Environmental

United States Department of Assessment Agriculture

Forest Rogue-River Siskiyou National Service

June 2009 Forest Gold Beach and Powers Ranger Districts Invasive Plant Treatment Project

For Information Contact: Gold Beach Ranger District 29279 Ellensburg Avenue 541-247-3600 http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/rogue-siskiyou/

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

To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795- 3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

Table of Contents

Introduction ...... 4 Document Structure ...... 4 Background...... 4 Purpose and Need for Action...... 5 Management Direction...... 6 Proposed Action...... 10 Decision Framework...... 10 Public Involvement ...... 11 Alternatives, including the Proposed Action...... 12 Alternative 1 - No Action...... 12 Alternative 2 - The Proposed Action ...... 12 Project Design Features (PDFs)...... 15 Table 4. PDFs relating to the proposed action...... 15 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study...... 19 Environmental Consequences...... 20 Treatment Area Information ...... 20 Herbicide Risk Assessments and Layers of Caution ...... 22 Additives, Impurities and Inert Ingredients ...... 23 Herbicide Toxicology Terminology ...... 24 Layers of Caution Integrated Into Herbicide Use...... 24 Public and Worker Health and Environmental Justice...... 25 Botany...... 26 Affected Environment...... 26 Environmental Consequences...... 27 Alternative 1: No Action...... 27 Alternative 2: Proposed Action...... 28 Soils and Water ...... 29 Introduction...... 29 Affected Environment...... 30 Aquatic Conservation Strategy ...... 30 Geology and Soils...... 32 Riparian Condition and Water Quality ...... 33 Floodplains...... 35 Municipal Watersheds and Domestic Water Supplies...... 35 Environmental Consequences...... 35 Aquatic Conservation Strategy ...... 35 Geology and Soils...... 36 Effects on Riparian Condition and Water Quality...... 36 Floodplains...... 38 Municipal Watersheds and Domestic Water Supplies...... 38 Cumulative Effects...... 38 Fisheries ...... 38 Affected Environment...... 38 Southern Oregon/Northern California Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch).... 38

Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)...... 39 Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss)...... 39 Coastal Cutthroat Trout (Onchorhyncus clarkii) ...... 39 Effects of No Action ...... 40 Effects of the Proposed Action ...... 40 Direct and Indirect Impacts...... 40 Cumulative Effects...... 41 Terrestrial Wildlife...... 42 Summary...... 42 Effects on Northern Spotted Owl...... 44 Affected Environment...... 44 Effects of the Alternatives on Northern Spotted Owl...... 45 Effects on Marbled Murrelet...... 45 Effects on Marbled Murrelet...... 47 Sensitive Species...... 47 Lewis’ Woodpecker...... 47 Northwestern Pond Turtle...... 48 California Slender Salamander ...... 49 Mardon Skipper ...... 49 Management Indicator Species (MIS) ...... 51 Landbirds ...... 51 Cumulative Effects to Wildlife ...... 51 Cultural Resources ...... 51 Consultation and Coordination...... 53 ID TEAM MEMBERS: ...... 53 FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES: ...... 53 TRIBES:...... 54 OTHERS:...... 54 References...... 54 Acronyms...... 62 Glossary ...... 64

Appendix A - Detailed Site Information And Maps

Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

INTRODUCTION Document Structure The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This Environmental Assessment discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. The document is organized into four parts:  Introduction: The 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.  Comparison of Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This section provides a more detailed description of the agency’s proposed action compared to taking no action. This section describes Project Design Features (PDF’s) associated with the proposed action...  Environmental Consequences: This section describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and No Action.  Agencies and Persons Consulted: This section provides a list of preparers and agencies consulted during the development of the environmental assessment.  Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the analyses presented in the environmental assessment. Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be found in the project planning record located at the Gold Beach Ranger District Office. Background Land managers for the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest propose to use any of four herbicides to control invasive plants on approximately 95 acres within the Gold Beach and Powers Ranger Districts. The species and sites proposed for treatment are the highest priority areas for treatment on the two districts. This document describes the situation and history of invasive plant control on each site proposed for treatment (Table 5, Appendix A). These are sites where past manual and mechanical treatments without herbicide have proven ineffective. New invasive plant management direction was approved by the Pacific Northwest (R6) Regional Forester in 2005, allowing for a wider range of herbicide options and specific treatment and restoration standards (USDA 2005b, the Pacific Northwest Invasive Plant Program Record of Decision, referred to herein as the R6 2005 ROD). Ten herbicides were approved for use as part of an integrated weed management prescription. The Final Environment Impact Statement for the Pacific Northwest Invasive Plant program (R6 2005 FEIS) included up to date information on the herbicides that were effective for “the range of target species known across the region” and “pose relatively low risk to people and the environment.” Appendix M of the R6 2005 FEIS researched control measures, including herbicides, to effectively manage invasive plant species. This document formed the basis for invasive plant treatment prescriptions in the proposed action. Land managers have learned that manual and mechanical control is not always effective without herbicides. For example, meadow knapweed (Centaurea pratensis) and spotted knapweed (Centaurea

4 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

maculosa) is not effectively treated by hand pulling because underground roots are broke off and several new shoots are formed, effectively causing more above ground shoots and therefore a larger source of future seed. Species that have been effectively controlled without the use of herbicide, such as Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius), are not proposed for treatment within this EA. The purpose of this project is to control invasive plants in an efficient and cost-effective manner that complies with the new management direction and provides the highest likelihood of successful control or eradication. This EA summarizes specialist input and other technical documentation for botany, hydrology, fisheries, soils, wildlife, and heritage resources, as well as for cost effectiveness and effects to human health. Purpose and Need for Action The purpose of this project is to provide the highest likelihood for invasive plant control or eradication at the proposed treatment sites and to treat invasive plants in an efficient and cost-effective manner that complies with environmental standards. The R6 2005 ROD added the following Desired Future Condition Statement to the Rogue-Siskiyou National Forest Plan: …Healthy native plant communities remain diverse and resilient, and damaged ecosystems are being restored. High quality habitat is provided for native organisms throughout the [Forest]. Invasive plants do not jeopardize the ability of [the Rogue- Siskiyou] National Forest to provide goods and services communities expect. The need for invasive plant treatment is reduced due to the effectiveness and habitual nature of preventative actions, and the success of restoration efforts. Within the project area, habitat for native plant communities has been degraded along certain roadsides, open oak savannahs and forests, meadows and riparian areas, and unique ecosystems such as serpentine and rock outcrop openings. Portions of the project include high use areas that can act as vectors for the spread of weeds. Examples of these areas include roadsides and trailheads, particularly trailheads that access wilderness areas. The R6 2005 ROD allows for the use of approved herbicides in order to treat certain invasive species in a timely manner. It describes standards and guidelines to follow that ensure the safe and efficient use of chemicals while developing long term site management such as restoring invasive infestations back to native plant communities through planting and revegetation. The document makes it clear that it is imperative to act quickly and with all available tools, not waiting until problems are insurmountable. As stated in the R6 2005 ROD: “I am not adopting … standard [to require herbicide use as a last resort] because it would deviate from the IWM principles that are part of Forest Service manual direction (FSM 2080.5). This undermines the ability of treatments … to be effective” Currently, mechanical and manual treatments are approved (Decision Memo: Non-Chemical Treatments on Invasive Plants Project within Siskiyou National Forest, 8/27/2003) and have been implemented but have not been fully effective in eradicating or controlling invasive plants. Herbicides are needed to control invasive plants on the high priority sites outlined in this document. This EA addresses these small and high priority sites for the Gold Beach and Power’s Ranger Districts of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest.

5 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

There are 14 target species that make up 39 sites (95 infested acres) that comprise the highest priority treatment areas throughout the two districts. They make up only a small percentage of the total area covered by invasive plant species, but represent sites and species that are targeted by the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA), Curry and Coos County Noxious Weed Board (Weed Board), Oregon State University Extension Service and the Forest Service.

Management Direction Several broad federal policies require the control of invasive plants and are incorporated by reference. Executive Order 13112 (1999) directs federal agencies to reduce the spread of invasive plants. Invasive species were identified by a former Chief of the Forest Service as one of the four threats to forest health (for more information see http://www.fs.fed.us/projects/four-threats). The Forest Service Pesticide Use Handbook (FSH 2109.14) provides agency guidance on planning, implementation, and reporting of projects that include herbicide and is incorporated by reference. Standards 11 through 23 from the R6 2005 ROD apply to invasive plant treatment and restoration (see table 1). Table 2 shows additional standards from the 1989 Siskiyou National Forest Plan (as amended by the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan1). This EA tier’s to the 1989 Siskiyou National Forest Plan Environmental Impact Statement (USDA 1989), the Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (USDA/USDI 1994), and the R6 2005 Invasive Plant FEIS. Part of compliance with the Northwest Forest Plan relates to considering watershed analysis recommendations in project planning. The following watershed and Late Successional Reserve analyses have been completed for the area that the project lies within and are incorporated by reference: Southwest Oregon Late-Successional Reserve Assessment (USDA Forest Service, 1995), South Fork Coquille Watershed Analysis (WA), Iteration 1.0 (USDA Forest Service, 1995b), Euchre Creek WA (South Coast Watershed Council), Elk River WA, Iteration 2.0 (USDA Forest Service, 1998), Sixes River WA, Iteration 1.0 (USDA Forest Service, 1997), Rogue River WA, Marial to Agness, Iteration 1.0 (USDA Forest Service, 1999), Shasta Costa Creek WA, Iteration 1.0 (USDA Forest Service, 1996d), Quosatana Creek WA, Iteration 1.0 (USDA Forest Service, 1996c), Rogue River below Agness WA, Iteration 1.0 (USDA Forest Service, 2000), Bradford Creek WA, Iteration 1.0 (USDA Forest Service, 1996b), Lower Illinois River WA Below Silver Creek, Iteration 1.0 (USDA Forest Service, 2000), Chetco River WA, Iteration 1.0 (USDA Forest Service, 1996a), Pistol River WA, Iteration 2.0 (David Evans and Associates, Inc., 2003), Hunter Creek WA (EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, 1998), and North Fork of the Smith River WA, Iteration 1.0 (USDA Forest Service, 1995a). Recommendations from these documents tend to have similar themes. Some of the more recent documents list and have maps of invasive plants within each watershed, however much of this data is completely different now due to changes in distribution. Older versions do not include specific data but all analyses recommend treating invasive plants using all available methods and they state that acting quickly to ensure that invasive plants do not spread is the single most efficient method. Consideration of invasive plants during projects followed by monitoring is also a common recommendation within the analyses. Specific species such as gorse, brooms and Japanese knotweed are listed as priority for treatments within some of the documents.

1 The Northwest Forest Plan is formally referred to as the Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (USDA/USDI 1994).

6 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

Table 1. Standards from the R6 2005 ROD and How the Project Complies with these Standards

Standard # Forest Plan Standard How Project Complies with Standard

11 Prioritize infestations of invasive plants for The project treats the highest priority treatment at the landscape, watershed or areas and species on the two districts

larger multiple forest/multiple owner scale. based on input from state agencies.

12 Develop a long-term site strategy for Treatment sites are intended to be restoring/revegetating invasive plant sites controlled or eradicated based on

prior to treatment. feasibility to eradicate. Revegetation and restoration considerations are outlined in the proposed action description.

13 Native plant materials are the first choice in Revegetation (seeding and planting) revegetation for restoration and would occur as needed to replace invasive

rehabilitation where timely natural plants with native plant communities. regeneration of the native plant community Non-native, non-persistent species may is not likely to occur. Non-native, non- be used infrequently as an interim invasive plant species may be used in any of measure to control erosion or prevent the following situations: 1) when needed in target species from returning on treated emergency conditions to protect basic sites. resource values (e.g., soil stability, water quality and to help prevent the establishment of invasive species), 2) as an interim, non-persistent measure designed to aid in the re-establishment of native plants, 3) if native plant materials are not available, or 4) in permanently altered plant communities. Under no circumstances will non-native invasive plant species be used for revegetation.

14 Use only USDA Animal and Plant Health This project does not include biological Inspection Service (APHIS) and State- controls.

approved biological control agents. Agents demonstrated to have direct negative impacts on non-target organisms would not be released.

15 Application of any herbicides to treat The elements of herbicide transportation invasive plants will be performed or directly and handling safety plans are listed under

supervised by a State or Federally licensed the proposed action in the Alternatives applicator. section All treatment projects that involve the use of herbicides will develop and implement herbicide transportation and handling safety plans.

7 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

Standard # Forest Plan Standard How Project Complies with Standard

16 Select from herbicide formulations Clopyralid, imazapic, glyphosate, and containing one or more of the following 10 triclopyr would be used. These

active ingredients: chlorsulfuron, clopyralid, herbicides are on the approved list. glyphosate, imazapic, imazapyr,

metsulfuron methyl, picloram, sethoxydim, sulfometuron methyl, and triclopyr. Region Six maintains a list of approved Mixtures of herbicide formulations surfactants; the silicon surfactant “Silwet” containing 3 or less of these active is on the approved list. ingredients may be applied where the sum

of all individual Hazard Quotients for the relevant application scenarios is less than 1.0. * All herbicide application methods are allowed including wicking, wiping, injection, spot, broadcast and aerial, as permitted by the product label. Chlorsulfuron, metsulfuron methyl, and sulfometuron methyl will not be applied aerially. The use of triclopyr is limited to selective application techniques only (e.g., spot spraying, wiping, basal bark, cut stump, injection). Additional herbicides and herbicide mixtures may be added in the future at either the Forest Plan or project level through appropriate risk analysis and NEPA/ESA procedures.

18 Use only adjuvants (e.g. surfactants, dyes) and inert ingredients reviewed in Forest

Service hazard and risk assessment documents.

19 To minimize or eliminate direct or indirect See Proposed Action later in this EA for a negative effects to non-target plants, list of project design features and buffers

terrestrial animals, water quality and aquatic that are intended to minimize adverse biota (including amphibians) from the effects. Scope and scale of project is very application of herbicide, use site-specific small in relation to the size of the soil characteristics, proximity to surface watersheds surrounding treatment and water and local water table depth to negative effects to non-target plants, determine herbicide formulation, size of terrestrial animals, water quality and buffers needed, if any, and application aquatic biota (including amphibians) from method and timing. Consider herbicides the application of herbicide are very small registered for aquatic use where herbicide is to non-existent. likely to be delivered to surface waters.

8 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

Standard # Forest Plan Standard How Project Complies with Standard

20 Design invasive plant treatments to See ESA effects summaries in the minimize or eliminate adverse effects to Environmental Consequences section of

species and critical habitats proposed and/or this EA. listed under the Endangered Species Act. This may involve surveying for listed or proposed plants prior to implementing actions within unsurveyed habitat if the action has a reasonable potential to adversely affect the plant species. Use site- specific project design (e.g. application rate and method, timing, wind speed and direction, nozzle type and size, buffers, etc.) to mitigate the potential for adverse disturbance and/or contaminant exposure.

21 Provide a minimum buffer of 300 feet for No aerial application is proposed. aerial application of herbicides near

developed campgrounds, recreation residences and private land (unless otherwise authorized by adjacent private landowners).

22 Prohibit aerial application of herbicides No aerial application is proposed. within legally designated municipal Coordination with water users would

watersheds. occur in accordance with Municipal Watershed Plans (more information in the Hydrology report under the Environmental Consequences section)

23 Prior to implementation of herbicide See Project Design Features in the treatment projects, National Forest staff will Proposed Action.

ensure timely public notification. Treatment areas will be posted to inform the public and forest workers of herbicide application dates and herbicides used. If requested, individuals may be notified in advance of spray dates.

*ATSDR, 2004. Guidance Manual for the Assessment of Joint Toxic Action of Chemical Mixtures. U.S. Department Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

9 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

Table 2. Additional Rogue-Siskiyou National Forest Plan Standards and How the Project Complies with These Standards Forest Plan Standard How Project Complies with Standard Apply silvicultural practices for Riparian Invasive species are degrading native plant Reserves to control stocking, reestablish and communities and habitats. The adverse impacts of manage stands, and acquire desired vegetation invasive plants are discussed in the Environmental characteristics needed to attain Aquatic Consequences section. Invasive plants can retard or Conservation Strategy objectives. prevent recovery of native plant communities, which may affect structural diversity of plant communities in riparian areas (see “Affected Environment” section of Soils and Water and Aquatic Organisms). Vegetation management is necessary within Riparian Reserves to restore native plant communities that have been affected by invasive plants. Herbicides, insecticides, and other toxicants, The Project Design Features (including buffers) for and other chemicals shall be applied [within Soil, Water and Aquatic prevent herbicide from Riparian Reserves] only in a manner that accumulating in streams or other water bodies. avoids impacts that retard or prevent attainment of Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives. All planned activities shall include integrated This project implements the full suite of Integrated Pest pest management practices. All insect, Management options by allowing the use of minimal disease and vegetation control projects shall herbicide. Management area objectives can be better be carried out in ways that meet management met because the success of invasive plant removal will area objectives. increase with this project. Control of noxious weeds should be The project increases coordination with the state and accomplished in cooperation with state, local weed boards by demonstrating that the forest county, and private organizations through service is able to use all available tools to treat difficult Weed Control Districts or Coordinated to control invasive plants. Coordinators are more Resource Management Agreements. likely to contribute resources to management activities Preventive management is critical to an when they know that success is more attainable. effective control program.

Proposed Action The Forest Service proposes to use herbicides to eradicate small populations and control larger populations of invasive plants. Approximately 95 acres are proposed for treatment using clopyralid, glyphosate, imazapic, and triclopyr. Infested areas would be treated with an initial prescription, and retreated in subsequent years, depending on the results, until control objectives are met. Ongoing manual and mechanical treatments would continue in combination with the herbicide treatments. Invasive plant treatments would take place over two to five years until target species were controlled or eradicated. Herbicide treatments are part of the initial prescription, however use of herbicides would be expected to decline in subsequent entries. The project would last approximately 5 years. Restoration of treated sites is a connected action that will continue until each site is determined to be a stable native plant community Decision Framework The District Rangers for the Gold Beach and Powers Ranger Districts of the Rogue-Siskiyou National Forest are the Responsible Officials for this EA. The District Rangers will review the environmental consequences to decide whether to implement the Proposed Action or no action.

10 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

Factors influencing the decision include: (1) Effectiveness in reaching control of invasive plants (2) Potential adverse effects to human health and the environment, (3) Monetary costs and financial efficiency. Public Involvement Public involvement started in the Fall of 2007 when the project was included in the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) and has appeared in all subsequent SOPA’s since. A scoping letter was sent out to interested public, the Siletz Tribe and published in local and regional newspapers (The World, Coos Bay; The Curry Reporter, Gold Beach; Curry Coastal Pilot, Brookings) in January of 2008. One response was received during the 30 day comment period after the scoping letter was released. A field trip was taken in November 2008 to sites in Oak Flat with the person who commented. They were explained the project somewhat specifically and understood the methods and goals.

The following summary of concerns were identified and reviewed by the Interdisciplinary Team (ID Team) as part of the scoping analysis:

 The proposed use of herbicides to kill noxious weed infestations is inconsistent with our vision for a National Preserve. We currently oppose all herbicide spraying on federal lands.

 Herbicides should be used only where non-herbicide methods have been shown to be ineffective. Manual treatments tend to be more labor-intensive and employ more workers than herbicide treatment methods.

 Treated sites need to be restored to hasten recovery of native vegetation and reduce reliance on herbicides over time.

 Use of herbicide could put a damper on hiking experiences.

 Blackberries should not be a target species because people enjoy picking and eating them.

 Some non-target plants may be killed from treating invasive plants.

The Council of Environmental Quality requires the USDA Forest Service to identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues that are not significant (40 CFR 1501.7). Issues are eliminated from further analysis if they are outside the scope of the EA; already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; are not clearly relevant to the decision to be made; or are conjectural and not supported by credible scientific or factual evidence. None of the concerns identified for this project are considered significant. The R6 2005 ROD approved herbicide use according to certain standards and described why herbicide use should not be delayed until other methods fail (i.e. used as a tool of last resort). National and regional policy is to use integrated weed management techniques and consider cost-effectiveness of treatment when selecting methods for a given site. The number of jobs that would be provided from this project, whether or not herbicides were used, is not a significant issue. The 2008 Olympic National Forest Invasive Plant Treatment EIS found that

11 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

manual treatments are estimated to require at least twice the number of workers to effectively treat a given acre. However, given the size of this project, the difference would amount to less than a month of work for a 3 person crew. There is no evidence that spot or selective treatments would have a deleterious effect on hikers in the forest. The project is designed to avoid incidental encounters between forest users and herbicide applicators; advanced notice to interested people would be provided and treatment areas would be posted with signs. The area that would be impacted at any one time is not significant. Blackberries would be targeted for treatment at 4 sites across approximately 75 acres. These areas would be posted to avoid inadvertent exposures. Berries are known to grow throughout the National Forest and unsprayed areas would be readily available to everyone. There is no evidence human health would be adversely affected, even if someone ingested a lot of sprayed berries at one time or ate them at a chronic level over a long period of time (R6 2005 FEIS, Human Health Assessment). The effects on non-target plants are addressed through design features that apply to all treatments. Treatments would avoid impacts to botanical species of local interest (SOLI).

ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION Alternative 1 - No Action The No Action alternative is presented to provide a baseline for understanding effects of the Proposed Action. Under the No Action alternative, some of the 39 known infested areas would continue to be treated using manual and mechanical methods. Manual and mechanical treatments would not be done where they would be counter-productive, but some effort would continue to be made to contain current populations. Effectiveness would be varied and dependent on uncertain volunteer labor or funding. Alternative 2 - The Proposed Action The Proposed Action is to use herbicides to treat 39 sites (about 95 acres) containing the following invasive plant species: Wooly distaff and Italian thistle; Himalayan blackberry; medusahead rye; diffuse, spotted and meadow knapweed; English ivy; pampas grass; fennel; false brome; vinca; and gorse. Herbicide would be applied using backpack sprayers, spray bottles, wicking, wiping, and other selective methods. Table 3 describes the proposed control measures for each of these species. The Treatment Area Information table (Table 5) can be viewed in the beginning of the Environmental Consequences section. It describes the specific areas where herbicide treatments are proposed. In addition, maps and site descriptions are included in Appendix A. The proposed control measures are based on Appendix M in the R6 2005 FEIS “Common Control Measures” which is incorporated by references and includes references for measures proposed. In addition, Oregon Department of Agriculture specialists helped developed the prescriptions.

12 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

Table 3. Proposed Control Measures by Target Species Target Species – Common Names, Proposed Extent of Scientific Names, Proposed Control Measures Herbicide Infestation (Code) and Growth Habit English ivy Manually remove infestations by removing vines Triclopyr with 5 acres Hedera helix (HEHE) first, than digging root mats from the soil. Vines Silwet2 must be cut at both the shoulder and ankle height, Perennial then stripped away from the tree. Work away from the tree pulling out the entire root mat for at least six feet. Apply herbicide to young re-sprouts after pulling. Manual treatment alone has not proven effective to control ivy (see Appendix A) False brome Spot spray with a backpack sprayer Glyphosate at 2 Glyphosate 2 acres Brachypodium % gal + sulfometuron 3oz/acre + non-ionic or sylvaticum (BRSY) MSO/silicon blend surfactant ¼ -- ½ %. Manual treatment alone has not proven effective to control Perennial false brome (see Appendix A)

Sweet Fennel Spot spray with a backpack sprayer Glyphosate at Glyphosate 1 acre Foeniculum vulgare 2%/gal. Manual treatment alone has not proven (FOVU) effective to control sweet fennel (see Appendix A)

Perennial

Gorse Manually cut larger plants and spot spray stumps and Triclopyr 4 acres Ulex europaeus (ULEU) smaller plants. Manual treatment alone has not proven effective to control gorse (see Appendix A) Perennial Himalayan blackberry Use a combination of herbicides and manual and/or Glyphosate 75 acres Rubus discolor(RUDI2) mechanical treatments. Usually mechanical removal of large biomass in the summer (using a mower, or Perennial (canes die off brush hog), followed by manual removal of re- annually) sprouting canes and roots, then herbicide treatment of new leaf growth in the fall/winter is most effective. Manual treatment alone has not proven effective to control blackberry (see Appendix A) Medusahead rye Spot spray with a backpack sprayer with Imazapic is Imazapic Less than 1 acre Taeniatherum caput- the preferred method of treatment. Manual treatment (approx. 5000 medusae (TACA8) alone has not proven effective to control medusahead sq. ft.) rye (see Appendix A) Annual Pampas grass Use a combination of herbicides and manual and/or Glyphosate 1 acre Cortaderia selloana mechanical treatments. The plan is to mechanically (COSE4) remove canes and stalks during the growing season. As the stalks grow back spot spraying of glyphosate Perennial will occur in the fall. Manual treatment alone has not proven effective to control pampas grass (see Appendix A)

2 Silwet is a silicone surfactant which increases absorption into a plant so that the time between application and rainfall can be shortened. Confidential business information (i.e. the identity of proprietary ingredients) was used in the preparation of the herbicide risk assessments. This type of surfactant would not increase the toxicity to people and the environment

13 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

Target Species – Common Names, Proposed Extent of Scientific Names, Proposed Control Measures Herbicide Infestation (Code) and Growth Habit Spotted knapweed Spot spraying of individual plants is the priority Clopyralid 5 acres (CEBI) treatment. Manual treatments could be used for Centaurea biebersteinii follow- up to herbicide. Treatments may take up to Diffuse knapweed ten years due to long term seed viability. Manual (CEDI) treatment alone has not proven effective to control Centaurea diffusa knapweeds (see Appendix A) Meadow knapweed (CEDE) Centaurea debeauxii

Biennial or Perennial Common periwinkle Manually remove infestations by removing vines Triclopyr 1 acre Vinca minor (VIMI2) first, than digging root mats from the soil. Spot spray with backpack sprayer re-growth after manual Perennial treatments.

Wooly distaff thistle Spot spraying of individual plants is the preferred Clopyralid 1 acre Carthamus lanatus method based on our past experience and information (CALA20) from ODA. Ongoing hand pulling has set the known populations back but is not successful at eradication. Italian thistle Carduus pycnocephalus (CAPY2)

Annuals Total Approx. 95 acres Post treatment site restoration may include mulching, seeding/mulching, planting of containerized and/or bare root stock, or may be passive in situations where desirable vegetation can naturally replace target invasive species removed. Post treatment site restoration is part of the prescription developed during implementation planning. Restoration prescriptions would be influenced by site-scale conditions and broader land management objectives. For more information on how to assess existing and potential site conditions and develop revegetation strategies, see “Guidelines for Revegetation of Invasive Weed Sites and Other Disturbed Areas on National Forests and Grasslands in the Pacific Northwest”, which is incorporated by reference into this document. The intent is to re-establish competitive local, native vegetation post-treatment in areas of bare ground. In some cases, preferred non-natives may be utilized as temporary ground cover for erosion control and as noxious weed competitors, until native species can become established at the site. Local native species are always preferred, but use of other desirable species such as non-native species that do not persist could be used as an interim step. A combination of native and desirable non-natives could be an initial mix for revegetation. A fast growing desirable non-native such as sterile wheatgrass can germinate quickly and start filling in bare ground until a slower to germinate native species can start competing effectively. Evaluation for site restoration may occur before, during and after herbicide, manual and mechanical treatments. Passive site restoration would be favored in areas having a stable, diverse, native plant

14 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

community and sufficient organics in the soil to sustain natural revegetation. If the soils lack sufficient organics, mulch and/or mycorrhizae would be added. Deep-rooted shrubs may also be seeded or planted to more fully utilize resources from the lower soil profile, especially late in the growing season. Shrubs allow for easier establishment of understory species by increasing water availability and reducing understory temperatures and evapo-transpiration. Planting of native shrubs may also occur in cases where rapid revegetation is desired. Project Design Features (PDFs) Project Design Features or PDF’s are actions to be taken that help implement the project while minimizing certain impacts to the environment. They are to be followed at all times during implementation of this project. They were developed with input from ID Team members and public concerns and follow all standards and guidelines from the R6 2005 ROD.

Table 4. PDFs relating to the proposed action. Design Feature Source Effectiveness Work with owners and managers of neighboring lands to Previous invasive plant Would eliminate risk that respond to invasive plants that straddle multiple treatment documents multiple treatments could ownerships. Coordinate treatments within 150 feet of including Olympic lead to cumulative effects Forest boundaries, including lands over which the Forest National Forest FEIS beyond those described has right-of-way easements, with adjacent landowners. 2008. The distance of 150 herein. feet was selected because it approximates the Aquatic Influence Zone for fish bearing streams (ibid). Coordinate herbicide use within 1000 feet of known water Previous invasive plant Would ensure water intakes with the water user or manager. treatment documents. users/managers were The distance of 1000 feet informed of upcoming was selected to respond treatments. Herbicide use to public concern proposed in this project (Olympic National Forest would not contaminate FEIS 2008).. drinking water. Coordinate herbicide use with the South Coquille Common practice and Would ensure Municipal Municipal Water board. Forest policy. Water Board informed of upcoming treatments. No adverse effects on beneficial uses of water will occur from herbicide use proposed in this project. Where practical, clean vehicles and equipment (including Common practice and Would minimize spread personal protective clothing) prior to leaving treated areas Forest policy. of invasives. or entering new areas.

15 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

Design Feature Source Effectiveness Herbicides would be used in accordance with label Standard 16, 2005 R6 This project avoids all instructions and advisories. Herbicide use would comply ROD; Pesticide Use exposure scenarios over a with standards in the Pacific Northwest Regional Invasive Handbook 2109.14 threshold of concern for Plant Program – Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants people and the FEIS (2005), including standards on herbicide selection, environment. restrictions on broadcast use of some herbicides, tank mixing, licensed applicators, and use of adjuvants, surfactants and other additives. Herbicide Transportation and Handling Safety/Spill Required by FS policy Spills are extremely Prevention and Containment FSH 2109.14, unlikely to occur given An Herbicide Transportation and Handling Safety/Spill Specific Measures taken the many safety Response Plan would be the responsibility of the herbicide from Olympic National precautions included in applicator. At a minimum the plan would: Forest EIS (2008) which the projects. This finding o Address spill prevention and containment. references Bonneville is based on actual o Estimate and limit the daily quantity of herbicides Power Administration experience demonstrating to be transported to treatment sites. Biological Assessment, that similar projects with o Require that impervious material be placed Buckhead Knotweed similar precautions have beneath mixing areas in such a manner as to Project, Willamette NF not resulted in herbicide contain small spills associated with Biological Assessment spills (Bulkin, personal mixing/refilling. communication, 2007). o Require a spill cleanup kit be readily available for herbicide transportation, storage and application (minimum FOSS Spill Tote Universal or equivalent). o Outline reporting procedures, including reporting spills to the appropriate regulatory agency. o Ensure applicators are trained in safe handling and transportation procedures and spill cleanup. o Require that equipment used in herbicide storage, transportation and handling are maintained in a leak proof condition. o Address transportation routes so that traffic, domestic water sources, and blind curves are avoided to the extent possible. o Specify conditions under which guide vehicles would be required. o Specify mixing and loading locations away from water bodies so that accidental spills do not contaminate surface waters. o Require that spray tanks be mixed or washed further than 150 feet of surface water. o Ensure safe disposal of herbicide containers. o Identify sites that may only be reached by water travel and limit the amount of herbicide that may be transported by watercraft.

16 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

Design Feature Source Effectiveness Herbicide use buffers have been established for perennial Buffers are based on label Buffers along with other and wet intermittent streams; dry streams; and lakes and advisories, and SERA PDFs make water wetlands. These buffers are depicted in the tables below. risk assessments. Buffer contamination extremely Buffers vary by herbicide ingredient and application distances are based on unlikely (impossible) method. the Berg’s 2004 study of from herbicide use in this broadcast drift and run project. off to streams, along with Washington State Dept. of Agriculture’s DOA’s 2003-2005 monitoring results. Vehicles (including all terrain vehicles) used to access or Previous invasive plant Eliminates inadvertent implement invasive plant projects would remain on treatment documents ground disturbance. roadways, trails, parking areas or other previously including Olympic disturbed areas to prevent damage to riparian vegetation National Forest FEIS and soil, and potential degradation of water quality and 2008. aquatic habitat. Avoid use of clopyralid on high-porosity soils (coarser Label advisories, SERA Clopyralid is mobile in than a loamy sand). Risk Assessments. coarse soils but is associated with low risk to aquatic organisms. This PDF eliminates potential for clopyralid to leach into ground water. All wells and springs used for domestic water supplies Previous invasive plant Label advisories and state would be protected with a 100 foot buffer for wells and a treatment documents regulations 200 foot buffer for springs. Follow label guidance relative including Olympic to water contamination. National Forest FEIS 2008. Fueling of gas-powered equipment with gas tanks larger Previous invasive plant Avoids risk of spill of than 5 gallons would not occur within 150 feet of surface treatment documents fuel into streams. waters. Fueling of gas-powered equipment with gas tanks including Olympic smaller than 5 gallons would not occur within 25 feet of National Forest FEIS any surface waters. 2008. The distance of 150 feet was selected because it approximates the Aquatic Influence Zone for fish bearing streams. Filling of smaller tanks has inherently less risk.

17 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

Design Feature Source Effectiveness Adaptive management would be used to refine buffers to Broadcast buffer sizes are Ensures viability of these adequately protect perennial fungi, vascular and non- based on Marrs, R.H., species is maintained. vascular plant on Regional Forester Sensitive Plant lists. 1989, based on tests on vascular plants.

Spot and hand/selective buffer distances are also based on reports from Cathy Lucero, Clallam County Noxious Weed Coordinator and other experienced herbicide applicators. Do not use herbicides within 25 feet of Regional Forester Local specialist input. Avoids inadvertent Sensitive Plants. damage to non-target rare plants. Prior to treatment, botanical surveys would occur as Forest Service Manual Ensures viability of these necessary to identify Threatened, Endangered or Sensitive 2670 species is maintained vascular and non-vascular plant and perennial fungi. This is only if unsurveyed suitable habitat is within 25 feet of planned treatments. Clopyralid would not be used within 1.5 miles of Pagel, J. (2006) Avoids exposure to peregrine nest more than once per year. Peregrine falcon nest site hexochorobenze (hazard data, 1983-2006. associated with clopyralid – very low risk in this project). This chemical has been detected in peregrine falcon eggs. In known sites or high potential suitable sensitive mollusk Herbicide characteristics Reduces potential adverse habitat outside of roadside treatment locations, avoid in SERA risk effects on mollusks – herbicide treatments when soil moisture is high (generally assessments, and degree of risk unknown late fall to late spring). professional opinion of but low overall since so taxa expert. little habitat is treated. High use areas, including administrative sites, developed These are common Ensure public is aware of campgrounds, visitor centers, and trailheads would be measures to reduce herbicide use. posted in advance of herbicide application or closed. potential conflicts and Areas of potential conflict would be prominently marked comply with R6 2005 on the ground or otherwise posted. Postings would ROD Standard 23. indicate the date of treatments, the herbicide used, and when the areas are expected to be clear of herbicide residue. The public would be notified about upcoming herbicide These are common Ensure public is aware of treatments via the local newspaper or individual measures to reduce herbicide use. notification, fliers, and/or posting signs. Forest Service potential conflicts and and other websites may also be used for public comply with R6 2005 notification. ROD Standard 23.

18 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

Design Feature Source Effectiveness Herbicide use in berry and mushroom picking areas would SERA Risk Assessments Ensure public is aware of be posted and may be closed for a period of time to ensure show triclopyr is herbicide use. Redundant that no inadvertent public contact with herbicide occurs. associated with more risk precautions for triclopyr The 10 acres proposed for treatment (see Table 5 below) to people than other ensure no exposures over with triclopyr would be closed for at least 30 days. Special herbicides proposed in a level of concern could forest product gatherers would be notified about herbicide this projects. occur. treatment areas when applying for their permits. Flyers indicating treatment areas may be included with the permits, in multi-lingual formats if necessary. The Confederated Tribe of the Siletz will be notified Government to Ensures tribal members annually via phone call and email as treatments are government agreement are aware of the project. scheduled so that tribal members may provide input between Forest Service and/or be notified prior to gathering cultural plants. and the tribe. Individual cultural plants identified by tribes would be buffered as above for botanical species of local interest.

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study Federal agencies are required by NEPA to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Scoping input received in response to the Proposed Action provided suggestions for alternative methods for achieving the purpose and need. Some of these alternatives may have been outside the scope of this EA, not meet the Purpose and Need for Action, not reasonably feasible or not viable, duplicative of the alternatives considered in detail, or were determined to cause unnecessary environmental harm. Therefore, the following alternatives were considered, but dismissed from detailed consideration. No Herbicide Use The No Action alternative would result in manual treatments continuing as has historically occurred. Thus, no herbicide use is commensurate to No Action. Spot and selective application of herbicides is necessary to effectively treat invasive species at the 39 treatment sites that comprise the project area. This is due to the size, location, cost, life history of target species, and limitations on mechanical work associated with the sites. Table 5 of the Environmental Consequences section discusses the history of treatment and the sites.

No Herbicide Use on Trails This alternative was considered to address a public concern that herbicide could put a damper on hiking experiences. This alternative was not developed in detail because herbicide risk assessments do not indicate there is a potential for harm to people from herbicide exposure from use of the type proposed in this project, and the public would be properly notified so they could avoid inadvertent exposure.

There is no evidence that spot or selective treatments would have a deleterious effect on hikers in the forest. The project is designed to avoid incidental encounters between forest users and herbicide applicators; advanced notice to interested people would be provided and treatment areas would be posted with signs. The area that would be impacted at any one time is not significant.

19 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

Avoid Treating Blackberries An alternative that avoided treating blackberries was considered to address a public concern, but not developed because berries are known to grow throughout the National Forest and unsprayed areas would be readily available to everyone. There is no evidence human health would be adversely affected from herbicide use in the proposed action, even if someone ingested a lot of sprayed berries at one time or ate them at a chronic level over a long period of time (R6 2005 FEIS, Human Health Assessment).

Avoid Killing Non-target Plants An alternative that avoids killing non-target plants was considered to address a public concern. This is not possible because individual non-target plants could be harmed in any treatment or lack of treatment due to competition from target species. However, the proposed action limits potential effects through design features and adaptive management described previously.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Treatment Area Information Table 5 displays the environmental features, objectives for treatment, size and list of species to be treated and treatment history for the 39 sites within the 12 proposed treatment areas. Appendix A of this EA displays detailed information about the treatment areas and infested sites. Table 5. Treatment Area Information Treatment Environmental Objective Approx. Species to Be Area Features Size of Treated/ Infestations Treatment History

1) Oak Flat MA 9 Meadow, Control blackberry and 32 acres Woolly Distaff Thistle Grazing Area, eradicate other target to Italian Thistle public use areas, enhance native plant Himalayan Blackberry botanical species of community and promote Medusahead Rye interest oak savannah habitat. Manual Treatments by pulling and mowing have occurred for over 5 years with minimal to moderate success. 2) 1107.220 Serpentine Soils Rapidly eradicate spotted 100 sq. ft. Diffuse Knapweed Road knapweed to keep open serpentine forest from Seed heads cut off for being infested. the first time in 2007

20 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

Treatment Environmental Objective Approx. Species to Be Area Features Size of Treated/ Infestations Treatment History

3) 33 Rd. S. Riparian Reserve, Eradicate invasives and 4 acres English ivy Fork Coquille municipal restore riparian Spotted Knapweed River watershed, high vegetation. Curb seed Meadow Knapweed public use areas, source on roadside. English ivy site was pulled by hand in 2008; several more treatments are necessary. 4) 1703.110 and Close proximity to Eradicate pampas grass to 1000 sq. ft Pampas Grass 1407.150 Rds. private forestry curb invasive source near land private land. Site treated by cutting seed heads for several years. 5) 33 Rd. Connected ditch, Eradicate invasive plants Several Meadow Knapweed Agness Area close proximity to and convert roadside small Fennel private lands, vegetation from invasive patches Riparian Reserve plants to native to help totaling Sites treated for several curb seed spread. about ½ acre years by pulling with no success.

6) Big Bend MA-9 Meadow, Control invasive plants, 13 acres False Brome Meadow/Foster grazing allotment, enhance open meadow Himalayan Blackberry Bar Area botanical species of habitat and improve Vinca interest, Riparian forage quality. Reserve, high Blackberry and vinca public use areas treated this year (2008) with pulling and mowing. False brome has never been treated 7) Elk River Riparian Reserve, Eradicate invasive plants 3 acres Gorse Area botanical species of and stop seed spread. English ivy interest, close proximity to Gorse has been pulled private forestry over the course of land, high public several years and is use areas mostly controlled. Ivy has not been treated. 8) Sixes River Riparian Reserve, Eradicate gorse 2 acres Gorse Area close proximity to infestations and stop seed private forestry spread. Gorse has been pulled land for several years but very large seedbank on adjacent lands.

9) West Central Riparian Reserve Eradicate invasive plants 1 acre Pampas Grass. Gold Beach and convert roadside Meadow Knapweed District Area vegetation from invasive plants to native to help Sites have been hand curb seed spread. pulled but with limited success.

