosurus minimus), finebranched popcornflower (Plagiobothyris leptocladus), neckweed (Veronica peregrina), Geyer’s onion (Allium geyeri), toad rush (Juncus bufonius), needle spikerush (Elocharis acicularis), fruitleaf knotweed (Polygonum polygaloides ssp. confertiflorum), Pacific foxtail (Alopecurus saccatus), whitehead navarretia (Navarretia leucocephala), elegant calicoflower (Downingia elegans), and bractless hedgehyssop (Gratiola ebracteata). Platanthera chorisiana Sensitive Threatened S The species is commonly found in the wettest regions of sphagnum bogs and along streamsides. The Choris’ Bog-orchid species can be found growing on mosscovered rocks. It has been found in open areas at or just above the water table level. Washington sightings of P. chorisiana have been common by lakes. In Washington, P. chorisiana has been found to associate with Tsuga mertensiana (mountain hemlock), Phyllodoce sp. (mountain heather), and Dodecatheon jeffreyi (Jeffrey’s shooting star). It grows at elevations ranging from 2540 - 4300 ft. (774-1301 m) in Washington. Platanthera obtusata Sensitive Sensitive D Damp to wet places in forests, marshes, bogs, meadows, and along streambanks. Most Washington

Page 7 of 12 Vascular Species Scientific Name R-6 ISSSSP State Status Presence Habitat** Status on Forest Small Northern Bog-orchid populations are in moist to wet forests dominated by PIEN and/or THPL from 800’ to 5000’ elevation. Platanthera orbiculata var. N/A Species of S Occurs at low to mid elevations in the montane zone in dry to moist, mossy forests and wetlands such orbiculata Concern as bogs and swamps. Less common in dry forests. Prefers shade and deep, moist undisturbed litter. Large Roundleaf- orchid Mostly known to occur in mesic to drier plant associations in the western hemlock and pacific silver fir plant associations. Winter snow depth usually less than 4’. Platanthera sparsiflora Sensitive Threatened D Open wet areas, seeps, bogs at low to mid elevations, in a subalpine bog on the Wenatchee National Canyon bog-orchid Forest. Polemonium viscosum Sensitive Sensitive D Alpine species found above 6300’ that favors flat to gentle terrain in alpine talus, fellfields in glacial Skunk Polemonium cirques, summits, and shoulder slopes. Potamogeton filiformis var. Strategic Review Group 1 D This taxon is typically found in shallow, standing, or slow moving water. In Washington it was found occidentalis from 1074 to 3550 feet (327-1082 m) elevation. Western Fineleaf Pondweed Potentilla diversifolia var. Strategic Sensitive S It is from the west fork of Twentymile Creek at about 5820’ elevation. Habitat is a moist meadow along perdissecta the margin of a wetland and Englemann spruce and Lodgepole pine forest. Overall habitat is Diverse-leafed Cinquefoil considered to be from alpine meadows and rocky ledges and slopes to subalpine or montane forests where it is found chiefly along stream banks. Potentilla nivea Sensitive Sensitive D Found above 7000’ on flat to gently sloping topography favoring southern exposures in alpine Snow Cinquefoil meadows, balds, fellfields, and rock ourcrops along alpine ridges and summits Potentilla quinquefolia Strategic Threatened S Gravely meadows and river bars in the alpine and subalpine zones. Five-leafed Cinquefoil Pyrrocoma hirta var. Sensitive Sensitive D Haplopappus hirtus var. sonchifolius occurs in meadows and open or sparsely wooded slopes in the sonchifolia foothills and at moderate elevations. This taxon has been found at an elevation of 4700 ft (1400 m) in Sticky Goldenweed Washington, but is found at higher elevations south in its range. Associated species include American aster (Aster foliaceous) and Kittitas larkspur (Delphinium multiplex). Ranunculus pygmaeus N/A Review Group 1 D Moist to wet seepage sites, snowbeds, shady ledges and scree slopes in the subalpine and alpine Dwarf Buttercup zones. Ribes oxyacanthoides ssp. Sensitive Threatened D The species is found along streams, meadow openings associated with streams, and slopes of moist to irriguum dry canyons. Unlike other members of the genus, it is typically associated with conifers, including Pinus Idaho Gooseberry ponderosa, Pseudotsuga menziesii, and Abies grandis. Many different shrubs can occur with this taxon, including Amelanchier alnifolia, Crataegus douglasii, Ribes cereum, Symphoricarpos albus, and Rosa woodsii. Other species occurring with this taxon include Carex geyeri, Smilacina stellata, Actaea rubra, Poa compressa and Poa palustris. Elevations range from (1900)3000 to 5000 feet. Rotala ramosior Sensitive Threatened D This species is found in damp areas in fine sand and silt. It grows in wet, swampy places, lakes and Lowland Toothcup pond margins, and along free flowing river reaches in association with rush (Juncus) and spike-rush (Eleocharis) species. Populations in Washington frequently occur with grand red-stem (Ammannia robusta), Drummond’s hemicarpha (Lipocarpha aristulata), slender flatsedge (Cyperus bipartitus), southern mudwort (Limosella acaulis), yellow-seed false-pimpernel (Lindernia dubia), and, in some cases, Columbia yellow-cress (Rorippa columbiae). In Washington, R. ramosior has been found from 200 to 2259 ft (61 to 689 m) elevation. Rubus acaulis Sensitive Threatened D Found in open wetlands and wet meadows within spruce dominated forests at 5900’ on hummocks Nagoonberry around the wetlands and bogs. Salix glauca Sensitive Sensitive D Habitat is associated with perennial streams, stream banks, and marshes in draws, floodplains, and Glaucous Willow glacial cirques and valleys between 5200’ and 5850’ in gentle to flat topography. It is known to occur with Salix candida. Salix maccalliana Sensitive Sensitive D Salix maccalliana occurs in bogs, fens, swamps, and marshes in open, low-lying sites. In Washington, Maccall’s Willow the species has been found growing in peaty soils at 2400 to 3000 feet (730 to 912 m) in elevation. Salix tweedyi N/A Sensitive D Often found along stream banks associated with moderate to swift moving streams in glacial valleys Tweedy’s Willow and cirques with gentle sloping topography, perennially wet areas associated with springs, seeds, fens,

Page 8 of 12 Vascular Species Scientific Name R-6 ISSSSP State Status Presence Habitat** Status on Forest bogs, and lakeshores between 4620’ and 7200’ in elevation. Salix vestita var. erecta Strategic Extirpated from D In Washington this taxon was found at 7000 feet (2133 m) elevation. This taxon typically occurs in Rock Willow Washington open, often springy places at high altitudes in the mountains, commonly near or above the timberline. Sanicula marilandica Sensitive Sensitive D On the Oka. and other places in the state this species is associated with sub-irrigated, moist Black Snake-root floodplains, moist woods, marsh edges and old riverine channels in gentle to flat topography with silty and sandy river bottoms. It frequently is with Englemann spruce (PIEN), aspen (POTR), cottonwood (POTR2), and/or alder (ALIN) between 1800’ and 3400’ in elevation. Saxifraga cernua Sensitive Sensitive D Known to occur in boulder talus above 6500’ in elevation in thin moist soils and moist scree. Nodding Saxifrage Saxifraga rivularis N/A Sensitive D The species can be found on damp cliffs, rock crevices, and talus near snowbanks, as well as alpine Pygmy Saxifrage slopes, cracks, and shaded cliffs. It is noted that the species is commonly found occurring as single plants rather than in clusters or populations. Saxifraga rivularis occurs around basaltic crevices, granitic cliffs, and moss-covered detritus, and can also grow on vertical rock faces. Elevation ranges from 6000- 7000 ft (2000-2300 m). Saxifragopsis fragarioides Sensitive Threatened D Found in dry forest habitats with Pinus ponderosa, Pseudotsuga menziesii, Abies grandis, Amelanchier Strawberry Saxifrage alnifolia, Prunus emarginata, Holodiscus discolor, Bromus tectorum, Balsamorhiza sagittata, Acer glabrum