21 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

Treatment Environmental Objective Approx. Species to Be Area Features Size of Treated/ Infestations Treatment History

10) Lower 33 Riparian Reserve, Control and/or eradicate 4 acres Meadow Knapweed Road close proximity to invasives and convert Fennel private land, MA-9 roadside vegetation from English Ivy Meadow, botanical invasive plants to native species of interest, to help curb seed spread High Public Use and help restore riparian Areas vegetation. 11) Adams Riparian Reserve, Control and/or eradicate 11 acres Himalayan Blackberry Prairie close proximity to invasives to enhance open Meadow Knapweed private land, MA-9 meadow habitat and Meadow improve forage quality. 12) Shasta MA-9 Meadow, Control and/or eradicate 25 acres Himalayan Blackberry Costa Meadows Grazing Allotment invasive plants to enhance Fennel native plant community Meadow Knapweed and promote oak savannah habitat. Convert roadside vegetation from invasive plants to native to help curb seed spread. Total Approx. 14 species 95 acres 12 treatment areas 39 specific sites

Herbicide Risk Assessments and Layers of Caution Information from laboratory and field studies of herbicide toxicity, exposure, and environmental fate was used to estimate the risk of adverse effects to non-target organisms. Formal risk assessments were done by Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc (SERA) using peer-reviewed articles from the open scientific literature and current Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) documents, including Confidential Business Information. They considered worst-case scenarios including accidental exposures and application at maximum label rates. The risk assessments meet the requirements of the Pesticide Use Handbook, FSH 2109.14 Chapter 20. The R6 2005 FEIS added a margin of safety to the SERA Risk Assessments by making the thresholds of concern substantially lower than normally used for such assessments (see R6 2005 FEIS Appendix P for details). Although the risk assessments have limitations (see R6 2005 FEIS pages 3-95 through 3- 97), they represent the best science available. Table 6 displays the risk assessments that may be accessed via the Pacific Northwest Region website at http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/invasiveplant-eis/Risk- Assessments/Herbicides-Analyzed-InvPlant-EIS.htm. The herbicides on the list are those listed in Standard 16 that was approved in the R6 2005 ROD. They were selected because they are the lowest risk herbicides that are effective against the full range of target species known within Region 6 (ROD page 23). Table 6. Herbicide Risk Assessments Herbicide Date Final Risk Assessment Reference Clopyralid December 5, 2004 SERA TR 04 43-17-03c Glyphosate March 1, 2003 SERA TR 02-43-09-04a

22 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

Imazapic December 23, 2004 SERA TR 04-43-17-04b Triclopyr March 15, 2003 SERA TR 02-43-13-03b Silicone Surfactant May 2003 USDA Forest Service, R-5 (Bakke 2003) In addition to the analysis of potential hazards to human health from every herbicide active ingredient, Forest Service/SERA Risk Assessments evaluated available scientific studies of potential hazards of other substances associated with herbicide applications: impurities, metabolites, inert ingredients, and adjuvants. There is usually less toxicity data available for these substances (compared to the herbicide active ingredient) because they are not subject to the extensive testing that is required for the herbicide active ingredients under FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act). However, EPA has not classified any of the inerts as toxic. Some of the inerts are approved food additives (for instance, glacial acetic acid, monoethanolamine and isopropyl alcohol). Triclopyr formulations contain ethanol (Garlon 3A) or kerosene (Garlon 4), which are known to be neurotoxic. An environmental metabolite of triclopyr, referred to as “TCP”, is substantially more toxic in fish than either triclopyr acid or aquatic triclopyr. Additives, Impurities and Inert Ingredients Inert compounds are those that are intentionally added to a formulation, but have no herbicidal activity and do not affect the herbicidal activity. Inerts are added to the formulation to facilitate its handling, stability, or mixing. Impurities are inadvertent contaminants in the herbicide, usually present as a result of the manufacturing process. Adjuvants are compounds added to the formulation to improve its performance. They can either enhance the activity of an herbicide’s active ingredient (activator adjuvant) or offset any problems associated with its application (special purpose or utility modifiers). Surfactants are one type of adjuvant that makes the herbicide more effective by increasing absorption into the plant, for example. Many of the inert ingredients are proprietary in nature and have not been tested on laboratory species. However, confidential business information (i.e. the identity of proprietary ingredients) was used this information in the preparation of the herbicide risk assessments. Available information for the inerts contained in the proposed herbicides are as follows:

Clopyralid – Identified inerts include monoethanolamine and isopropyl alcohol, both approved food additives. These inert ingredients do not impact the assessment of risk

Glyphosate – There are at least 35 glyphosate formulations that are registered for forestry applications (SERA, 2003 Glyphosate) with a variety of inert ingredients. SERA obtained clearance to access confidential business information (i.e. the identity of proprietary ingredients) and used this information in the preparation of the risk assessment. Surfactants (discussed below) were the only additives identified that impact risk (SERA, 2003 Glyphosate).

Imazapic - The identity of inerts used in imazapic formulations are confidential, but SERA reviewed them for preparation of the risk assessment (SERA, 2003 Imazapic). None of the inerts are classified by EPA as toxic.

Triclopyr - Formulations contain ethanol (Garlon 3A) or kerosene (Garlon 4), which are known to be neurotoxic. However, the toxicity of these compounds is less than that of triclopyr, so the amount of ethanol and kerosene in these formulations is not toxicologically significant (SERA, 2003 Triclopyr). The amount of inert ingredients in the formulations is generally not known, so exposure and dose estimates cannot be calculated.

23 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

Herbicide Toxicology Terminology The following terminology is used throughout this section to describe relative toxicity of herbicides proposed for use in the alternatives. Exposure Scenario: The mechanism by which an organism (person, animal, fish) may be exposed to herbicides active ingredients or additives. The application rate and method influences the amount of herbicide to which an organism may be exposed. Threshold of Concern: A level of exposure below which there is a low potential for adverse effects to an organism. Effects on wildlife and other organisms are considered insignificant and discountable when herbicide exposure is below the threshold of concern. Hazard Quotient (HQ): A "toxicity threshold" was established for each herbicide (and NPE) to indicate the point below which adverse effects would not be expected for a variety of organisms (e.g. people, wildlife, fish). The predicted level of exposure from herbicide use is compared to the toxicitiy threshold and expressed in terms of a "hazard quotient (HQ)." The HQ is the result (quotient) of the exposure estimate divided by the toxicity threshold. Toxicity thresholds are based on extrapolated labatory results and accepted scientific protocols. In Region 6, the toxicity thresholds were lowered to account for uncertainty in the risk assessment process. Thus, an HQ less than or equal to 1 indicates an extremely low level of risk. An HQ above 1 does not necessarily indicate a level where adverse effects are likely, however, the probability of harmful effects increases with HQ. Layers of Caution Integrated Into Herbicide Use Table 7 displays the relative properties, risks and uses of each herbicide and indicates some of the PDF’s that address toxicological concerns by limiting application rate and herbicide exposure. Herbicide properties and risks adapted from R6 2005 FEIS (pg. 3-91) and updated. Table 7. Herbicides, Brand Names, Modes of Action, Acres, and Aquatic Risks and Buffers Active Ingredient Approx. Selected Herbicide Brand Names and Mode of Aquatic Risks and Buffers Acres Action Clopyralid 6 Lower risk to aquatic organisms. Highly (Transline) mobile, does not degrade in water. Spot spray up to 15 feet from streams. Do not Synthetic auxin -Mimics natural plant use on coarse (porous) soils. hormones.

Glyphosate 79 Greater risk to aquatic organisms (esp. (35 formulations, including RoundUp, Rodeo, non-aquatic formula). Use aquatic label Accord XRT, Aquamaster, etc.) within 50 feet of streams.

Inhibits three amino acids and protein synthesis. Imazapic Less Lower risk to aquatic organisms. Spot (Plateau) than 1 spray up to 15 feet from streams.

Inhibits the plant enzyme acetolactate, which prevents protein synthesis. Triclopyr 10 Greatest risk to aquatic organisms (especially (Garlon 3A, Garlon 4, Forestry Garlon 4, Pathfinder non-aquatic label). Use aquatic label II, Remedy, Remedy RTU, Redeem R&P) within 150 feet of streams.

Synthetic auxin - Mimics natural plant hormones. Approx. 95 acres

24 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

Public and Worker Health and Environmental Justice This section focuses on plausible effects to workers and the public from herbicide exposure. The R6 2005 FEIS evaluated human health risks from herbicide and non-herbicide invasive plant treatment methods. Hazards normally encountered while working in the woods (strains, sprains, falls, etc) are possible during herbicide and non-herbicide invasive plant treatment operations. Such hazards are mitigated through worker compliance with occupational health and safety standards. The effect of herbicides on health is of concern to the public. Exposure could occur via direct contact by forest workers, drinking contaminated water, eating contaminated culturally important plants, gathering and using special forest products, or as a result of recreational users coming into contact with contaminated vegetation. However, the likelihood of harm from such exposure is very low. Herbicides proposed for use in this project are taken up into plants quickly (glyphosate, for example, is taken up into the plant within about 6 hours of application). . In addition to label requirements, and direction contained in Forest Service policy, the R6 2005 ROD selected certain herbicides and adopted standards to minimize herbicide exposures of concern to workers and the public, for example, treatment restoration standard 15 requires application be performed or directly supervised by a licensed applicator; standard 16 authorizes use of 10 herbicides or herbicide mixtures with a hazard quotient less than 1; and standard 23 requires timely public notification and signing of treatment areas. Herbicide applicators are more likely than the general public to be exposed to herbicides, and may handle undiluted herbicide concentrate during mixing and loading. In routine broadcast and spot applications, workers may contact and internalize herbicides mainly through exposed skin, but also through the eyes, mouth, nose or lungs. Worker exposure is influenced by the application rate selected for the herbicide; the number of hours worked per day; the acres treated per hour; and variability in human dermal absorption rates. Appendix Q: Human Health Risk Assessment in the R6 2005 FEIS displays risks for backpack and broadcast spraying at typical and maximum label rates, under normal application and maximum exposures. Risks from accidental/incidental exposures are also displayed. The risk assessment identified a concern for worker exposure to triclopyr, in particular the Garlon 4 formulation. Garlon 4 would not be used in this project and only a small amount of Garlon 3 would be used. Workers would follow safety practices in using all herbicides. The general public would not be exposed to substantial levels of any herbicides used in the implementation of this project. R6 2005 FEIS Appendix Q considered both plausible and highly unlikely accidental acute exposures, as well as long term chronic exposures to herbicide ingredients, and displays results assuming a human being contacts sprayed vegetation or herbicide or consumes sprayed vegetation, contaminated water, and/or fish. There is virtually no chance of someone being directly sprayed in this project. The public could be exposed to herbicide if they eat contaminated berries, mushrooms, or other plants. Treatment areas would be marked or posted and information would be supplied to interested people (such as special forest products gatherers). Berries would be sprayed in the fall after the picking season. Multiple exposures (eating contaminated fish, drinking contaminated water, skin irritation) would not result in exposure levels of concern because the herbicides proposed for use do not bioaccumulate. They would

25 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

be excreted rapidly from the body following exposure. People could return to a treated area within a day or so depending on label guidance. Executive Order 12898 directs federal agencies to identify and address the problem of adverse environmental effects by agency programs on minority and low income populations. Low income and minority groups would see no change to their use of the Forest under this proposal. There currently are no disparate effects on these populations by forest management activities. Effects would be negligible because licensed herbicide applicators would follow label precautions. Thus, neither No Action nor the Proposed Action poses any unusual health and safety risks to workers or the public. Botany

Affected Environment At nearly all proposed treatment sites the main vegetation type is previously disturbed and characterized as ruderal. The most common associated plants are non-native grasses and forbs that have colonized the roadsides, trailsides, fields and meadows where the proposed for treatment invasive plants have also thrived. These areas occur within a matrix of native forest types and meadows. The most abundant forest type within the project area can be described as low to mid elevation mesic conifer forest with Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) dominating the overstory. The second most common forest type is mixed hardwood-conifer forest in which tan oak (Lithocarpus densiflorus), canyon live oak (Quercus chrysolepis) and Oregon white oak (Quercus garryana) mix with Douglas fir. The third and least common forest type is formed by unique geology. Ultramafic serpentinite creates unique soils with a vegetation type that is dominated by Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi), Port Orford cedar (Chaemacyparis lawsoniana) and western white pine (Pinus monticola) in the sparse overstory. Dozens of unique and rare forb species occur within openings of an often extremely dense shrub layer. Meadow vegetation type is most often Oregon white oak dominated occurring on areas where shallow soils discourage the establishment of conifer species. Within this project meadow ecosystems provide unique habitats for rare plants especially Oak Flat. There are also several small rock outcroppings and patches of ultramafic soils that provide special substrates for rare plants to colonize. Seeps, springs and riparian areas provide sources for rare plant species dependent upon constant water to establish and thrive. The specific areas where invasive plants will be treated are mostly disturbed areas within a matrix of these habitat types. In order to determine impacts of this project GIS Arc Map was used to spatially analyze the treatment sites in relation to plant and fungi Species of Local Interest (SOLI) which includes federally listed Threatened and Endangered species and Region 6 Sensitive species as determined in January 2008 by the Regional Forester. Aerial digital imagery, existing rare plant layers, topography, soils, geology and other variables were considered when determining the affects to SOLI. Plant surveys were completed at the proposed sites in conjunction with past invasive plant treatment at the sites. As the work is completed a botanist will be on hand doing the spraying or will be managing the sites so they will be available to conduct future surveys and monitoring. One plant species listed as Endangered by the US Fish and Wildlife service (January 2008) is known to occur on the Gold Beach Ranger District. It is a Siskiyou Mountain endemic, a perennial forb named Macdonald’s rockcress (Arabis macdonaldiana). It is known to occur from low lying ultramafic forest to high serpentine peaks. Currently the only known extant site on the Gold Beach Ranger District is

26 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

from Chetco Peak within the Kalmiopsis Wilderness. Habitat for the species is deep serpentine with a high influence of iron, magnesium, nickel ore and other heavy metals. The plant grows within openings in dense shrub scrub type vegetation as well as on exposed rocks on mountain peaks. The following plant SOLI are known to occur near sites proposed for herbicide use: California maidenhair fern (Adiantum jordanii) A small fern that is found in mixed hardwood conifer forest usually along intermittent streams. There are only two known sites of this species on the Gold Beach RD. One site occurs near Oak Flat dispersed camp area where blackberry removal could occur. The site is not within an area currently infested by blackberry. This rare plant site is roughly 200 feet from any area where herbicide application would occur.

Timwort (Cicendia quadrangularis) This plant is a tiny forb only about 3 inches high. It is found at one site on the Rogue River-Siskiyou NF within Oak Flat. The species can be found in a small portion of Oak Flat in an area where 3-4 vernal swales/depressions occur. The closest spraying is for blackberry and would be at least 100 feet from the known site.

Pendent rush (Scirpus pendulus) Pendant rush is a wetland and stream side species that is found in Oak Flat along a man made pond and along a roadside ditch. This species is known from three total locations on the Gold Beach Ranger District. The site in Oak Flat is within 50 feet of blackberry that may be treated during this project.

Howell’s jewelflower (Streptanthus howellii) Howell’s jewelflower is known from over 20 sites on serpentine soil on the southeastern portion of the Gold Beach Ranger District. One invasive plant site to be treated is located in the vicinity, but not closer then 500 feet to a jewelflower known site.

Siskiyou trillium (Trillium kurabayashii) This plant is found within mixed hardwood and conifer forests along meadow edges and in other openings. There are over 20 known sites of this species found in the vicinity of the lower Rogue River watershed. Herbicide spraying will take place within 75 feet of existing known sites of Siskiyou trillium.

Usnea longissima A lichen species known mostly from old growth Douglas fir dominated forest. It has also been found in Oregon white oak meadows. This species is known from at least 10 sites on the Gold Beach and Powers Ranger Districts. The closest herbicide treatment will occur within 100 feet of one known site in Shasta Costa meadows.

Environmental Consequences Alternative 1: No Action

Direct Effects This alternative does not implement the proposed action so no herbicide treatment would take place. No direct negative effect would occur to SOLI or their potential habitat if this alternative is chosen.

27 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

Indirect Effects Because there will be no herbicide treatment taking place under this alternative there would be no chance to indirectly affect any SOLI. At the same time not implementing the proposed action leaves SOLI susceptible to further invasive plant competition and has the potential to extirpate some populations over time. Implementing the No Action alternative may effect SOLI, by not aggressively treating known and expanding invasive plants sites.

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects are caused by the addition of the affects from this proposed action to all the other affects caused by actions that have taken place in the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future within watersheds that this project encompasses. This includes natural disturbances, such as large scale fires like the Biscuit fire in 2002. Currently there are several active projects taking place within proximity to the proposed action. Under the No Action alternative there would be No Cumulative Effects from this project because there would be no new activities taking place that could couple with ongoing effects.

Beneficial Effects Beneficial effects are realized when management actions enhance or create new habitat for SOLI within a project area. An example of a beneficial effect would be the removal of blackberries encroaching on an existing SOLI site. No beneficial effects would be realized if this alternative is chosen because several high priority invasive plant sites would continue to expand under current management approaches.

Determination Conclusion If this alternative were to be chosen there would be No Effect to Federally Proposed, Threatened and Endangered plant species because no management actions would be undertaken that threatens any population of a listed plant species. This alternative proposes No Action so the problematic invasive species would continue expand their range. Overall it is determined that implementing this alternative May Impact Individuals or Habitat, but Will Not Likely Contribute to a Trend Towards Federal Listing, or Cause a Loss of Viability to the Population or Species (MIIH). Alternative 2: Proposed Action

Direct Effects Direct effects are actions such as direct incidental spraying or trampling of SOLI sites while treating invasive plants. None of the known SOLI sites within this project are located at a close enough proximity to the treatment site to directly affect them. In addition, Project Design Features require pre- treatment surveys and a 25 ft. no spray buffer to ensure rare plants are not directly affected during future herbicide treatment. The closest SOLI to a treatment site is pendent rush but it occurs over 50 feet from the area to be sprayed. The result of implementing the Proposed Action will be No Effect to SOLI.

Indirect Effects An example of a potential indirect effect from herbicide use would be the translocation of herbicides through the soil to native plants or SOLI adjacent to treated areas. All herbicide’s chosen in the Proposed Action have been analyzed for effects to soil and water and considered for their ability to

28 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

translocate through soil to adjacent vegetation. It was determined that the effects from this are very minimal when considering the variables in place. None of the SOLI sites known about are within a close enough proximity to the project to be affected by soil transfer. There will be no indirect effects through implementation of this project.

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects are caused by the addition of the affects from this proposed action to all the other affects caused by actions that have taken place in the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future within watersheds that this project encompasses. This includes natural disturbances, such as large scale fires like the Biscuit fire in 2002. Several ongoing projects are occurring over the scale of this proposed action. Herbicide spraying is being done on private and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands adjacent to the project boundary. The addition of the proposed herbicide spraying to the ongoing actions within the project boundary is not significant enough to determine that cumulative effects would occur to SOLI or native plants. There would be no cumulative effects from implementing this project.

Beneficial Effects Beneficial effects are realized when management actions enhance or create new habitat for SOLI within a project area. . An example of a beneficial effect would be the removal of blackberries encroaching on an existing SOLI site. If this alternative is implemented several SOLI would benefit because the highest priority invasive plants within the Gold Beach and Powers Ranger District’s would begin to be more successfully controlled. Conducting the Proposed Action would have Beneficial Effects on SOLI and native plants in general.

Determination Conclusion If this alternative were to be chosen there would be No Effect to Federally Proposed, Threatened and Endangered plant species because there are not any listed species found within or near to the project area. The closest location of the one Endangered plant species (Macdonald’s rockcress) found on the Gold Beach Ranger District is from Chetco Peak about 10 air miles to the northeast of the project. No potential habitat for that species occurs anywhere within the project area. With regard to Forest Service Sensitive and other rare plant species Alternative 2 of the Herbicide Treatment for Invasive Plant project would have no impact on SOLI or native plants, and would actually have a beneficial effect. Soils and Water

Introduction Federal and state laws, policies and regulations control the use of herbicides on National Forest system lands, including the Clean Water Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Section 208 of the 1972 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Public Law 92-500) specifically mandated identification and control of non-point source pollution. Clean Water Act Section 303(d) directed the State of Oregon to list Water Quality Limited Waterbodies (listed streams) and develop Total Daily Maximum Loads to control the non-point source pollutant causing loss of beneficial uses. To date within this project area, TMDLs have been developed for the Upper South Fork Coquille Watershed (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 2001) covering stream temperature impairments, and Rogue River Basin (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 2008), covering stream temperature and bacteria impairments. The Sixes subbasin contains 303(d) listed streams that

29 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

have yet to have TMDLs developed (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Oregon’s 2004/2006 Integrated Report Database). The Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 1989) amended by the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan ROD and by the R6 2005 ROD for invasive plants, provides direction to protect and manage resources. The Forest Plan Goal for soils is to “Provide for biological diversity and long-term productivity by maintaining ecosystem function, maintaining large woody material, and minimizing adverse impacts to the soil resource”. Forest Plan Goals for water resources are to “Meet or exceed state and Federal requirements which provide protection to the air, water, and cultural resources of the Forest”; “Provide water of sufficient quality and quantity for local and downstream beneficial uses”; and “Maintain health and function of riparian ecosystems (including stream channel stability), for the protection or enhancement of riparian-dependent resources”. Forest Management Objectives for soil, riparian areas and water resources include: All resource management activities will be designed to enable compliance with State requirements in accordance with the Clean Water Act for the protection of waters of the state of Oregon. All management activities will be subject to the Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines which deal with site productivity, water quality, physical and biological changes in the soil, erosion and mass movement, and riparian ecosystems. Best Management Practices (BMP’s) will be applied in planning, implementation and maintenance of all Forest activities. Soil resource management will continue to maintain long-term productivity through mitigation of impacts from management activities and rehabilitation soils that have been impacted by management and natural events. Riparian-dependent resources (fish, water quality, wildlife habitat) will receive preferential consideration when conflicts occur among land use activities. The various riparian management prescriptions have been designed to maintain or, in some cases, reduce water temperatures.

Affected Environment Aquatic Conservation Strategy The Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) is an integral part of the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan. The ACS was developed to restore and maintain the ecological health of watersheds and aquatic ecosystems within public lands. The ACS is intended to meet several objectives toward meeting the goal of healthy ecosystems and watersheds. Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives are applied over time at watershed and broader scales. Table 8 displays the relative distribution of the invasive plants at the 6th field watershed. In many of these watersheds there are fewer than ten acres of invasive plant sites being proposed for herbicide treatment. This table also shows how many acres of Potential Treatment Areas are within Riparian Reserves; however it is important to note that with this EA, 95 acres is the maximum acreage that could be treated across all Potential Treatment Acres. Table 8. Sixth Field Watersheds within the Project Area. Watersheds and subwatersheds that are Key Watersheds are marked in bold type.

th th 5 Field 6 Field Nat’l Forest Infested Total Potential Potential Watershed Subwatersheds & System Lands in Acres Treatment Treatment Name & 6th HUC Number Subwatershed Acres Acres in

30 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

% of sub- Acres watershed South Fork Elk Ck-S.F. Coquille 1,303 39% 0 0.5 0.5 Coquille River - 03 River Delta Ck-Kelly Ck - 04 12,610 78% 1 196 182 1710030501 Coal Creek - 05 3,952 40% 0 3 3 Mill Creek - 06 2,868 21% 3 30 29 Humbug- Euchre Creek - 02 Nesika Frontal 2,183 13% 0 10 0 1710030601 Elk River Upper Elk River - 01 35,889 99% 1 541 172 1710030602 Lower Elk River - 02 9,318 40% 1.5 196 95 Sixes River Upper Sixes River - 01 13,169 32% 1.5 904 196 1710030603 Middle Sixes River - 02 8,844 32% 1 427 82 Rogue River- Shasta Costa Creek - 23,431 99.9% 25 112 34 Illahe Creek 01 1710031006 Rogue R.-Foster Bar - 20,076 93% 14.7 466 181 02 Lower Rogue Rogue R.-Copper 25,999 74% 13.5 591 92 River Canyon - 01 1710031008 Quosatana Creek - 02 16,377 80% 1 335 57 Rogue R.-Gold Beach - 2,325 9% 1.5 11 2 03 Illinois River-Lawson Creek - 01 25,007 99% 0.5 98 43 Lawson Ck Lower Illinois R. - 02 1710031111 13,763 86% 32 284 65 Chetco River Chetco R.-Eagle Ck - 07 28,516 92% 0.1 174 55 1710031201 Chetco R.-Nook Ck - 19,170 66% 0 26 9 09 Pistol River East Fork Pistol R. - 01 18,706 100% 0 73 4 1710031204 North Fork Pistol R. - 14,267 74% 1 138 26 02 Hunter Creek Upper Hunter Ck - 01 6,589 53% 0.1 88 8 1710031205 North Fork Upper N.F. Smith R. - Smith River 01 24,528 100% 0.1 136 17 1801010101 The Aquatic Conservation Strategy established a system of Key Watersheds to protect areas of high water quality and habitat for wild fish populations. Key Watersheds are intended to serve as refugia for at risk stocks of native and anadromous fish. Activities to protect and restore aquatic habitat in Key Watersheds are higher priority than similar activities in other watersheds. The key watersheds within the project area on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest are in bold in Table 8.

Watershed Analyses have been completed for all of the watersheds, including the Key Watersheds, that are within this project, and are incorporated by reference. They include: South Fork Coquille Watershed Analysis (WA), Iteration 1.0 (USDA Forest Service, 1995b), Euchre Creek WA (South Coast Watershed Council), Elk River WA, Iteration 2.0 (USDA Forest Service, 1998), Sixes River WA, Iteration 1.0 (USDA Forest Service, 1997), Rogue River WA, Marial to Agness, Iteration 1.0 (USDA Forest Service, 1999), Shasta Costa Creek WA, Iteration 1.0 (USDA Forest Service, 1996d),

31 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

Quosatana Creek WA, Iteration 1.0 (USDA Forest Service, 1996c), Rogue River below Agness WA, Iteration 1.0 (USDA Forest Service, 2000), Bradford Creek WA, Iteration 1.0 (USDA Forest Service, 1996b), Lower Illinois River WA Below Silver Creek, Iteration 1.0 (USDA Forest Service, 2000), Chetco River WA, Iteration 1.0 (USDA Forest Service, 1996a), Pistol River WA, Iteration 2.0 (David Evans and Associates, Inc., 2003), Hunter Creek WA (EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, 1998), and North Fork of the Smith River WA, Iteration 1.0 (USDA Forest Service, 1995a). Geology and Soils The project area lies within the Klamath Mountains Geologic-Physiographic Province. The Klamath Mountains province is made up of rugged, mountainous terrain and narrow canyons generally with 2,000 to 5,000 feet of relief. The mountains along the coast are generally north-south trending. They consist predominantly of pre-tertiary sediments and volcanics (about 65 million years old or more), that have been extensively folded, faulted, and intruded by serpentinized masses of ultra-basic and granitoid rocks along fault zones. The complex geologic history of this region also includes major periods of sea floor subduction at the continental border, volcanism, erosion, mass wasting, and uplift.

The geomorphic processes most common in the Klamath Mountains province are fluviation (degradation of the land surface by running water) and mass wasting. Fluviation is most evident on the long, steep, and rugged slopes that dominate the terrain. Mass wasting is naturally widespread and commonly occurs along geologic contacts, fault zones, in highly fractured parent material, and in areas of moisture accumulation and stream channel cutting of toe slopes.

Due to the complex geology of the Klamath Mountains province, soils also vary widely across the landscape, and are dominantly of mixed mineralogy. In general, most soils are shallow, medium textured, and contain high percentages of rock fragments. Very deep soils also occur but are usually limited to ancient mass wasted land surfaces, glacial deposits or toe slope positions. Soils of particular interest are those derived from peridotite and serpentinite parent material because of their unique characteristics.

Serpentine soils have low amounts of calcium and high amounts of magnesium, relatively heavy concentrations of nickel, chromium, and other heavy metals, and low levels of nitrogen and poor nitrogen uptake. They support very unique ecosystems that have evolved to tolerate and thrive in these soil conditions. Soils on the Gold Beach and Powers Ranger Districts have been mapped by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) (formerly called the Soil Conservation Service), and are included in two surveys, which are incorporated by reference. The two surveys are: Soil Survey of Coos County, Oregon (USDA Soil Conservation Service, 1989), and Soil Survey of Curry County, Oregon (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2005). There are 109 individual soil map units represented within the Potential Treatment Areas for this project. These are shown in a table, by number of acres in each Potential Treatment Area, in Appendix A of this EA. Table 9 describes general soil texture descriptions around locations of invasive plant infestations being proposed for treatment with this project at each Treatment Area.

32 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

Table 9.

Treatment General soil textures in vicinity of Infested Areas Area

1 Mostly sandy loams w/ some wetter areas having more clay

2 Complex of serpentines – texture is coarse and gravelly w/ limited loam and no apparent clay.

3 Mostly sandy loam with high amounts of organic matter

4 Sandy loam to gravelly loam

5 Mostly sandy loam in texture with areas of clay in wet depressions

6 Sandy loam, with wetter areas having a clay loam texture

7 Mostly sandy loam with deep organic layer/content

8 Mostly sandy loam with deep organic layer/content

9 Some serpentine bands but mostly sandy loam and clay loam

10 Sandy loam, alluvium, clay loam in wetland and creek draws

11 Sandy loam, deep loamy soils in meadow areas

12 Sandy loams, deep in the oak savannah areas

Invasive plants can affect soils in many ways. They can cause changes in soil properties such as pH, nutrient cycling and changes in composition or activity of soil microbes. For example, spotted knapweed has been implicated in reducing available potassium and nitrogen (Harvey and Nowierski, 1989). A reduction in soil nutrient levels makes it difficult for native plants to compete with the invasive plants, and probably also affects the soil biotic community. The long-term effects of these changes are not known. Indirect effects of changes in soil biology include sedimentation of streams and reduced recharge rates for groundwater. Plants and mycorrhizal fungi are strongly dependent on each other, and species of fungi are associated with specific plants. Presence of non-native plants also leads to changes in the mycorrhizal fungus community (ibid). These changes could increase the difficulty of reestablishing native vegetation after the invasive plants are removed. Riparian Condition and Water Quality Streams are complex and dynamic systems that reflect the balance between stream flow, sediment input and substrate/bank composition. Riparian condition and water quality are the two elements potentially affected by invasive plant treatments. There are five 303(d) listed streams that cross through or are closely adjacent to treatment areas (Table 10). The invasive plants to be treated at these sites are also shown in Table 10. None of these species provide any stream shade that would have a positive affect on stream temperature or riparian habitat.

33 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

Table 10. Information About 4th Field HUC in the analysis area with 303d listed streams 4th HUC Stream Parameter Season Beneficial Uses Treatment Invasive Plant Subbasin Name & Areas Species River Mile Sixes Bald Temperature Summer Anadromous fish 7 Gorse, English ivy 17100306 Mountain passage Creek Salmonid fish 0 to 2.3 rearing Sixes Edson Creek Temperature Year Around Salmon & trout 8 Gorse 17100306 0 to 5.8 (non-spawning rearing & migration Sixes Elk River Temperature Year Around Salmon & trout 7 Gorse, English ivy 17100306 0 to 29.9 (non-spawning) rearing & migration Sixes Sixes River Dissolved Oct. 15 – May Salmon & 8 Gorse 17100306 4.4 to 29.4 Oxygen 15 steelhead spawning Sixes Sixes River Temperature Year Around Salmon & trout 8 Gorse 17100306 0 to 30.1 (non-spawning) rearing & migration Coquille SF Coquille Temperature Year Around Core cold water 3 English ivy, spotted 17100305 River (non-spawning) habitat knapweed, meadow 18.1 to 62 knapweed

Table 11 shows the streams covered under TMDLs that cross through or are closely adjacent to treatment areas, as well as the invasive plants to be treated at these sites. None of these species provide any stream shade that would have a positive effect on stream temperature or riparian habitat, and would be consistent with the associated Water Quality Management Plans for these systems.

Table 11. TMDLs in 4th Field HUCs in the analysis area 4th HUC Stream Parameter Season Beneficial Treat- Invasive TMDL, Subbasin Name & Uses ment Plant Year River Areas Species Approved Mile Coquille SF Temperature Summer Anadromous 3 English ivy, Upper SF 17100305 Coquille fish passage spotted and Coquille River Salmonid meadow Watershed, 42.1 to fish rearing knapweed 2001 61.9 Illinois Illinois Temperature Oct. 15 – Salmon & 1, 5 Wooly Rogue 17100311 River May 15 steelhead distaff River 0 to 56.1 spawning thistle, Basin, Illinois Illinois Temperature Year Salmon & Italian 2008 17100311 River Around trout rearing thistle, 0 to 56.1 (non- & migration Medusahead spawning) rye, Himalayan blackberry, meadow knapweed, fennel Lower Foster Temperature Summer Anadromous 6 False brome, Rogue Creek fish passage Himalayan 17100310 0 to 5.2 Salmonid blackberry, fish rearing vinca Lower Quosatana Temperature Summer Anadromous 9, 10 Pampas

34 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

Rogue Creek fish passage grass, 17100310 0 to 8.1 Salmonid meadow fish rearing knapweed, fennel, English ivy Lower Shasta Temperature Year Salmon & 5, 12 Meadow Rogue Costa Around trout rearing knapweed, 17100310 Creek (non- & migration fennel, 0 to 13.4 spawning) Himalayan blackberry

Riparian vegetation stabilizes stream banks, and acts as a filter to prevent the run-off of soil into streams. Riparian vegetation also provides large and small wood to streams, adding to habitat complexity and providing cover and food sources for aquatic organisms. Aquatic ecosystems have evolved with certain vegetation types; invasive plants do not necessarily provide similar habitat. Invasive plants can adversely affect the functioning of riparian areas. If invasive plants replace riparian conifers and hardwood trees, large woody material inputs could be reduced, affecting stream stability, morphology and fish habitat. Himalayan blackberry can act as a sediment trap and fish barrier (2008 Olympic National Forest FEIS for IP mgt). Floodplains About 19 acres of infested acres are within floodplain influence zones that may also support small areas of riparian wetland. Municipal Watersheds and Domestic Water Supplies Municipal watersheds are governed by agreements (on file at Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest). Herbicide use within these watersheds would need to be coordinated with the city watershed managers. Table 12. Acres of Invasive Plants in Municipal Watersheds

Municipal Acres of Infestation Proposed for Treatment Water Source Watershed Rogue River, well 86.7 acres in the Lower Rogue River, Rogue R-Illahee Gold Beach near Rogue River, Ck, & Illinois R-Lawson Ck watersheds and Indian Creek Brookings 0.1 acres in the Chetco River watershed Chetco River Crescent City 0.1 acres in the N.F. Smith River watershed Smith River Powers 4 acres in the S.F. Coquille River watershed S.F. Coquille River

Environmental Consequences Aquatic Conservation Strategy Treatment of invasive plants is consistent with recommendations in watershed analysis done for key watersheds on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. None of the invasive plant treatments in the scope of this document would retard achievement of ACS objectives because the scale of treatment is small and the potential for harm is low: Treatments would occur on a very small percentage of any watershed. Herbicides would not be delivered to any water bodies.

35 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

Given Project Design Features and the size of the project, treatments are unlikely to affect functioning of wetland or water bodies. Significant adverse effects on beneficial uses of water are unlikely in any of the above 6th field watersheds. Geology and Soils

Herbicide Characteristics in Soils The effect of a chemical treatment on the soil depends on the particular characteristics of the chemical used, how it is applied, and the physical, chemical and biological condition of the soil medium. See the Soils report in the project file for more information.

Effects on Riparian Condition and Water Quality None of the alternatives have the potential to influence stream flow and channel morphology due to the small portion of any watershed that would be treated. Treating invasive plants would improve riparian stability where invasive plants such as English ivy have colonized along stream channels and out- competed native species. All invasive plant treatments carry some risk that removing invasive plants could exacerbate stream instability; the restoration plan accounts for these areas and prescribes mulching, seeding and planting as needed to revegetate riparian and other treated areas.

Drift, Run-off and Leaching The routes for herbicide to contaminate water are; direct application, drift into streams from spraying, runoff from a large rain storm soon after application, and leaching through soil into shallow ground water or into a stream. No direct application of herbicide to water is intended in any alternative; however invasive plant treatments in wetlands or stream channels may result in some herbicide entering surface waters. Drift is the most likely vector for herbicides coming in contact with water from riparian area or emergent vegetation treatment sites. The potential for drift varies with the herbicide application method. Spot and hand application methods substantially reduce the potential for loss of non-target vegetation because there is little potential for drift. Label restrictions, restrictions on application rate, type of herbicide, application method restrictions, buffers, and the use of a surfactant all factor in to limiting the potential amount of drift. In addition, roads that have a high potential for herbicide delivery have been identified and have added restrictions, such as no broadcasting. Although there will be no herbicide applied directly to the water column for purposes of treating submerged vegetation, there may be some fine droplets from spot applications coming in contact with water as a result of treating emergent vegetation. Herbicide can move from the treatment location into adjacent areas through runoff. Some runoff can enter streams either through road or slope drainage. Roadside ditches can act as herbicide delivery routes to streams during high rainfalls or as settling ponds following rainfall events. The potential for run off to result in herbicide contamination to water was analyzed using the Groundwater Loading Effects of Agricultural Management Systems (GLEAMS) model. The GLEAMS model examines the fate of chemicals in various types of soils under different meteorological and hydrogeological conditions. Previous Monitoring Results Berg, N. (2004) compiled monitoring results for broadcast herbicide treatments given various buffers along waterbodies. The results showed that any buffer helps lower the concentration of herbicide in

36 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

streams adjacent to treatment areas. In California, when buffers between 25 and 200 feet were used, herbicides were not detected in monitored streams (detection limits of 1to 3 mg/m3) (ibid). In South Carolina, buffers of 30 meters (comparable to 100 feet) during ground applications of the herbicides imazapyr, picloram and triclopyr resulted in no detectable concentrations of herbicide in monitored streams (USDA HFQLG EIS, Appendix B, 2003). No detection limits were given. Even smaller buffers have successfully protected water quality. For example, where imazapyr was aerial sprayed without a buffer, the stream concentration was 680 mg/ml. With a 15-meter buffer, the concentration was below detectable limits (Berg, 2004). No detection limits were given. The Berg study also considered runoff associated with several herbicides (including sulfometuron methyl and glyphosate) along a road in the spring and simulated rainfall at 1/3 inches an hour at 1, 7 and 14 days after treatment. Samples were collected at the shoulder of the road and found concentrations of several hundred ppb of sulfometuron-methyl and nearly 1,000 ppb of glyphosate that could potentially leave the road shoulder. In the fall the road was again sprayed and the ditch line of the road was checked during natural rainstorms for three months. Sulfometuron-methyl was found in concentrations of 0.1 to 1 parts per billion (ppb) along the shoulder and from 0.3 to 0.1 in the ditch line but was below detectable limits in the stream. Glyphosate was not found at the shoulder, ditch line or stream. This study indicates that the greatest risk of herbicides moving off site is from large storms soon after herbicide application. In addition, this study also indicates that sulfometuron methyl may persist in the environment as it was detectable along the shoulder of the road (but not in the stream) the entire duration (three months) of the study. Berg also reported that herbicide applied in or along dry ephemeral or intermittent stream channels may enter streams through run-off if a large post-treatment rainstorm occurred soon after treatment. This risk is minimized if intermittent and ephemeral channels are buffered (ibid.) as would occur under the proposed action. If a large rainstorm occurs sediment contaminated by herbicide could be carried into streams. As most ditch lines on the GPNF and CRGNSA are heavily vegetated, this is less likely to occur than in a drier environment. The Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDOA) monitored residual concentrations of aquatic labeled herbicides for treatment of emergent noxious and quarantine weeds. Ten out of the sixteen sites sampled between 2003 and 2005 showed residual herbicide levels below a level of concern for drinking water. The rest showed no detectable level of herbicide.