var. douglasii, Philadelphus lewisii, Berberis aquifolium, Achillea millefolium, Heuchera cylindrica, Saxifraga occidentalis var. idahoensis, Sedum divergens, S. lanceolatum, Lewisia tweedyi, Capsella bursa-pastoris, Cryptogramma crispa, Phacelia hastata, Epilobium sp.,, Arabis sp., fern spp., various lichen/moss spp., Cenothus velutinus, Purshia tridentata, Ceanothus sanguineus, Lupinus sp. Penstemon fruticosus, Penstemon richardsonii, Penstemon pruinosus, Heuchera cylindrical, Lomatium dissectum, Cerastium arvense. Sidalcea oregana var. calva Federally Endangered D Found in dry forest habitats known to occur with Delphinium viridescens, Veratrum viride, Aconitum Wenatchee Mt Checker- Endangered columbianum, Geranium viscosissimum, Camassia quamash, Crataegus columbiana, Symphoricarpos mallow albus, Solidago multiradiata, Populus tremuloides, Potentilla glandulosa, Castilleja sp., Carex sp., Juncus sp., Spirea douglasii, Rosa sp., Salix sp., and Pinus ponderosa. Silene sargentii Strategic Review Group 1 D Silene sargentii is found in subalpine and alpine forest from 7900 to 12500 ft (2400-3800 m) throughout Sargent’s Catchfly its range. The elevation at which it was found in Washington is unknown . Silene seelyi Sensitive/ Sensitive D Shaded crevices in ultramafic to basaltic cliffs and rock outcrops, and occasionally among boulders in Seely’s Silene Federal Species talus. Occurs from 1500 to 6300 feet in elevation. It occurs where the canopy cover is less than 30% of Concern and on slopes of 15 to 20%. Associated species include alumroot (Heuchera cylindrica), Chelan penstemon (Penstemon pruinosus), and Wallace’s selaginella (Selaginella wallacei). Silene seelyi is restricted to sites with poor nutrient and water availability; competition with other vegetation is, therefore, generally minimal. The sites are relatively stable, although slope failures and fracturing of the rocks do occur. Sisyrinchium septentrionale Sensitive Sensitive D Occurs primarily in open wet meadows, sometimes in association with perennial streams and within a Blue-eyed Grass mosaic that includes coniferous forested wetlands which may include PIEN, PSME, ABLA, THPL, PIPO, ALSI, ALIN, and SYAL. Grasses and sedges commonly dominate the habitats. Known sites in Washington range from 2270’ to 4080’ and habitat range is thought to be between 2100’ and 6100’. Spiranthes diluvialis Federally Endangered S In our area, this species is suspected to occur below 3500’ in periodically flooded alkaline flat (moist Ute Ladies’-tresses Threatened meadows) wetlands adjacent to shrub-steppe, ponderosa pine, and dry Douglas-fir woodlands. Generally habitat is associated with floodplains, channels, streambanks, springs, seeps, lake and pond margins where soils are likely alkaline, periodically flooded, and moist throughout the growing season. Elevations range between 1500’ and 7000’. Spiranthes porrifolia Sensitive Sensitive D On the Oka it occurs between 5400’ and 6800’ in glacial cirque wetlands, bogs, and fens. It is Western Ladies-tresses associated with Leptarrhena pyrolifolia, Caltha biflora, Trollius laxus, Carex spps, Eleocharis pauciflora, Pinus contorta, Pinus engelmanni, and Ledum glandulosum. It is found on both sides of the Cascades but is mainly east of the crest. Frequently in vernally moist seeps in otherwise dry rocky habitats and depressions from 1100’ in Chelan Co. in open ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir forests and meadows,