Accidental Spill Concentrations of herbicides in the water as a result of an accidental spill depend on the rate of application and the streams’ ratio of surface area to volume. The persistence of the herbicide in water depends on the length of stream where the accidental spill took place, velocity of stream flow, and hydrologic characteristics of the stream channel. The concentration of herbicides would decrease rapidly down-stream because of dilution and interactions with physical and biological properties of the stream system (Norris et al.1991). Project design features would reduce the potential for spills to occur, and if an accident were to occur, minimizes the magnitude and intensity of impacts. An herbicide transportation and handling plan is a project requirement. This plan would address spill prevention and containment. Extensive monitoring of herbicide application using similar treatment methods has occurred over the last few years in NW

37 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

Oregon and Western Washington. All personnel applying the herbicides are well trained and licensed. No accidental spills have been reported. Floodplains See the section on fisheries below for analysis of the site closest to a floodplain. The is no potential for herbicide to reach concentrations of concern in surface water. Municipal Watersheds and Domestic Water Supplies Coordination with water boards and users would occur and herbicide use within 1000 feet upstream (slope distance) of known water intakes would be coordinated with the water manager or owner. In all alternatives, existing municipal watershed agreements would be followed. There are no plausible scenarios that could lead to drinking water contamination sufficient to affect public health, given the types of herbicide proposed and the manner they will be used. Concentrations of herbicides that may reach groundwater or streams are low and below levels of concern for people. Treatment is not currently proposed within 1000 feet of any water intake. Cumulative Effects Most of the herbicides used under this alternative do not negatively affect soil organisms at typical application rates. At any one site, herbicides would be degraded before more would be used, and no cumulative chemical loading would occur in the soil so cumulative impacts to soil productivity would be avoided in all situations. Buffering waterbodies lowers the potential for herbicide to enter water at any treatment site. This project is unlikely to have significant effects to soil or water resources and therefore is unlikely to approach a threshold of concern and therefore would not contribute to significant cumulative effects. No adverse cumulative effects are expected from implementation of this alternative. Fisheries

Affected Environment Fish species found within the proposed project area include coho, chinook, steelhead, sea-run coastal cutthroat, and resident cutthroat trout. Within the Gold Beach and Powers Ranger Districts of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National forest there are 21 Key Watersheds and approximately 7700 miles of streams. Within these streams there are approximately 1800 miles of trout presence, 1200 miles of anadromous fish presence, 550 miles of Coho presence, and 500 miles of Chinook presence. Southern Oregon/Northern California Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) Coho salmon in the project area are part of the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast (SO/NC) Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU) (NMFS 1997). On May 6, 1997, this ESU was listed as threatened by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under the Endangered Species Act (NMFS 1997), threatened status was reaffirmed on June 28, 2005. The ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of coho salmon in coastal streams between Cape Blanco, Oregon, and Punta Gorda, California, as well three artificial propagation programs: the Cole Rivers Hatchery (ODFW stock #52), Trinity River Hatchery, and Iron Gate Hatchery coho hatchery programs. The Rogue River is one of the main producers of coho in this ESU (NMFS 1997). Coho need wide open valleys with low gradient streams and side channel habitat. Both watersheds lack this type of habitat. Historically this habitat would have occurred in the lower portions of the Chetco River. Settlement of this area occurred in these areas that have been drained and converted to

38 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

agricultural and residential lands. This reduces the ability of the stream to produce smolts, which would return to their natal stream to spawn. Most fish found within this stream are considered to be strays from the upper Rogue River Watershed. Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Chinook salmon in streams and rivers are generally divided into two races: spring and fall run Chinook salmon. Spring Chinook enter freshwater from April though June are usually associated with larger rivers and streams that have adequate summer flows and deep resting pools for adults during the summer. Fall Chinook enter freshwater from September through December and use many of the medium-sized and larger streams with access from the ocean through low gradient stream habitat. Their annual spawning distribution in smaller streams is dependent on the amount of fall rains and resultant streamflow. Spring Chinook spawn in the early fall, earlier than fall Chinook in most rivers. Fall Chinook spawn from early fall to mid-winter. Chinook salmon are semelparous and die after spawning. Chinook fry emerge in late winter to early spring and typically begin a downstream migration to the river estuary or the ocean. Variations from this occur in all populations with some fry remaining in freshwater for a year. Chinook salmon fry and parr generally rear in larger streams and rivers. The typical life cycle for Chinook salmon is to spend a few months in freshwater and two to five years in saltwater and thus they are ocean rearing. Many variations occur in the freshwater rearing timing, and precocious males return from the ocean a year or two early as jacks. Fall Chinook in the project area are designated Sensitive by the Forest Service. They were assessed and determined not to warrant listing under the Endangered Species Act by the National Marine Fisheries Service in 1999. Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Steelhead trout are rainbow trout that migrate to the ocean. Two races of steelhead are found: summer and winter steelhead. Summer steelhead are usually associated with larger rivers that have adequate summer flows to accommodate summer upstream migration and deep resting pools with cooler water. Summer steelhead is generally found in rivers with spring Chinook populations. Summer steelhead tends to spawn in very small; intermittent tributaries and winter steelhead tend to spawn in medium to large streams. Steelhead 83 exhibits a wide variety of migration and freshwater rearing strategies, and spawns from midwinter to late spring. Summer steelhead fry tend to emerge earlier in the late winter/early spring than winter steelhead fry. Historic steelhead habitat is extremely variable as these fish are adept at migrating through steep gradient stream segments and over waterfalls of moderate height. Steelhead trout fry and parr can be found in very steep mountain stream habitat and in interior and coastal unconstrained valley streams. Generally, steelhead remain in freshwater for one to three years and the ocean phase varies from one to three years. Steelhead trout are oviparous and can return to spawn more than once. Ocean migration is highly variable for steelhead trout, generally following the north and south migration strategies of coho salmon and Chinook salmon previously discussed. Steelhead are less gregarious than salmon in their ocean phase and individuals can range as far as offshore of the Aleutian Island area. Winter steelhead are abundant and well-distributed across the local region as well as in the project area. Steelhead were removed from the Regional Foresters Sensitive Species List in 2008. Coastal Cutthroat Trout (Onchorhyncus clarkii) Anadromous (searun) cutthroat trout were also removed from the Regional Foresters Sensitive Species list in 2007 and were determined to not warrant listing by the National Marine Fisheries Service.

39 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

Coastal cutthroat trout are found in all waters where anadramous fish are found, and usually upstream from there to major barriers in the system.

Effects of No Action If no activities occur, these noxious weed sites will continue to grow and spread within riparian areas of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. If noxious weeds continue to grow they will out-compete native riparian plant species, further reducing the productivity of these important areas. It will reduce available nutrients added to the aquatic systems. There is a chance that there may be a slight reduction of riparian species to produce shade in some systems, which will increase water temperatures. Overall there will be a negative impact if no action is taken.

Effects of the Proposed Action Where the use of herbicide has been selected for use within riparian reserves there are 2 different activities occurring. During the majority of these sites, the activities will follow the Project Design Criteria stated in the Biological Opinion signed by National Marine Fisheries Service for Consultation for Fish Restoration Activities in Oregon and Washington, CY 2007-CY2012, Signed April of 2007 (ARBO). Activity at one site on the South Fork Coquille River does not follow the terms and conditions assigned in the ARBO. Triclopyr is proposed for this site, but is not covered in the ARBO, A site-specific analysis was done for use of triclopyr at this site which lead to a determination that this activity would have no impact on fish or their habitat. The analysis used an model developed to help provide site- specific herbicide risk assessment, called the GLEAMS driver.

Direct and Indirect Impacts No fish habitat would be modified. Water temperatures would not be affected by this activity. A site- specific analysis for use of triclopyr on English ivy on the South Fork Coquille River was completed to determine risks to fish associated with this treatment. Site specific data included extent of treatment (4 acres), herbicide application rate (1 lb per acre), slope (average 60 percent), and soil types. The model took into account local weather data generated from weather stations from Elkton. Streamflow of the South Fork Coquille River was derived using USGS data. Using this information, a model was run to estimate potential for triclopyr to enter the South Fork Coquille River. The model runs indicate that no or non-detectable amounts of herbicide would be present at the stream’s edge given worst case run off for the triclopyr application proposed. The amount of herbicide present in the conservative model is far less than a harmful concentration. The Hazard Quotient calculated for this treatment was 0.53 using very conservative input criteria. The HQ determined to have negative effects to aquatic species is approximately 10. Thus, using triclopyr at the South Fork Coquille English ivy site would have no effect to fish. For more information, see the Fisheries Report in the project file. Any herbicide reaching the river would be quickly diluted. Since herbicide would be most concentrated at the edge of the stream, one tenth of the total average low flow was used in the model to account for exposure to fish that might be exposed to herbicide at its point of entry into the stream. Herbicide would be at this concentration for a matter of moments before becoming more diluted in the river, even at its lowest flows.

40 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

The analysis of effects for using the other proposed herbicides for invasive plant removal on aquatic species was documented in the R6 2005 FEIS and associated consultation records, as well as the Biological Assessment and Biological Opinion signed by National Marine Fisheries Service for Consultation for Fish Restoration Activities in Oregon and Washington, CY 2007-CY2012, Signed April of 2007 (ARBO). Please refer to these documents for more information on herbicide properties and impacts. In general the potential effects to aquatic species from the use of herbicides come in 3 different categories: 1) delivery of sediment from bare ground exposed by removing the invasive plant species, 2) removal of shade from streams by removing the invasive plant species, and 3) delivery of herbicide from drift effects or runoff during the first initial storm event after herbicide application. The amounts of riparian areas that are being treated by this activity are extremely small (approximately 10 acres across the 600,000 acres of the Gold Beach and Powers Ranger Districts). All sites within riparian areas are small sites; the largest being 4 acres within the riparian reserve. The likelihood of a storm event happening sometime after the treatment occurs is relatively high for this area. During one of these storm events there is a chance that sediment may be delivered to the stream after invasive plants have been removed. At the same time, some of the areas that have been treated with herbicide may deliver the chemical to small waterways. Although the project modeling indicates a low likelihood of non-lethal effects to fish (such as changes in olfactory sense or weight loss) and no likelihood of fish kill, all risk cannot be completely avoided, so the project is associated with an ESA finding that riparian treatments may affect likely to adversely affect coho salmon or their habitat. This project also may adversely affect Chinook or coho essential fish habitat found adjacent to the treatment areas. This project also may impact individuals or habitat but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the populations or species of Chinook salmon, which are listed as sensitive on the Regional Foresters Sensitive Species List. Cumulative Effects The majority of projects that would be occurring within the watersheds included in this analysis are small diameter thinning sales, primarily focused within second growth managed stands which were analyzed under Coastal Healthy Forest Treatments EA (CHFT), Equine Thin, Pyramid Thin, Long Ridge Sorrel Meadow Restoration Project, Southwest Thin, and other small thinning projects. These projects would not adversely affect aquatic organisms. This proposed project would not contribute to any cumulative adverse effects. The scale is extremely small overall (limited to 95 acres on two Ranger Districts), and the most extensive treatment proposed near fish habitat (4 acres of triclopyr use on the South Fork Coquille River) was found to not pose any measurable risks to fish based on site-specific modeling.

41 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

Terrestrial Wildlife

Summary Tables 13 displays a summary of the effects on federally listed terrestrial wildlife species northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet. Table 14 displays a summary of the effects on Forest Service sensitive species associated with the project area. Table 13. Federally Listed Terrestrial Wildlife Species and Impact Summary

Pre-Field Review1 Field Surveys Wildlife Species Sighting/Habitat Habitat or Species Determination of Effects Present with mitigation Federally Endangered, Threatened, or Proposed Species Suitable Habitat Habitat and species No Effect Northern spotted owl present/species not affected by known for area project Northern Spotted Owl CHU within project CHU present No Effect Critical Habitat Unit area Marbled Murrelet Suitable Habitat Habitat and Species No Effect present/species not affected by known for area project Marbled Murrelet CHU within project CHU present No Effect Critical Habitat Unit area

No Effect / May Affect NLAA = Not likely to Adversely Affect LAA = Likely to Adversely Affect

Table 14. Forest Service Sensitive Wildlife Species Pre-Field Review1 Field Surveys R6 Sensitive Species Sighting/Habitat Habitat or Species Determination of Effects Present with mitigation American peregrine falcon Suitable Habitat Species documented NI present/species in project area known for area bald eagle Habitat present Species present NI harlequin duck Habitat present Species present NI Lewis’ woodpecker Habitat present Species present NI White-headed woodpecker Habitat present Species present NI Northern waterthrush Habitat present Species present NI California wolverine Not within range Pacific fisher Not within range Pacific pallid bat Not within range Townsend’s big-eared bat Suitable habitat Suspected NI present fringed myotis Suitable habitat Suspected NI present northwestern pond turtle Habitat present Species present MIIH

42 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

Pre-Field Review1 Field Surveys R6 Sensitive Species Sighting/Habitat Habitat or Species Determination of Effects Present with mitigation Oregon spotted frog Suitable Habitat NI present/species Suspected known for area foothill yellow-legged frog Suitable Habitat Species documented NI present/species in project area known for area Siskiyou mountains Not within range salamander California slender Suitable Habitat Species documented MIIH salamander present/species in project area known for area black salamander Not within range Suitable Habitat Species present NI Siskiyou short-horned present/species grasshopper known for area Coronis fritillary Not within range Suitable habitat Suspected MIIH Mardon Skipper present Insular blue butterfly Not within range Hoary elfin Suitable habitat Suspected NI present Johnson’s hairstreak Not within range Franklin’s bumblebee Not within range Siskiyou Hesperian YES YES NI Pristine springsnail Not within range Crater Lake tightcoil Not within range Pacific walker Not within range Robust walker Not within range Suitable habitat Suspected NI Traveling sideband present Suitable habitat Suspected NI green sideband present Chace Sideband Not within range Suitable habitat Suspected NI scale lanx present highcap lanx Not within range Suitable habitat Suspected NI Oregon shoulderband snail present Suitable habitat Species present NI Klamath rim pebblesnail present Evening fieldslug Not within range Western ridged mussel Not within range

43 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

Effects on Northern Spotted Owl Affected Environment Based on past surveys and the ITS methodology (FWS 2008), 161 spotted owl pair activity centers are historically known to be located within the Analysis Area boundary (USFS DEIS 2005).

Northern spotted owls generally inhabit older forested habitats because they contain the structures and characteristics required for nesting, roosting, foraging, and dispersal. A definition of NRF nesting and roosting northern spotted owl habitat in the Klamath Province is difficult to identify because of the variety of ecological types and frequent fire history (USDA Forest Service 1996). The Mt. Ashland LSR Assessment (USDA Forest Service 1996) identified stands which supported northern spotted owl as >17” average diameter and >60% canopy closure (CC). The Rogue River/South Coast Biological Assessment defines Nesting/Roosting/Foraging (NRF) habitat as >21” average diameter and >60% CC (USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2006).

Zabel et al. (2003) identified habitat models for northern spotted owls in the Klamath Province of northern California which correctly classified owl-occupied sites with >85% accuracy. Within Douglas-fir habitats below 6,000 ft. elevation in the Eastern Klamath Ecological zone, these sites were classified as >17” average diameter and >60% CC. Zabel et al. (2003) concluded that their model performed best at the 200 hectare radius (0.5 mi).

The primary prey of northern spotted owls in the Analysis Area are dusky-footed woodrats (Neotoma fuscipes) and northern flying squirrels (Glaucomy sabrinus) (USDA Forest Service 1996). Dusky- footed woodrats are occasionally abundant in early mixed-conifer forests and present in late stages of forest development (Carey et al. 1999). Northern flying squirrels are generally associated with older forests. Zabel et al. (1995) verified a trend of negative, linear relationship between home range size during the breeding season and the proportion of woodrats in the diet of northern spotted owls. The proportion of northern flying squirrels in the diet was positively correlated with home range size.

Information on the ecology of the northern spotted owl is contained within, Endangered and Threatened wildlife and plants: determination of threatened status for the northern spotted owl: final rule (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 1990), Endangered and Threatened wildlife and Plants; Determination of Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl; Final rule (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1992), Scientific evaluation of the status of the northern spotted owl and the draft Spotted Owl Recovery Plan (Courtney et al. 2004 and 2008), and Status and Trends in Demography of Northern Spotted Owls (Anthony et al. 2004). A detailed account of the taxonomy, ecology, and reproductive characteristics of the spotted owl is found in the 1987 and 1990 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Status Reviews (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1987, 1989, 1990a); the Inter-Agency Scientific Committee (ISC) Report (Thomas et al. 1990); and the final rule designating the spotted owl as a threatened species (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1990b). Demographic analysis completed in 1999 indicates that the northern spotted owl population (range wide) is declining by approximately 4 percent per year, although reproducing age females appear to not exhibit a negative trend (Forsman and Anthony 1999, Franklin et al. 1999). The NWFP was expected to limit the extent of this trend by protecting all spotted owl sites within LSRs and by providing spotted owl dispersal habitat through the matrix and AMA. Habitat data for northern spotted owl analyses was derived from Geographic Information System (GIS) coverages. The analysis is based on satellite imagery. The use of satellite imagery allows large areas to

44 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

be assessed on a consistent basis and is considered the “best available” data that maps and provides consistent vegetation characteristics throughout the Analysis Area regardless of ownership. It is important to note some limitations in terms of the satellite imagery used for analysis. The imagery was classified over a large area and as such, individual pixels of data may not exactly match on the ground. Though, when viewed at the landscape or Analysis Area scale, the imagery presents a consistent “snapshot” which is useful for design of actions and planning. The analysis area is approximately 4,000 acres in size. Natural plant community types within the project area are diverse. In the lower elevations Oregon white oak woodlands and grasslands, chaparral, Douglas-Fir, and ponderosa pine occurs up to about 2,500 feet. Above this is a mixed conifer zone dominated by Douglas-fir, incense cedar, ponderosa and Sugar pine, and white fir in more mesic sites. Above 4,000 feet is the white fir-Shasta red-fir zone with mountain hemlock and small amounts of white bark pine that can be found up to open rocky herbaceous grasslands on the highest peaks above timberline. There is one Critical Habitat Unit on NFS lands. Of the 188,967 acres of CHU managed by the FS within the Action Area, 78,997 acres are currently NRF (42 percent); 41,721 acres are currently dispersal habitat (22 percent). All NRF and dispersal habitat constitutes 64 percent of FS managed CHU within the Action Area. There are 4 Managed Owl Conservation Areas (MOCA) in the Action Area. Of the 308,995 acres of MOCAs managed by the FS in the Action Area, 93,507 acres are currently NRF (30 percent), 94,732 acres are currently dispersal habitat (31 percent). All NRF and dispersal habitat constitutes 61 percent of FS managed MOCAs within the Action Area. Effects of the Alternatives on Northern Spotted Owl The No-Action Alternative would not result in any change in levels of disturbance to spotted owl nest sites. No spotted owl pairs would be affected by disturbance in habitat and dispersal opportunities would not be reduced from current conditions. In the absence of large-scale disturbance (wildfire, insects, and disease) the densities of northern spotted owls would likely remain stable, notwithstanding other threats identified by the Sustainable Ecosystems Institute report (Courtney et al. 2004) which include barred owls and West Nile Virus. There are no effects to northern spotted owl from herbicide use proposed. Therefore, a “No Effect” determination is made if the PDC is implemented.

Cumulative effects include the effects of foreseeable future State, local, or private activities that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area. There is little habitat on private land for spotted owls in the Analysis Area. Cumulative effects compound the effects of loss of habitat and harassment potential associated with forest fires, e.g. Biscuit Fire of 2002 and Blossom Complex 2005. Density management effects of this project combine with those of forest-wide pre-commercial and commercial thinning operations, e.g. Coastal Healthy Forest Treatments, Equine, ER Thin, Southwest Thin, and associated danger tree removal. There are no cumulative impacts from the proposed action.

Effects on Marbled Murrelet Affected Environment The marbled murrelet is a small seabird (Alcidae) that nests along the Pacific coast from Alaska to central California, and winters as far south as Baja California, Mexico. Murrelets forage at sea where they consume a diversity of prey species including small fish and invertebrates, but nest on large limbs

45 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

in old growth coniferous forests, sometimes up to 50 miles from the coast. The 2006 status review (USFWS 2006) reconfirmed the murrelet’s status as a threatened species and summarized the terrestrial habitat. Throughout the forested portion of their range, marbled murrelet habitat use is positively associated with the presence and abundance of mature and old growth forests, large core areas of old growth, low amounts of edge and fragmentation, proximity to the marine environment, and increasing forest age and height (McShane et al. 2004, 4-39; Binford et al. 1975, 315-316; Hamer and Nelson 1995b, 72-75; Ralph et al. 1995, 4). In all cases, marbled murrelets focus on the presence of platforms used for nesting. Platform presence is more important than the size of the nest tree, and tree size alone is not a good indicator of the abundance of platforms (Evans Mack et al. 2003, 3). The presence of platforms is the most important characteristic of marbled murrelet nesting habitat (Burger 2002, 40 and 43; McShane et al. 2004, 4-45–4-51, 4-53, 4-55, 4-56, 4-59; Nelson 1997, 6; Huff et al. 2006, 12-13, 18). Individual tree attributes that provide platforms suitable for nesting include large or forked branches, deformities caused by broken tops or mistletoe infection, or other structures large enough to provide a platform for a nesting adult murrelet (Hamer and Nelson 1995b, 79). An account of the taxonomy, ecology, and reproductive characteristics of the marbled murrelet can be found in the 1988 species status review (Marshall 1989), the final rule designating the species as threatened (USDI FWS 1992b), the final rule designating critical habitat for the species (USDI FWS 1996), Ecology and Conservation of the Marbled Murrelet (Ralph et al. 1995), Recovery Plan for the Marbled Murrelet (USDI FWS 1997), and the Service’s BO for Alternative 9 (USDI FWS 1994) of the Final Environmental Impact Statement on Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old- Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (USDA and USDI 1994a). For a detailed discussion of the life history of the marbled murrelet, see the Rogue River/South Coast Biological Assessment 18 July/27 September 2001, FY 01/02/03 Timber Sale Projects for the Medford District, Bureau of Land Management Rogue River and Siskiyou National Forests. Critical habitat for marbled murrelets was designated in May 1996 (61 FR 102:26256-26320). The Service has designated approximately 3.9 million acres of land as critical habitat, of which 78 percent (3.0 million acres) is located on Federal lands within the area covered by the NWFP boundary. Approximately 1,639 acres of suitable habitat in the known range was removed in the 2002 Biscuit Fire. Within the Action Area, 317,689 acres have been designated as marbled murrelet critical habitat. Of this total, 141,525 acres are suitable marbled murrelet habitat; 62,098 acres of suitable habitat are located within the known range (Area A). The Service considers two components of marbled murrelet habitat to be biologically essential: (1) terrestrial nesting habitat and associated forest stands and (2) marine foraging habitat used during the breeding season. Within areas essential for successful marbled murrelet nesting, the Service has focused on the following primary constituent elements: (1) individual trees with potential nesting platforms and (2) forested areas within 0.5 miles (0.8 kilometers) of individual trees with potential nesting platforms, and with a canopy height of at least one-half the site potential tree height. Within the boundaries of designated critical habitat, only those areas that contain one or more primary constituent element are, by definition, critical habitat. Habitat for marbled murrelet may be present within the proposed action locations; however, treatments would not affect habitat conditions for marbled murrelet. Scattered throughout the area within the action area, are small pockets and scattered, individual large trees (legacy structure) some of which could serve as nesting habitat and is considered “potential nesting structure” (Roberts, 2004). Protocol surveys have occurred in the action area in 1994, 1995, 1997, 1998, 2005, 2006, and 2008. This has resulted in 726 sightings of marbled murrelets within the analysis area, 68 of

46 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

which are within proposed treatment units. Occupied marbled murrelet habitat occurs adjacent (within 120 yards) to treatment units 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11.

Effects of the Alternatives on Marbled Murrelet The No-Action Alternative would not result in any change in levels of disturbance to marbled murrelet nest sites. No marbled murrelet would be affected by disturbance in habitat and nesting opportunities would not be reduced from current conditions. In the absence of large-scale disturbance (wildfire, insects, and disease) the densities of marbled murrelet would likely remain stable, notwithstanding other threats There could be potential minor impacts to murrelets from disturbance from the proposed action during implementation of the project, from personnel using the river corridor and areas adjacent to known sites during the breeding season. However, this potential disturbance is likely not measurable as any birds present are likely habituated to high levels of ongoing activities within the river corridor and along the roadsides. There are no impacts to marbled murrelet from herbicide use proposed. Therefore, a “No Effect” determination is made if the PDC is implemented.

Sensitive Species Several sensitive species are in the project area. The project has the potential to adversely affect individuals of the following species: Lewis Woodpecker, northwestern pond turtle, California slender salamander, Mardon skipper. Lewis’ Woodpecker Lewis’ woodpeckers are migratory in southwestern Oregon, with sporadically large populations in the winter and scattered breeding pairs in the summer reported. They were formally common breeders in summer in Jackson and Josephine Counties but in the last 10 years they have not been documented (N. Barrett 2008, pers. com.) and there are few recent breeding records (Janes et al. 2002). This species is closely tied to the ponderosa pine/oak savannah habitats of eastern and southwest Oregon.

Nests are often in the large Ponderosa Pine snags or mature oaks while the birds forage on insects and acorn meat. In winter they store acorn meat in crevices in trees and power poles. Because this woodpecker does not usually excavate its own cavity, they have a close tie to older snags within the forest that are likely to contain cavities and have crevices for food storage.

The population of Lewis’ woodpeckers has fallen dramatically across Oregon as pine – oak woodlands are lost. A contributing factor in the decline has been the spread of the European Starling, which aggressively out-competes this species for available cavities. Habitat loss is due to a wide variety of concerns that include urbanization of valley floors, fire suppression and encroachment of conifer forests, timber harvest of pine components in the oak forests, etc. Lewis’ woodpecker may encounter contaminated insects due to their foraging habits.

The 2005 R6 FEIS (Appendix P) assessed risk of herbicides to insectivorous birds. The exposure scenarios for insectivorous birds indicate that only NPE doses would exceed a threshold of concern in acute exposures at typical application rates. In order to receive this dose, the birds would have to feed exclusively on contaminated insects for an entire day’s feeding. The above-mentioned species forage in relatively large areas, sometimes several acres or more, and forage on a variety of plants and locations (e.g. tree limbs and boles, understory shrubs, bare ground, and bird feeders). Proposed backpack and

47 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

hand wand broadcast application of herbicides is proposed only along roadsides, utility corridors, and administrative sites. Other application methods treat individual plants and are unlikely to contaminate significant amounts of forage insects or seed. The patchy nature of proposed invasive plant treatments would make it unlikely for a single bird to feed exclusively on insects from treated patches, even in roadsides treated with hand-wand broadcast applications. However, adverse effects on some individual birds cannot be ruled out, due to lack of data on occurrence and foraging area within treatment areas.

Data on chronic exposure of birds to contaminated insects is lacking. Very conservative assumptions regarding herbicide residue on insects would indicate that several herbicides could exceed a threshold of concern in a chronic exposure scenario. However, chronic exposure thresholds of concern were established by daily doses for 90 days or more in laboratory studies. It seems highly unlikely that wild birds would feed exclusively on insects from treated patches of invasive plants for the length of time needed to acquire a chronic dose of concern.

Therefore, a “No Impact” determination to Lewis’ woodpecker habitat or species has been made for the proposed action.

Northwestern Pond Turtle Northwestern pond turtles are capable of living in a wide variety of aquatic habitats. The northwestern pond turtle inhabits marshes, ponds, lakes, reservoirs, sloughs, and slow moving portions of creeks and rivers (Nussbaum et al. 1983, Stebbins 1985, Brown et al. 1995). Pond turtles may also be found in abandoned gravel pits, stock ponds, and sewage treatment plants (Holland 1994). In the Rogue River drainage, records of pond turtle sightings are almost equally divided amongst rivers, larger-order streams, and small ponds (Holland 1994).

The size of habitats used by northwestern pond turtles is quite variable from place to place. Turtles have been observed using small ephemeral ponds only a few square meters in size (Holland 1994). On the other hand, turtles are also known to live in Upper Klamath Lake which covers an area of several dozen square kilometers. In areas where water is present only part of the year, turtles aestivate in the mud in the watercourse or in upland areas during late summer or early spring (Holland 1994). Pond turtles seem to prefer areas that possess some type of refugia such as undercut banks, submerged vegetation, rocks, logs, or mud (Nussbaum et al. 1983, Stebbins 1985, Holland 1994, Brown et al. 1995). Areas containing basking sites for thermoregulation such as rocks, logs, or emergent vegetation are also preferred (Nussbaum et al. 1983, Stebbins 1985, Holland 1994, Brown et al. 1995). Partially submerged logs, vegetation mats, mud banks, rocks, and tree branches provide areas for sunning (Nussbaum et. al. 1983, Stebbins 1985).

There is habitat for pond turtle within the proposed project area and several known sites along the length of the Rogue, Chetco and South Fork Coquille Rivers.

There are no direct impacts because suitable habitat would not be changed, removed or degraded by the proposed activities. The proposed action would have some small amount of indirect or cumulative impacts due to disturbance expected to occur to pond turtles.

48 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

Indirect effects to turtles could include impacts to invertebrate prey species if all mitigations are not followed and a spill that effects aquatic organisms were to occur. However, the proposed action with all mitigations in place should have no effect to turtles.

There could be some small amount of indirect impact to the turtle from the proposed action with mitigations, since the proposed action has the potential to cause disturbance to turtles at known sites. This can cause turtles to vacate basking sites and affect growth and productivity by lessening the time turtles are able to bask which is required for digestion of food and other physiological activities. However, this potential disturbance is likely lessened as turtles in the river may be habituated to high levels of ongoing activities within the river corridor.

Therefore, a determination of “May impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely con tribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species” for northwestern pond turtle habitat or species has been made for the proposed action.

California Slender Salamander In Oregon, the California slender salamander is only found along the southern Oregon coast (Cockran and Thoms 1996). This species is confined to humid, relatively low elevation coastal forests (Nussbaum et al. 1983, Cockran and Thoms 1996). California slender salamanders are most abundant in the redwood belt of northern California (Nussbaum et al. 1983, Cockran and Thoms 1996). During wet weather, individuals can be found on the forest floor under surface debris (Nussbaum et al. 1983, Cockran and Thoms 1996). During dry weather, individuals retreat to burrows in the ground or under or in partially-decayed logs (Nussbaum et al. 1983, Cockran and Thoms 1996).

The range and habitat type for this species is located entirely on the Gold Beach RD within the Chetco river watershed. The closest observation is 4.2 miles from a proposed treatment area.

California slender salamanders are not found along roadsides, utility corridors, administrative sites or forest openings where a majority of the invasive plant treatments are slated to occur.

Mechanical treatments near streams and springs can create ground disturbance that could introduce silt into salamander habitat, potentially clogging the gills of the salamanders and resulting in mortality. Little is known about the effects of herbicides other than the potential for some herbicides to cause mortality or result in malformations of amphibian larvae. Effects of herbicides to amphibians are discussed in the R6 EIS for Invasive Plants (Appendix P, pp. 28-31).

Because there is minimal overlap between actual treatment sites and salamander habitat, and project design feature minimize exposure to herbicides, a determination of “May impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely con tribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species” for California slender salamander habitat or species has been made for the proposed action.

Mardon Skipper Adult skippers feed on nectar from a variety of herbaceous plants though they also make use of other grass/forbs including such species as common camas (Camassia quamash), western buttercup

49 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

(Ranunculus occidentalis), and Idaho blue-eyed-grass (Sisyrinchium idahoense). The southern Oregon populations are reported as occupying small (0.5 – 10 ac.) high-elevation (4,500 – 5,100 ft.) grassy meadows with mixed conifer forests. Witt (2007) indicated an apparent association between this butterfly species and serpentine influenced meadows. In California, the populations are located on serpentine balds dominated by Festuca idahoensis in sparse Jeffery pine (Pinus jeffreyi) forests. In both the Oregon and California areas, frequent low-intensity fires are considered to have historically played an important role in maintaining grassland plant communities.

This butterfly is a Candidate species for Federal listing and is a species that may be present in the analysis area, as they contain serpentine meadows. The skipper is considered rare and known but from four widely separated locations: the south Puget Sound region (Washington), the southern Washington Cascades, the Siskiyou Mountains of southern Oregon, and coastal northern California (Black et al. 2002; Witt pers. comm.). A unique feature of this species is that it is reported as spending its entire life cycle in one location, without migration. Its dispersal distance is unknown. Eggs are laid into tufts of Festuca spp. bunchgrass upon which the larvae feed for approximately 3 months. Hibernation is believed to occur in the grass as well.

The dominant threat to this species is loss of habitat including loss via encroachment by invasive nonnative and native vegetation, and vegetative succession from grassland to forest (Pyle 1989). Habitats include 15-25 year-old tree plantations that are sparsely stocked and have a relatively high ground cover of grasses and forbs. Other occupied habitats include dry meadows with a dominant ground cover of Idaho fescue, to mesic or riparian sites with a dominate ground cover of fescues and pasture grasses. Strawberry, violets, and vetch are common flowering forbs that Mardon skipper have been observed using as nectar sources. It has been found that, at least in the southern Cascades populations, that in an area of suitable habitat such as a large meadow or meadow complex, the Mardon skipper may use only a small portion of the area (Kerwin 2005).

Invasive plants, such as Canada thistle and houndstongue, are present in a number of these meadows and are threatening the long-term habitat integrity for the Mardon skipper. Invasive plant species do not provide egg-laying or larval food plants.

There is a historical record of the skipper form 2 miles north of Gold Beach just inland of the beach. The skipper has been found at Lone Ranch Beach in Curry County north of Brookings during surveys in 2007. In 2008, another new site was located in the Signal Butte area on BLM land approximately 0.75 miles west of the forest boundary. No records currently exist for the Gold Beach Ranger District.

The invasive plant treatments are necessary to protect and restore the habitat for the mardon skipper (Kerwin 2007). The proposed treatments may adversely impact some individuals, but the management is necessary to provide for the long term preservation of the mardon skipper’s habitat. Strategies (similar to those required by the PDC) on conducting habitat management on multiple sites, using multiple methods, only treating portions of habitats at a time, and managing small populations of invasive plants, are recommended for other skipper species (Schlicht and Saunders 1995, as cited in Kerwin 2007) and should be effective for the mardon skipper. The practices required in the PDC will minimize potential adverse impacts to individuals.

Because manual and mechanical techniques are as likely to harm mardon skipper eggs or larvae as herbicide treatments, and the PDC is required for all alternatives, there is no meaningful difference between alternative in potential effects to Mardon skipper. A determination of “May impact

50 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

individuals or habitat, but will not likely con tribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species” for Mardon skipper habitat or species has been made for the proposed action.

Management Indicator Species (MIS) The wildlife report discusses why no impacts to MIS species are expected from this project. MIS species are osprey, pileated woodpecker, other woodpeckers, American marten, black-tailed deer and Roosevelt elk. None of these groups of species would be adversely affected by the Proposed Action. Effective invasive plant treatment is beneficial to restoring native plant communities that provide habitat for wildlife. Invasive plant treatments will not alter habitat for focal species in the Partner’s In Flight land bird conservation strategy. Manual and mechanical treatments are not likely to disturb nests of focal species. Some individuals of focal species could be exposed to herbicides by foraging on contaminated insects, but the likelihood of any dose of concern is remote.

Landbirds The Proposed Action would not remove or degrade habitat for any Birds of Conservation Concern. Removal of invasive plants would likely contribute to the integrity of habitat areas. The Wildlife Report contains further information.

Cumulative Effects to Wildlife This project does not contribute to any adverse cumulative effects to wildlife. None of the treatments are likely to adversely affect or impact any wildlife species and the scale of treatment is extremely small compared to the amount of habitat available. Localized positive impacts would be expected from restoration of healthier native plant ecosystems. Cultural Resources The Gold Beach and Powers Ranger Districts of the Rogue River - Siskiyou National Forest propose to treat invasive noxious weeds in various locations throughout both Districts. The proposed eradication process would include the application of herbicides and hand removal. Herbicide application would involve the cutting of larger invasive vegetation followed by application of the herbicide to the remaining stems with a hand sprayer (“hack and squirt”). Smaller plants would be pulled by hand.

The propossed action is not considered to be a ground disturbing activity. Therefore, the eradication of invasive noxious weeds is considered to be a non-undertaking excluded from case-by-case review. A non-undertaking is the type of activity that does not have the potential to cause effects on historic properties. This project complies with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, under the terms of the Programmatic Agreement (PA)of July 14, 2004, Appendix C, “No Potential To Cause Effects”. The Non-undertakings List includes: #2 – “Invasive plant species eradication through the application of herbicides and hand removal (including hand tools such as shovels to dig up roots)”. This letter shall be kept on file with the project NEPA analysis as supporting documentation. This documentation will also be submitted to the Forest Archeologist and shall be included in the annual report prepared by the Forest Service for the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

51 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

52 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes and non-Forest Service persons during the development of this environmental assessment: ID TEAM MEMBERS: The following people were the primary authors of this Draft EA. Many other Forest Service employees and others reviewed the document and provided input. Rochelle Desser Environmental Coordinator, TEAMS Enterprise A.S. Geo-technology; Interdisciplinary Studies Regional Invasive Plant NEPA Coord.

Clint Emerson District Botanist Rogue River-Siskiyou NF Gold Beach and Powers RD B.S. Botany and Plant Pathology, Oregon State University

James Simino District Fishery Biologist Rogue River-Siskiyou NF Gold Beach RD

John Lowe District Wildlife Biologist Rogue River-Siskiyou NF Powers RD

Joni Brazier Forest Soils Scientist/Project Hydrologist Rogue River-Siskiyou NF

Tex Martinek District Cultural Technician Rogue River-Siskiyou NF Powers RD FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES: Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) Curry County Noxious Weed Board Coos County Noxious Weed Board

53 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

TRIBES: Confederated Tribes of the Siletz OTHERS: Siskiyou Project References Anthony, R.G. 2006. Demographic characteristics of spotted owls (Strix occidentalis caurina) in the southern Cascades; Annual Research Report-Unpublished. Oregon State University.

Anthony, R.G. 2005. Demographic characteristics of spotted owls (Strix occidentalis caurina) in the southern Cascades; Annual Research Report-Unpublished. Oregon State University.

Anthony, R.G., E.D. Forsman, A.B. Franklin, D.R. Anderson, K.P. Burnham, G.C. White, C.J. Schwarz, J. Nichols, J.E. Hines, G.S. Olson, S.H. Ackers, S. Andrews, B.L. Biswell, P.C. Carlson, L.V. Diller, K.M. Dugger, K.E. Fehring, T.L. Fleming, R.P. Gerhardt, S.A. Gremel, R.J. Gutiérrez, P.J. Happe, D.R. Herter, J.M. Higley, R.B. Horn, L.L. Irwin, P.J. Loschl, J.A. Reid, and S.G. Sovern. 2004. Status and trends in demography of northern spotted owls, 1985-2003. Final Report to the Interagency Regional Monitoring Program, Portland, Oregon. September 2004. 179pp.

Aubry, K.B. and J.C. Lewis. 2003. Extirpation and reintroduction of fishers (Martes pennanti) in Oregon: implications for their conservation in the Pacific states. Biological Conservation 114 (1):79-90.

Aubry, K.B., C.M. Raley, T.J. Catton, and G.W. Tomb. 2002. Ecological characteristics of fishers in the southern Oregon Cascade Range: final progress report: 1 June, 2002. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Olympia, WA.

Barrett, N.M. 2008. Wildlife Biologist. Rogue River National Forest, Prospect, OR. Personal communications.

Bramble, W.C., Yahner, R.H., and Byrnes, W.R. 1999. Effect of Herbicide Maintenance of an Electric Transmission Line Right-of-Way on Butterfly Populations. J. Arboriculture 25(6):302-10.

Bramble, W.C., Yahner, R.H., and Byrnes, W.R. 1997. Effects of Herbicides on Butterfly Populations of an Electric Transmission Right-of-Way. J. Arboriculture 23(5):196-206.

Brown, H.A., R.B. Bury, D.M. Darda, L.V. Diller, C.R. Peterson, and R.M. Storm. 1995. Reptiles of Washington and Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, WA.

Buskirk, S.W. and R.A. Powell. 1994. Habitat ecology of fishers and American martens. In: Buskirk, S.W., Harestad, A.S., Raphael, M.G., Powell, R.A. (Eds.), Martens, Sables, and Fishers: Biology and Conservation. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, pp. 283-296.

Carey, A.B., C.C. Maguire, B.L. Biswell, and T.M. Wilson. 1999. Distribution and abundance of Neotoma in western Oregon and Washington. Northwest Science, Vol. 73, No. 2.

Castellano, M.A., J. E. Smith, T. O’Dell, E. Cázares and S. Nugent. 1999. Handbook to Strategy 1 Fungal Species in the Northwest Forest Plan. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-476.

Center for Biological Diversity. 2000. Petition to list the fisher (Martes pennanti) as and endangered species in its west coast range. Center for Biological Diversity, Tucson, Arizona, USA.

54 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

Christy, J. A. and D. H. Wagner. 1996. Guide for the identification of rare, threatened or sensitive bryophytes in the range of the northern spotted owl, western Washington, western Oregon and northwestern California. USDI- Bureau of Land Management, Eugene District; USDA-Forest Service, Siuslaw National Forest; The Nature Conservancy; and The Northwest Botanical Institute.

Clark, D.A. 2007. Demography and habitat selection of northern spotted owls in post-fire landscapes of southwestern Oregon. M.S. Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis. 202 pp.

Clayton, D. 2008. Wildlife Biologist. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Roseburg, OR. Personal communications.

Courtney, S.P., J.A. Blakesley, R.E. Bigley, M.L. Cody, J.P. Dumbacher, R.C. Fleischer, A.B. Franklin, J.F. Franklin, R.J. Gutiérrez, J.M. Marzluff, L. Sztukowski. 2004. Scientific evaluation of the status of the northern spotted owl. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute. Portland, Oregon. September 2004.

Courtney,SP, Carey, AB, Cody, ML, Engel, K, Fehring, KE, Franklin, JF, Fuller, MR, Gutiérrez,RJ, Lehmkuhl,JF, Hemstrom,MA, Hessburg, PF, Stephens,SL, Sztukowski, LA, Young, L. 2008. Scientific Review of the Draft Northern Spotted Owl Recovery Plan and Reviewer Comments. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute. Portland, OR.

Cross, S.P. 1973. Preliminary vertebrate faunal survey of the Ashland Research Natural Area. Unpublished Report. Southern Oregon College.

David Evans and Associates, Inc., 2003. Pistol River Watershed Analysis, Iteration 2.0. Prepared for: USDA Forest Service, Region 6, Siskiyou National Forest, Chetco Ranger District. January 2003. 154p.

Duncan, N., T. Burke, S. Dowlan, and P. Hohenlohe. 2003. Survey protocol for survey and manage terrestrial mollusk species from the Northwest Forest Plan. Version 3.0. USDI Bureau of Land Management, USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. Available from USDA Forest Service, Rogue River National Forest, Medford, OR.