Page 9 of 12 Vascular Species Scientific Name R-6 ISSSSP State Status Presence Habitat** Status on Forest down to 100’ in the Columbia River Gorge oak woodlands. It is generally thought to be associated with wet meadows, along streams, in bogs, and in seeps along slopes. Talinum sediforme N/A Watch List D The habitat is in rocky exposed slopes and ledges in the lower mountains of Okanogan county. Most Okanogan Flameflower sites are between 2700’ and 4000’ elevation with a few sites documented as high as 6000’. It is predominantly on thin soils over exposed rock. Associated species include Alium robinsonii, Erigeron compositus, Lewisia rediviva, Lomatium sp, Penstemon fruiticosus, Potentilla glandulosa, Sedum spp, Selaginella sp, and Woodsia oregano. Thalictrum dascycarpum Sensitive Sensitive S Tall (up to 6’) dioecious plant found in deciduous riparian woods, damp thickets, swamps, and wet Purple Meadowrue meadows, often adjacent to or within the floodplain. In Washington the elevation range is between 2000’ and 2200’. Associated species are frequently Crataegus sp, SHCA, AMAL, POTR2, ROSE spp, SYAL. Trifolium thompsonii Sensitive/ Threatened D Endemic to southeastern Chelan County and adjacent Douglas County, WA. It occurs from ridgetops to Thompson’s Clover Federal Species canyon bottoms. Habitats include open ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) woods to areas dominated of Concern by grasses (mainly Agropyron spicatum) and herbs. Occasional shrubs, including big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), stiff sagebrush (A. rigida) and serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia) also are present. A majority of the occurrences are on the fringe of the Pinus ponderosa Zone. The elevation ranges from 140 feet to 3760 feet. The species grows along ridgelines, on steep slopes, alluvial fans and canyon bottoms. It also occurs on the deeper soils in areas characterized by “biscuit-swale” topography. Utricularia minor N/A Review Group 1 D This species occurs in low nutrient lakes and peatbog pools in the lowland and montane zones at Lesser Bladderwort elevations from 135 to 4000 feet (40-1200 m) in Washington. Associated species found in Grays Harbor County include stonewort (Nitella flexilis), narrow-leaf burr-reed (Sparganium angustifolium), and greater bladderwort (Utricularia macrorhiza).Utricularia minor is an obligate wetland species. Vaccinium myrtilloides Sensitive Sensitive D In Washington it occurs mid-slope in open semi-mature PIEN forests in a well developed moss layer at Velvet-leaf Blueberry around 3500’. Other spp include SYAL, COCA, and LIBOL. In other parts of its range it occurs in dry to moist, sandy or rocky clearings and open woods, sphagnum bogs, and swamps. Non-Vascular Species Schistostega pennata Sensitive S2 D Occurs on the mineral soil in shaded pockets of overturned tree roots, often with shallow pools of MOSS standing water at the base of the root wad. It also grows attached to rock or mineral soil around the entrance to caves, old cellars and animal burrows. Scouleria marginata Sensitive S2 D Semi-aquatic on rocks along the edge of streams. Forms dense, black mats on rocks in the spray zone MOSS of streams and waterfalls, often submerged for part of the year. Tetraphis geniculata Sensitive S2 S Moist coniferous forest with large down logs. Occurs on the cut or broken ends, or lower sides of decay MOSS class 3, 4, 5 rotted logs or stumps and occasionally on peaty banks in moist coniferous forests from sea level to subalpine elevations. Dendriscocaulon Sensitive M S Mesic to moist forests in the upper western hemlock and lower pacific silver fir zone (30-2170’). intricatulum Primarily in mature and old-growth Douglas-fir, hemlock, and pacific silver fir where it is epiphytic on LICHEN lower twigs of suppressed understory hemlock and pacific silver fir. Less frequently on subalpine fir. Known west of Rainy Pass. Drematocarpon D meiophyllizum Sensitive Sensitive LICHEN Leptogium burnetia Sensitive Infrequent over trees and rare over mossy outcrops in sheltered intermountain forests. Also rare in Sensitive LICHEN maritime localities. Leptogium cyanescens M D Tree bark of both conifers and hardwoods, logs, mossy rocks in sheltered humid, cool microsites of Sensitive LICHEN intermountain forests. Leptogium hirsutum N/A S Infrequent over trees and rare over mossy outcrops in sheltered intermountain forests. Also rare in Sensitive LICHEN maritime localities.