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology. 1998. Hunter Creek Watershed Analysis. Prepared for: USDA Forest Service, Siskiyou National Forest, Gold Beach Ranger District. August 1998. 118p.

Forsman, E. and R. Anthony. 1999. Analysis of demographic rates of the northern spotted owl: Executive Summary. Oregon Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. Corvallis, Oregon.

Foster, D.E 1974. Ovipositional behavior of Chloealtis aspasma (Orthoptera: Acrididae). Pan Pacific Entomologist 50(2):207-208.

Franklin, A.B., K.P. Burnham, G.C. White, R.B. Anthony, E.D. Forsman, C. Schwarz, J.D. Nichols, and J. Hines. 1999. Range-wide status and trends in northern spotted owl populations. Colorado Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Hart, M.M., J.P. Copeland, and R.L. Redmond. 1997. Mapping wolverine habitat in the northern Rockies using a GIS. A poster presented at the Wildlife Society’s 4th Annual Conference. Snowmass Village, CO.

Hickman, James C. 1993. The Jepson Manual Higher Plants of California. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA. 1,400 pp.

55 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

Hitchcock, C. L. and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. Seattle, Washington.

Hobbs, G. A. 1968. Ecology of species of Bombus (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in southern Alberta. VII. Subgenus Bombus. Canadian Entomol. 100(2):156-164.

Hornocker, M.G. and H.S. Hash. 1981. Ecology of the wolverine in northwestern Montana. Canadian Journal of Zoology 59:1286-1301.

Janes, Stewart, John Kemper, Norman Barrett, Richard Cronberg, Jim Livaudias, Marjorie Moore, Thomas Phillips, Howard Sands, Gary Shaffer, Joseph Shelton, and Pepper Trail. 2002. The birds of Jackson County, Oregon – Distribution and Abundance. 28 pp.

Jones, J .L. and E. O. Garton. 1994. Selection of successional stages by fishers in north-central Idaho. In: Buskirk, S.W., Harestad, A.S., Raphael, M.G., Powell, R.A. (Eds.), Martens, Sables, and Fishers: Biology and Conservation. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, pp. 377-387.

Kerwin, A.E. 2007. Conservation assessment for the Mardon skipper butterfly (Polites mardon). USDA Forest Service Region 6, California, Oregon and Washington. USDI Bureau of Land Management, Oregon and Washington

Lawton, E. 1971. Moss Flora of the Pacific Northwest. The Hattori Botanical Laboratory. Nichinan, Japan.

Leonard, W.P., H.A. Brown, L.L.C. Jones, K.R. McAllister, and R.M. Storm. 1993. Amphibians of Washington and Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, WA.

Magoun, A.J., and J.P. Copeland. 1998. Characteristics of wolverine reproductive den sites. Journal of Wildlife Management 62(4):1313-1320.

Marshall, D.B. 1989. Status of the wolverine in Oregon. Unpublished report. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Portland, OR.

McCune, B. and L. Geiser. 1997. Macrolichens of the Pacific Northwest. Oregon State University Press. Corvallis, Oregon.

Meyer, L.C. and M.P. Amaranthus. 1979. Siskiyou National Forest Soil Resource Inventory. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. November 1979. 258p.

Mullens, L. and Showalter, R. 2007. Rare Plants of Southwest Oregon. USDA Forest Service & USDI Bureau of Land Management. Grants Pass, Oregon.

Nussbaum, R.A., E.D. Brodie Jr., and R.M. Storm. 1983. Amphibians and reptiles of the Pacific Northwest. University of Idaho Press. Moscow, ID.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 2008. Rogue River Basin Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). December 2008. http://www.deq.state.or.us/WQ/TMDLs/rogue.htm

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Oregon’s 2004/2006 Integrated Report Database. Accessed March 2009. http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/assessment/rpt0406/search.asp

56 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 2001. Upper South Fork Coquille Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). January 2001. http://www.deq.state.or.us/WQ/TMDLs/southcoast.htm

Oregon Natural Heritage Program Data Base. 2006. Portland, Oregon.

OR-WA Interagency Wildlife Committee 1989. Working Implementation Plan for Bald Eagle Recovery in Oregon and Washington.

Pagel, J.2006. Unpublished data: Peregrine falcon nest site data, 1983-2006 collected for PNW Interagency Peregrine Falcon Program. Ashland, OR.

Pierson, E.D., M.C. Wackenhut, J.S. Altenbach, P. Bradley, P. Call, D.L. Genter, C.E. Harris, B.L. Keller, B. Lengus, L. Lewis, B. Luce, K.W. Navo, J.M. Perkins, S. Smith, and L. Welch. 1999. Species conservation assessment and strategy for Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii and Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens). Idaho Conservation Effort, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho.

Popp, D. and F.B. Isaacs. 1995. Draft site-specific management plan for the Emigrant Lake bald eagle nest site. Oregon Eagle Foundation, Klamath Falls, OR.

Powell, R.A. 1993. The fisher: life history, ecology and behavior. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Powell, R.A. 1994. Effects of scale on habitat selection and foraging behavior of fishers in winter. Journal of Mammology 75 (2):349-356.

Powell, R.A. and W.J. Zielinski. 1994. Fisher. Pages 38-73 in L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, and W.J. Zielinski, editors. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experimental Station, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. Rehn, J.A.G. and M. Hebard. 1919. A new species of grasshopper of the genus Chloealtis (Acridinae) from the Pacific Coast. Trans. Amer. Entomol. Soc. 45:81-87.

Rice, P.M., Toney, C., Bedunah, D.J., and Carlson, C.E. 1997. Plant community diversity and growth form responses to herbicide applications for control of Centaurea maculosa. Journal of Applied Ecology 34:1397-412.

Rice, P.M., Toney, J. C., Bedunah, D.J., and Carlson, C.E. 1997. Elk winter forage enhancement by herbicide control of spotted knapweed. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25(3):627-33.

Schroeder, B. 2001. Winter carnivore visitations to bait stations in the Applegate River Basin: target species, fisher (Martes pennanti). Unpublished report. Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. Applegate Ranger District. SERA (Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc.). 2001. Preparation of Environmental Documentation and Risk Assessments. SERA MD 2001-01a. July 18, 2001. Syracuse Environmental Research Assoc., Inc. Fayetteville, New York. SERA (Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc.). 2003. Clopyralid - Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment – Peer Review Draft. SERA TR 02-43-17-03a. August 27, 2003. Syracuse Environmental Research Assoc., Inc. Fayetteville, New York. SERA (Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc.). 2003. Glyphosate - Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment - Final Report. SERA TR 02-43-09-04a. March 1, 2003. Syracuse Environmental Research Assoc., Inc. Fayetteville, New York.

57 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

SERA (Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc.). 2003. Imazapic - Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment – Peer Review Draft. SERA TR 02-43-17-04a. September 26, 2003. Syracuse Environmental Research Assoc., Inc. Fayetteville, New York. SERA (Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc.). 2003. Triclopyr - Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment – Final Report. SERA TR 02-43-13-03b. March 15, 2003. Syracuse Environmental Research Assoc., Inc. Fayetteville, New York. South Coast Watershed Council. Euchre Creek Watershed Analysis.

Stephen W. P. 1957. Bumble bees of western America (Hymenoptera: Apoidea). Oregon State College Agr. Exp. Sta.: Tech. Bull. No. 40. 163pp.

Sucoff, E., Nichols, T., and Lu, E. 2001. Herbicide Effects on Host Plants of Karner Blue Butterflyand on Butterfly Development from Egg to Adult. University of Minnesota. 151. Department of Forest Resources Staff Paper Series 151.

Thomas, J.W., E.D., Forsman, J.B. Lint, E.C. Meslow, B.R. Noon, and J. Verner. April 1990. A conservation strategy for the northern spotted owl: A report of the Interagency Scientific Committee to address the conservation of the northern spotted owl. USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management. Portland, Oregon. 427 pp.

Thomas, J.W., E.D., Forsman, J.B. Lint, E.C. Meslow, B.R. Noon, and J. Verner. April 1990. A conservation strategy for the northern spotted owl: A report of the Interagency Scientific Committee to address the conservation of the northern spotted owl. USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management. Portland, Oregon. 427 pp.

Thorp, R. W. 2003. Bumble bees (Hymenoptea: Apidae): commercial use and environmental concerns. Pp. 21- 40. In: K. Strickler and J. H. Cane (eds.). For nonnative crops, whence pollinators of the future? Thomas Say Publications in Entomology: Proceedings. Entomological Society of America, Lanham, MD. (204pp.)

Thorp, R. W., D. S. Horning, Jr., and L. L. Dunning. 1983. Bumble bees and cuckoo bumble bees of California. Bulletin of the California Insect Survey 23:1-79. Thorp, R. W., P. C. Schroeder, and C. S. Ferguson. 2003. Bumble bees: Boisterous pollinators of native California flowers. Fremontia 30(3-4):26-31 [Jul/Oct 2002distributed May 2003]. Tu, Mandy; Soll, Jonathan. (2004). Sandy River, Northern Oregon Knotweed Eradication at a Watershed Scale in the Pacific Northwest: A Success Story. [Online]. The Nature Conservancy. Available: http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/success/or002/or002.pdf. [Accessed April 4 2006]. Tu, M.; Hurd, C.; Randall, J. M. (2001). Weed Control Methods Handbook (April 2001), [Online handbook]. The Nature Conservancy. Available: http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/handbook.html. [ USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. (2006). Environmental Impact Statements. [Online documents]. Available: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/enviro_docs/index.html. [Access date unknown]. USDA Forest Service, 19xx. Land and resource management plan: Rogue-Siskiyou National Forest. Medford, OR: USDA Forest Service. (also referred to as the Rogue-Siskiyou National Forest Plan) USDA Forest Service; USDI Bureau of Land Management.1994. Record of Decision and Final Environmental Impact Statement for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl and Standards and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. (Please note these documents are also referred to as the Northwest Forest Plan)

58 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

USDA Forest Service. date. Regional Forester Sensitive Species List (Update). Forest Service Manual 2670. Portland, OR.: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. USDA Forest Service. 2005a. Pacific Northwest Region Final Environmental Impact Statement for Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants. Portland, OR.USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest (Region 6). Referred to as R6 2005 FEIS USDA Forest Service. 2005b. Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Record of Decision. Portland, OR.: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Referred to as R6 2005 ROD USDA Forest Service. 2005c Biological Assessments for USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Invasive Plant Program, Environmental Impact Statement. Portland, OR.: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. USDA Forest Service, 2005d Buckhead Knotweed Glyphosate Treatment Project, Willamette National Forest. USDA Forest Service. USDA Forest Service, 2006. Site-specific Invasive Plant Project Draft EIS for the Mount Hood National Forest and the Oregon portion of the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. USDA Forest Service, Sandy, Oregon. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. Recovery plan for the Pacific Bald Eagle. Portland, OR: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Review of Plant and Animal Taxa that are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species. Federal Register 61(40):7596-7613. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Biological Opinion and Letter of Concurrence for Effects to Bald Eagles, Marbled Murrelets, Northern Spotted Owls, Bull Trout, and Designated Critical Habitat for Marbled Murrelets and Northern Spotted Owls from Rogue-Siskiyou National Forest Program of Activities for August 5, 2003, to December 31, 2008. Lacey, WA: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office. USDA Forest Service. 1989. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP), Siskiyou National Forest. Siskiyou National Forest, Grants Pass.

USDA Forest Service. 1991. Forest Service Manual: wildlife, fish, and sensitive plant management (Section 2670), WO Amendment 2600-91-3, effective 5/31/91.

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Forest Service Manual: Series 2000 - National Forest Resource Management, WO Amendment 2000-95-5, effective 11/29/95 - Invasive Plant Management.

USDA/USDI. 1994A. Final supplemental environmental impact statement on management of habitat for late- successional and old growth forest related species within the range of the northern spotted owl. Forest Service/Bureau of Land Management. Portland, Oregon.

USDA-Forest Service/USDI-Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl, Standards and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl.

USDA-Forest Service/USDI-Bureau of Land Management. 2001. Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines. Portland, OR. 135 pp.

59 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

USDA-Forest Service/USDI-Bureau of Land Management. 2004. Record of Decision to Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Standards and Guidelines in Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl.

USDA Forest Service. 1978- 2008. Sensitive and endemic plant records and plant survey records on file at Gold Beach RD, Gold Beach, Oregon.

USDA Forest Service. 1998. Pistol River Watershed Analysis. Gold Beach Ranger District. Gold Beach, OR.

USDA Plants Database. http://plants.usda.gov/ 2009.

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Final Environmental Impact Statement: Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program, Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants.

USDA, Forest Service, 1999b. Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program: Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants. Record of Decision. Portland, Oregon.

USDA-Forest Service/USDI-Bureau of Land Management. ISSSSP Conservation Planning Tools. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/planning-tools/ USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Final recovery plan for the northern spotted owl, May 2008. Portland, Oregon.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: 12-month finding for petition to list the West Coast distinct population segment of the fisher (Martes pennanti); Proposed Rule. Federal Register, 50 CFR 17:69. p.18,769-18,792.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Formal and informal consultation and informal conferencing on habitat modification and noise disturbance timber harvest activities for fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, Portland, OR.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of critical habitat for the northern spotted owl; Final rule.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990a. 1990 status review of the northern spotted owl. Portland, Oregon

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: determination of threatened status for the northern spotted owl: final rule. Federal Register, 50 CFR 17:26,114-26,194.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. The northern spotted owl: a status review. Portland, Oregon.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. Recovery Plan for the Pacific Bald Eagle. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, OR. 160 pp.

USDA Forest Service, 2000. Lower Illinois River Watershed Analysis Below Silver Creek, Iteration 1.0. Gold Beach Ranger District, Siskiyou National Forest. 66p.

USDA Forest Service, 2000. Rogue River below Agness Watershed Analysis, Iteration 1.0. Gold Beach Ranger District, Siskiyou National Forest. 120p.

USDA Forest Service, 1999. Rogue River Watershed Analysis, Marial to Agness, Iteration 1.0. Gold Beach Ranger District, Siskiyou National Forest. 121p.

60 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

USDA Forest Service, 1998. Elk River Watershed Analysis, Iteration 2.0. Powers Ranger District, Siskiyou National Forest. 167p.

USDA Forest Service, 1997. Sixes River Watershed Analysis, Iteration 1.0. Powers Ranger District, Siskiyou National Forest.

USDA Forest Service, 1996a. Chetco River Watershed Analysis, Iteration 1.0. Chetco Ranger District, Siskiyou National Forest. 130p.

USDA Forest Service, 1996b. Bradford Creek Watershed Analysis, Iteration 1.0. Gold Beach Ranger District, Siskiyou National Forest. 45p.

USDA Forest Service, 1996c. Quosatana Creek Watershed Analysis, Iteration 1.0. Gold Beach Ranger District, Siskiyou National Forest. 61p.

USDA Forest Service, 1996d. Shasta Costa Creek Watershed Analysis, Iteration 1.0.

USDA Forest Service, 1995a. North Fork of the Smith River Watershed Analysis, Iteration 1.0. Chetco Ranger District, Siskiyou National Forest. 39p.

USDA Forest Service, 1995b. South Fork Coquille Watershed Analysis (WA), Iteration 1.0. Powers Ranger District, Siskiyou National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. November 1988. General Water Quality Best Management Practices. Pacific Northwest Region. 86p.

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2005. Soil Survey of Curry County, Oregon. CD-ROM Version, September 2005. 1044p.

USDA Soil Conservation Service. 1989. Soil Survey of Coos County, Oregon. 175p.

Verts, B.J., and L.N. Carraway. 1998. Land mammals of Oregon. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA.

Williams, P. H. 1998. An annotated checklist of bumble bees with an analysis of patterns

Zabel, C.J., J.R. Dunk, H.B. Stauffer, L.M. Roberts, B.S. Mulder, and A. Wright. 2003. Northern spotted owl habitat models for research and management application in California (USA). Ecological Applications 13(4):1027-1040.Zabel, C.J., K. McKelvey, and J.P. Ward Jr. 1995. Influence of primary prey on home-range size and habitat-use patterns of northern spotted owls (Strix occidentalis caurina). Canadian Journal of Zoology. 73:433-439.

61 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

Acronyms FSH – USDA Forest Service Handbook a.i. – Active ingredient FSM – Forest Service Manual ACHP – Advisory Council on Historic FWS – Fish and Wildlife Service Preservation FY – Fiscal Year APHIS – Agricultural Plant Health and Insect GIS – Geographic Information Systems Service GLEAMS – Groundwater Loading Effects of AQ – Aquatic Agricultural Management ATSDR – Agency for Toxic Substances and GMA – General Management Area Disease Registry HQ – Hazard Quotient ATV – All Terrain Vehicle ICBEMP – Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem AWA – Administratively Withdrawn Areas Management Project BCF – Bioconcentration factor IDT – Interdisciplinary Team BEE – Butoxyethyl Ester IWM – Integrated Weed Management LFL – Likely to Cause a Trend to Federal BIA – US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Listing or Loss of Viability Indian Affairs LOAEL – Lowest-Observed-Adverse-Effect BLM – US Department of the Interior, Bureau Level of Land Management LOC – Level of Concern BMP – Best Management Practices LSR – Late-Successional Reserve BPA – Bonneville Power Administration MA-LAA – May Affect, Likely to Adversely CAS – Chemical Abstract Service Affect CBI – Confidential Business Information MA-NLAA – May Affect, Not Likely to CE – Cumulative Effect Adversely Affect CFR – Code of Federal Regulations MI-NLFL – May Impact Individual, but Not CHU – Critical Habitat Unit Likely to Cause a Trend to Federal Listing CTWS – Confederate Tribes of Warm Springs or Loss of Viability CWA – Clean Water Act MIS – Management Indicator Species DEIS – Draft Environmental Impact Statement MSDS – Materials Safety Data Sheet DEQ – Department of Environmental Quality NAA – Not Adversely Affected DPS – Distinct Population Segment NC – Nature Conservancy EDRR – Early Detection/ Rapid Response NE – No Effect EA – Environmental Assessment NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act EFH – Essential Fish Habitat NFMA – National Forest Management Act EIS – Environmental Impact Statement NHPA – National Historic Preservation Act ESU – Evolutionary Significant Unit NI – No Impact EO – Executive Order NIS – Non-Ionic Surfactants EPA – Environmental Protection Agency NLAA – Not Likely to Adversely Affect ESA – Endangered Species Act NMFS – National Marine Fisheries Service FDA – US Food and Drug Administration NOAA – National Oceanic and Atmospheric FEIS – Final Environmental Impact Statement Administration, US Department of Commerce FEMAT – Forest Ecosystem Management NOEC – No Observable Effects Concentration Assessment Team NOAEL – No-Observed-Adverse-Effect Level FHP – Forest Health Protection NOEL – No-Observed-Effect-Level FIRFA – Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and NOI – Notice of Intent Rodenticide Act NPE – Nonylphenol Polyethoxylate

62 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

NRF – Nesting, Roosting and Foraging Habitat NRIS – National Resource Information System NVUM – National Visitor Use Monitoring NWFP – Northwest Forest Plan ORV – Outstandingly Remarkable Values OSHA – Occupational Safety and Health Administration OSS – Oregon Slender salamander PAYCO – Payments to Counties PCE – Primary Constituent Elements PDFs – Project Design Features PIF – Partners in Flight POEA – Polyethoxylated Tallow Amine PPE – Personal Protective Equipment PVT – Potential Vegetation Type RfD – Reference Dose R6 – USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region (Washington and Oregon) ROD – Record of Decision SERA – Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. SHPO – State Historic Preservation Office SMA – Special Management Area SRI – Soil Resource Inventory TCP – 3,5,6-Thrichloro-2-Pyridinol TEA – Triethylamine TES – Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive species USDA Forest Service – United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service USDI – United States Department of the Interior

63 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

Glossary

Active ingredient (a.i.) - In any pesticide product, the component (a chemical or biological substance) that kills or otherwise controls the target pests. Pesticides are regulated primarily on the basis of active ingredients. The remaining ingredients are called “inerts.” Acute effect - An adverse effect on any living organism in which severe symptoms develop rapidly and often subside after the exposure stops. Acute exposure - A single exposure or multiple brief exposures occurring within a short time (e.g., 24 hours or less in humans). The classification of multiple brief exposures as “acute” is dependant on the life span of the organism. (See also, chronic exposure and cumulative exposure.) Acute toxicity - Any harmful effect produced in an organism through an acute exposure to one or more chemicals. Adaptation - Changes in an organism's physiological structure or function or habits that allow it to survive in new surroundings. Adapted - How well organisms are physiologically or structurally suited for survival, growth, and resistance to pests and diseases in a particular environment. Additive effect - A situation in which the combined effects of exposure to two chemicals simultaneously is equal to the sum of the effect of exposure to each chemical given alone. The effect most commonly observed when an organism is exposed to two chemicals together is an additive effect. Adaptive management - A continuing process of action-based planning, monitoring, researching, evaluating, and adjusting with the objective of improving implementation and achieving the goals of the standards and guidelines. Adjuvant(s) - Chemicals that are added to pesticide products to enhance the toxicity of the active ingredient or to make the active ingredient easier to handle or mix. Administratively Withdrawn Areas (AWA) - Areas removed from the suitable timber base through agency direction and land management plans. Adsorption - The tendency of one chemical to adhere to another material such as soil. Aerobic - Life or processes that require, or are not destroyed by, the presence of oxygen. (See also, anaerobic.) Affected Environment - Existing biological, physical, social, and economic conditions of an area subject to change, both directly and indirectly, as the result of a proposed human action. Agent - Any substance, force, radiation, organism, or influence that affects the body. The effects may be beneficial or injurious. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) - Federal agency within the Public Health Service charged with carrying out the health-related analyses under Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA). Alien species - “With respect to a particular ecosystem, any species, including its seeds, eggs, spores, or other biological material capable of propagating that species, that is not native to that ecosystem” (Executive Order 13122, 2/3/99). (See also, invasive, noxious, and weed species.) Allelopathy - The suppression of growth of one plant species due to the release of toxic substances by another plant.