Page 10 of 12 Vascular Species Scientific Name R-6 ISSSSP State Status Presence Habitat** Status on Forest Nephroma bellum Endangered D Restricted to moist forests with strong Pacific coastal influence. Substrate is often riparian hardwoods. Sensitive LICHEN Peltigera pacifica N/A S Mossy logs, tree bases, soil and rocks in low elevation moist forest habitats. Sensitive LICHEN Tholurna dissimilis Sensitive D On twigs and branches of exposed conifers in humid subalpine and alpine habitats. Mostly on exposed Sensitive LICHEN subalpine ridges and peaks, occasionally at low to mid elevations in cool moist sites. Albatrellus ellisii N/A D Sensitive FUNGI Clavariadelphus occidentalis N/A D Sensitive FUNGI Clavariadelphus N/A D On soil or duff under mixed conifers. Known from Pasayten Wilderness Hidden Lakes area, Douglas- sachalinensis Sensitive fir/Engelmann spruce forest type. Moist forests or riparian zones. FUNGI Cudonia monticola N/A D West of Rainy Pass, East Creek Trail. On Picea needles and conifer debris. Sensitive FUNGI Gomphus bonarii N/A D Hidden in deep humus under Pinus and Abies species. Mainly east of the Cascades in Wash. Sensitive FUNGI Gomphus kauffmanii N/A D Hidden in deep humus under Pinus and Abies species. West of Washington Pass in Swamp Creek Sensitive FUNGI drainage. Leucogaster citrinus N/A D Found in association with roots of Abies concolor, A. lasiocarpa, Pinus contorta, P. monticola, Sensitive FUNGI Pseudotsuga menziesii, and Tsuga heterophylla from 280 meters to 200 meters in elevation. Pseudorhizna californica N/A D Sensitive FUNGI Ramaria amyloidea Priority 2 D Sensitive FUNGI Ramaria aurantiisiccescens Priority 2 D Sensitive FUNGI Ramaria largentii N/A D Fruits in humus or soil and matures above the surface of the ground. Associated with Abies species, Sensitive FUNGI Pinus monicola, Pseudotsuga menziesii, and Tsuga heterophylla. Ramaria rubrievanescens N/A D In humus or soil. Associated with Pinaceae species. Sensitive FUNGI Ramaria rubripermanens N/A D In humus or soil. Associated with Pinaceae species. Sensitive FUNGI Sarcodon fuscoindicus N/A D On the ground in association with Tsuga and Pinaceae species. Sensitive FUNGI Spathularia flavida N/A D In clusters or fairy rings on litter or woody debris of conifer and hardwood forests. Sensitive FUNGI **Habitat information was derived from a combination of the following: 2002 Washington Natural Heritage Program (WNHP) Site Database, Flora of the Pacific NW by Hitchcock and Cronquist, and Field Guide to Washington’s Rare Plants 2000 cooperatively produced by WNHP and Spokane District BLM. Plant names and acronyms taken from the Plants Database (www.plants.usa.go).

Page 11 of 12 Status Explanations:

ISSSSP Status: Federal, Sensitive, or Strategic. N/A – Not an ISSSSP listed species, but has State or other status. Federal Status: Federally Endangered – In danger of extinction. Federally Threatened – Likely to become Endangered. Federal Species of Concern – An unofficial status, the species appears to be in jeopardy, but insufficient information to support listing. State Status: State Sensitive – Vulnerable or declining and could become Endangered or Threatened in the state. State Endangered – In danger of becoming extinct or extirpated from Washington. State Threatened – Likely to become Endangered in Washington. State Extirpated – Possibly extinct or extirpated from Washington. Review Group 1 – Of potential concern but needs more field work to assign another rank. Review Group 2 – Of potential concern but with unresolved taxonomic questions. Watch List Species – More abundant and/or less threatened than previously thought. Species of Concern – Other rare or uncommon species for various reasons at regional, forest, or district level. S2 – Imperiled (6 to 20 occurrences), very vulnerable to extirpation. Priority 2 – Nonvascular plant of concern but with insufficient information to assign another rank.

Page 12 of 12