64 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

Alluvial - Relating to clay, silt, sand, gravel, or similar detrital material deposited by flowing water. Alluvial deposits may occur after a heavy rain storm. Ambient - Usual or surrounding conditions. Amphibian - Any of a class of cold-blooded vertebrates (including frogs, toads, or salamanders) intermediate in many characteristics between fishes and reptiles and having gilled aquatic larvae and air-breathing adults. Anadromous - Fish that spend their adult life in the sea but swim upriver to fresh water spawning grounds to reproduce. Anaerobic - Life or process that occurs in, or is not destroyed by, the absence of oxygen. (See also, aerobic.) Anions - Negatively charged ions in solution e.g., hydroxyl or OH- ion. (See also, cations.) Annual - A plant that endures for not more than a year. A plant which completes its entire life cycle from germinating seedling to seed production and death within a year. Annuity - Payment or receipt of a series of equal amounts at stated intervals for a specified number of time periods. An “annuity due” is a series of equal value outputs or inputs occurring for N equal time periods with “payments” made at the beginning of each period. Anoxia - Literally, "without oxygen.” A deficiency of oxygen reaching the tissues of the body especially of such severity as to result in permanent damage. Aquatic Influence Zone – The inner half of a Riparian Reserve. Aqueous - Describes a water-based solution or suspension. Aquifer - An underground geological formation, or group of formations, containing usable amounts of groundwater that can supply wells and springs. Arid - A terrestrial region lacking moisture, or a climate in which the rainfall is not sufficient to support the growth of most vegetation. Background level - In pollution, the level of pollutants commonly present in ambient media (air, water, soil.) Bacteria - Microscopic living organisms that metabolize organic matter in soil, water, or other environmental media. Some bacteria can also cause human, animal and plant health problems. Basal application - In pesticides, the spreading of a chemical on stems or trunks of plants just above the soil line. Base - Substances that (usually) liberate hydroxyl (OH-) anions when dissolved in water and weaken a strong acid. Benchmark - A dose associated with a defined effect level or designated as a no effect level. Benthic region - The bottom layer of a body of water. Benthos - The plants and animals that inhabit the bottom layer of a water body. Best Management Practices (BMP) - A practice or combination of practices determined by a state or an agency to be the most effective and practical means (technological, economic, and institutional) of controlling point and non-point source pollutants at levels compatible with environmental quality. Bioaccumulation - The increase in concentration of a substance in living organisms as they take in contaminated air, water, or food because the substance is very slowly metabolized or excreted (often concentrating in the body fat.) Bioassay - (1) To measure the effect of a substance, factor, or condition using living organisms. (2) A test to determine the toxicity of an agent to an organism. Bioconcentration - The accumulation of a chemical in tissues of a fish or other organism to

65 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

levels greater than in the surrounding water or environment. Bioconcentration Factor (BCF) - The concentration of a compound in an aquatic organism divided by the concentration in the ambient water of the organism. Biodegradability - Susceptibility of a substance to decomposition by microorganisms; specifically, the rate at which compounds may be chemically broken down by bacteria and/or natural environmental factors. Biodiversity or biological diversity - The diversity of living things (species) and of life patterns and processes (ecosystem structures and functions). Includes genetic diversity, ecosystem diversity, landscape and regional diversity, and biosphere diversity. Biological control - The use of natural enemies, including invertebrate parasites and predators (usually insects, mites, and nematodes,) and plant pathogens to reduce populations of nonnative, invasive plants. Biological magnification - The process whereby certain substances such as pesticides or heavy metals increase in concentration as they move up the food chain. Biologically sensitive - A term used to identify a group of individuals who, because of their developmental stage or some other biological condition, are more susceptible than the general population to a chemical or biological agent in the environment. Biomass - The amount of living matter. Biota or Biome - All living organisms of a region or system. Body Burden - The amount of a chemical stored in the body at a given time, especially a potential toxin in the body as the result of exposure. Broadcast application - Herbicide treatment method generally used along roads; boom truck spray is directed at target species. Broadcast methods are used for larger infestations where spot treatments would not be effective. Bryophytes - Plants of the phylum Bryophyta, including mosses, liverworts, and hornworts; characterized by the lack of true roots, stems, and leaves. Buffer Zone - A strip of untreated land that separates a waterway or other environmentally sensitive area from an area being treated with pesticides. Candidate species - Those plant and animal species that, in the opinion of the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) or National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries, may qualify for listing as “endangered” or “threatened.” The FWS recognizes two categories of candidates. Category 1 candidates are taxa for which the FWS has on file sufficient information to support proposals for listing. Category 2 candidates are taxa for which information available to the FWS indicates that proposing to list is possibly appropriate, but for which sufficient data are not currently available to support proposed rules. Capillary fringe - The zone above the water table within which the soil or rock is saturated by water under less than atmospheric pressure. Carcinogen - A chemical capable of inducing cancer. Carrier - A non-pesticidal substance added to a commercial pesticide formulation to make it easier to handle or apply. Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) Registry Number - An assigned number used to identify a chemical. Chemical Abstracts Service is an organization that indexes information published in Chemical Abstracts by the American Chemical Society and that provides index guides to help locate information about particular substances in the abstracts. Sequentially assigned CAS numbers identify specific chemicals. The numbers have no chemical

66 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

significance. The CAS number is a concise, unique means of chemical identification. Cations - Positively charged ions in a solution. (See also, anion.) Characteristic Landscape - The naturally established landscape within a scene or scenes being viewed. Chemical Control - The use of naturally derived or synthetic chemicals called herbicides to eliminate or control the growth of invasive plants. Chronic exposure - Exposures that extend over the average lifetime or for a significant fraction of the lifetime of the species (for a rat, chronic exposure is typically about two years). Chronic exposure studies are used to evaluate the carcinogenic potential of chemicals and other long-term health effects. (See also, acute and cumulative exposure.) Chronic Reference Dose (RfD) - An estimate of a lifetime daily exposure level (in mg/kg/day) for the human population, including sensitive subpopulations, that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects. Chronic RfDs are specifically developed to be protective for long-term exposure to a compound (seven years to lifetime.) Chronic toxicity - The ability of a substance or mixture of substances to cause harmful effects over an extended period, usually upon repeated or continuous exposure sometimes lasting for the entire life of the exposed organism. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) - Document that codifies all rules of the executive departments and agencies of the federal government. It is divided into fifty volumes, known as titles. Title 40 of the CFR (referenced as 40 CFR) lists all environmental regulations, including regulations for EPA pesticide programs (40 CFR Parts 150-189). Competitive seeding - Treatment method; most effective after weed populations have been reduced by other control actions. Congressionally Reserved Areas (CRA) - Areas that require Congressional enactment for their establishment, such as National Parks, Wild and Scenic Rivers, National Recreation Areas, National Monuments, and wilderness. Also referred to as Congressional Reserves. Includes similar areas established by Executive Order, such as National Monuments. Conifer - An order of the Gymnospermae, comprising a wide range of trees and a few shrubs, mostly evergreens that bear cones and have needle-shaped or scale-like leaves. Conifer timber is commercially identified as softwood. Connected actions - Exposure to other chemical and biological agents, in addition to exposure to a specific pesticide formulation in a field application to control pest organisms. Contaminants - For chemicals, impurities present in a commercial grade chemical. For biological agents, other agents that may be present in a commercial product. Control - Means, as appropriate, eradicating, suppressing, reducing, or managing invasive species populations, preventing spread of invasive species from areas where they are present, and taking steps such as restoration of native species and habitats to reduce the effects of invasive species and to prevent further invasions (Executive Order 13122, 2/3/99). Cultural control - The establishment or maintenance of competitive vegetation, use of fertilizing, mulching, prescribed burning, or grazing animals to control or eliminate invasive plants. Cumulative Effect (CE) - The impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions—regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, actions taking place over a period of time (40 CFR 1508.7).

67 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

Cumulative exposure - Exposure resulting from one or more activities that are repeated over a period of time. (See also, acute and chronic exposure.) Detritus - Loose fragments, particles, or grains formed by the disintegration of organic matter or rocks. Discount - In economics, discounting is the process of carrying an end value backward in time at compound interest. Distance Zones - Landscape areas denoted by specified distances from the observer. Used as a frame of reference in which to discuss landscape attributes or the scenic effect of human activities in a landscape. Disturbance - An effect of a planned human management activity, or unplanned native or exotic agent or event that changes the state of a landscape element, landscape pattern, or regional composition. Dosage/Dose - (1) The actual quantity of a chemical administered to an organism or to which it is exposed. (2) The amount of a substance that reaches a specific tissue (e.g. the liver). (3) The amount of a substance available for interaction with metabolic processes after crossing the outer boundary of an organism. Dose Rate - In exposure assessment, dose per time unit (e.g. mg/day); also called dosage. Dose Response - Changes in toxicological responses of an individual (such as alterations in severity of symptoms) or populations (such as alterations in incidence) that are related to changes in the dose of any given substance. Drift - The portion of a sprayed chemical that is moved by wind off of a target site. Emergent Vegetation - Plants growing out of or standing in water, in contrast to “submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV),” which grows entirely underneath the waters’ surface. Endangered Species - Any species listed in the Federal Register as being in danger of extinction throughout all, or a significant portion, of its range. Endangered Species Act (ESA) - A law passed in 1973 to conserve species of wildlife and plants, determined by the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the NOAA Fisheries to be endangered or threatened with extinction in all or a significant portion of its range. Among other measures, ESA requires all federal agencies to conserve these species and consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service or NOAA Fisheries on federal actions that may affect these species or their designated critical habitat. Endemic - A species or other taxonomic group that is restricted to a particular geographic region due to factors such as isolation or response to soil or climatic conditions. (Compare to “Indigenous” and “Native.”) Environmental justice - Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994 requires federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States and its territories and possessions, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the commonwealth of the Mariana Islands. Exposure assessment - The process of estimating the amount of contact with a chemical or biological agent that an individual or a population of organisms will receive from a pesticide application conducted under specific, stated circumstances. Exotic – Non-native species; introduced from elsewhere, but not completely naturalized. (See also alien and introduced species.)

68 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

Extirpate - To destroy completely; wipe out. Extrapolation - The use of a model to make estimates of values of a variable in an unobserved interval from values within an already observed interval. Fauna - The animals of a specified region or time. Federally listed species - Formally listed as a threatened or endangered species under the Endangered Species Act. Designations are made by the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service. Federal Insecticide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Pesticide Ingredient - An ingredient of a pesticide that must be registered with EPA under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. Products making pesticide claims must submit required information to EPA to register under FIFRA and may be subject to labeling and use requirements. Fertilization - Treatment method involving adding of nutrients, which could improve the success of desirable species; may be limited, depending on species/soil characteristics. Flora - Plant life, especially all the plants found in a particular country, region, or time regarded as a group. Also, a systematic set of descriptions of all the plants of a particular place or time. Foaming - Hot foam is a mechanical method that is effective on seedlings and annuals and can be applied under certain weather conditions, including wind and light rain. Food chain - A hierarchical sequence of organisms, each of which feeds on the next, lower member of the sequence. Forage - Food for animals. In this document, term applies to both availability of plant material for wildlife and domestic livestock. Formulation - A commercial preparation of a chemical including any inerts and/or contaminants. Fungi - Molds, mildews, yeasts, mushrooms, and puffballs, a group of organisms that lack chlorophyll and therefore are not photosynthetic. They are usually non-mobile, filamentous, and multi-cellular. Game fish - Species like trout, salmon, or bass, caught for sport. Many of them show more sensitivity to environmental change than non-game fish. Grazing animals - Treatment method which requires matching the invasive species with the appropriate grazer for best success. Groundwater Loading Effects of Agricultural Management Systems (GLEAMS) – A model which displays herbicide concentrations in streams under a variety of conditions. Groundwater - The supply of fresh water found beneath the Earth's surface, usually in aquifers, which often supply wells and springs. Habitat - The place where a population (e.g., human, animal, plant, microorganism) lives and its surroundings, both living and non-living. Halftime or half-life - The time required for the concentration of the chemical to decrease by one-half. Hand/Selective application- Herbicide treatment of individual plants through wicking, wiping, injecting stems, etc., with low likelihood of drift or delivery of herbicides away from treatment sites. This method ensures no herbicide directly contacts soil. Hand-pulling/Grubbing - Treatment method which is labor-intensive but effective on single plants or on small, low-density infestations. Hazard Quotient (HQ) - The ratio of the estimated level of exposure to a substance from a specific pesticide application to the RfD for that substance, or to some other index of

69 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

acceptable exposure or toxicity. A HQ less than or equal to one is presumed to indicate an acceptably low level of risk for that specific application. Hazard identification - The process of identifying the array of potential effects that an agent may induce in an exposed of humans or other organisms. Herbaceous - A plant that does not develop persistent woody tissue above the ground (annual, biennial, or perennial.) Herbaceous vegetation includes grasses and grass-like vegetation, and broadleaved forbs. Herbicide - A chemical preparation designed to kill plants, especially weeds, or to otherwise inhibit their growth. Humus - Organic portion of the soil remaining after prolonged microbial decomposition. Tribal and Treaty Rights - Native American treaty and other rights or interests recognized by treaties, statutes, laws, executive orders, or other government action, or federal court decisions. Indian Tribe - Any American Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band, nation, pueblo, community, rancheria, colony, or group meeting the provisions of the Code of Federal Regulations Title 25, Section 83.7 (25 FR 83.7), or those recognized in statutes or treaties with the United States. Indigenous - An indigenous species is any which were or are native or inherent to an area. (See also, native.) Inerts - Anything other than the active ingredient in a pesticide product; not having pesticide properties. Infested area - A contiguous area of land occupied by, in this case, invasive plant species. An infested area of land is defined by drawing a line around the actual perimeter of the infestation as defined by the canopy cover of the plants, excluding areas not infested. Generally, the smallest area of infestation mapped will be 1/10th (0.10) of an acre or 0.04 hectares. Integrated Weed Management (IWM) - An interdisciplinary weed management approach for selecting methods for preventing, containing, and controlling noxious weeds in coordination with other resource management activities to achieve optimum management goals and objectives. Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) - A group of individuals with varying areas of specialty assembled to solve a problem or perform a task. The team is assembled out of recognition that no one scientific discipline is sufficiently broad enough to adequately analyze the problem and propose action. Introduced species - An alien or exotic species that has been intentionally or unintentionally released into an area as a result of human activity. (See also exotic, invasive, and noxious.) Introduction - “The intentional or unintentional escape, release, dissemination, or placement of a species into an ecosystem as a result of human activity” (Executive Order 13122, 2/3/99). Invasive plant species - An alien plant species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health (Executive Order 13122, 2/3/99). (See also exotic and introduced species.) Irreversible effect - Effect characterized by the inability of the body to partially or fully repair injury caused by a toxic agent. Irritant - Non-corrosive material that causes a reversible inflammatory effect on living tissue by chemical action at the site of contact as a function of concentration or duration of

70 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

exposure. LC50 (Lethal Concentration50) - A calculated concentration of a chemical in air or water to which exposure for a specific length of time is expected to cause death in 50 percent of a defined experimental animal population. LD50 (Lethal Dose50) - The dose of a chemical calculated to cause death in 50 percent of a defined experimental animal population over a specified observation period. The observation period is typically 14 days. Label - All printed material attached to, or part of, the pesticide container. Land allocation - Commitment of a given area of land or a resource to one or more specific uses (e.g. wilderness). In the Northwest Forest Plan, one of the seven allocations of Congressionally Withdrawn Areas, Late-Successional Reserves, Adaptive Management Areas, Managed Late-Successional Areas, Administratively Withdrawn Areas, Riparian Reserves, or Matrix. Landscape - An area composed of interacting ecosystems that are repeated because of geology, land form, soils, climate, biota, and human influences throughout the area. Landscapes are generally of a size, shape, and pattern which is determined by interacting ecosystems. Landscape Character - Particular attributes, qualities, and traits of a landscape that give it an image and make it identifiable or unique. Landscape Setting - The context and environment in which a landscape is set; a landscape backdrop. It is the combination of land use, landform, and vegetation patterns that distinguish an area in appearance and character from other areas. Leachate - Water that collects chemicals as it trickles through soil or other porous media containing the chemicals. Leaching - The process by which chemicals on or in soil or other porous media are dissolved and carried away by water, or are moved into a lower layer of soil. Level of Concern (LOC) - The concentration in media or some other estimate of exposure above which there may be effects. Lichens - Complex thallophytic plants comprised of an alga and a fungus growing in symbiotic association on a solid surface (such as a rock.) Littoral zone - (1) That portion of a body of fresh water extending from the shoreline lakeward to the limit of occupancy of rooted plants. (2) The strip of land along the shoreline between the high and low water levels. Lowest-Observed-Adverse-Effect Level (LOAEL) - The lowest dose of a chemical in a study, or group of studies, that produces statistically or biologically significant increases in frequency or severity of adverse effects between the exposed and control populations. Manual Control - The use of any non-mechanized approach to control or eliminate invasive plants (i.e. hand-pulling, grubbing.) Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) - A compilation of information required under the OSHA Communication Standard on the identity of hazardous chemicals, health and physical hazards, exposure limits, and precautions. Mechanical Control - The use of any mechanized approach to control or eliminate invasive plants (i.e. mowing, weed whipping, hot foam.) Microorganisms - A generic term for all organisms consisting only of a single cell, such as bacteria, viruses, protozoa and some fungi. Minimum tool - Use of a weed treatment alternative that would accomplish management

71 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

objectives and have the least impact on resources. Mitigation measures - Modifications of actions taken to: (1) avoid impacts by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; (2) minimize impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation; (3) rectify impacts by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; (4) reduce or eliminate impacts over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; or, (5) compensate for impacts by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. Modification - A visual quality objective meaning human activities may dominate the characteristic landscape but must, at the same time, utilize naturally established form, line, color, and texture. It should appear as a natural occurrence when viewed in foreground or middleground. Mollusks - Invertebrate animals (such as slugs, snails, clams, or squids) that have a soft, un- segmented body, usually enclosed in a calcareous shell; representatives found on National Forest System land include snails, slugs, and clams. Monitoring - A process of collecting information to evaluate if objectives and anticipated or assumed results of a management plan are being realized or if implementation is proceeding as planned. Morbidity - Rate of disease, injury or illness. Mowing - Invasive plant treatment method which is limited to level/gently-sloping smooth- surface terrain. Treatment timing is critical, and must be conducted for several consecutive years. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) - An Act passed in 1969 to declare a national policy that encourages productive and enjoyable harmony between humankind and the environment, promotes efforts that prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere, stimulates the health and welfare of humanity, enriches the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the nation, and establishes a Council on Environmental Quality. National Forest Management Act (NFMA) - A law passed in 1976 as an amendment to the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act, requiring preparation of Forest Plans and the preparation of regulations to guide that development. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) - The federal agency that is the listing authority for marine mammals and anadromous fish under the ESA. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) - As authorized by the Clean Water Act, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States. Point sources are discrete conveyances such as pipes or man-made ditches. Individual homes that are connected to a municipal system, use a septic system, or do not have a surface discharge do not need an NPDES permit; however, industrial, municipal, and other facilities must obtain permits if their discharges go directly to surface waters. National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) - A permanent, ongoing sampling system which measures national forest visitor demographics, experiences, preferences, and impressions. A stratified random sample is done for 25% of the National Forest system each year according

72 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

to a national research protocol. NVUM responds to the need to better understand the use and importance of, and satisfaction with, national forest system recreation opportunities. National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS) - The Wilderness Act of 1964 established the national Wilderness Preservation System to ensure that certain federally owned areas in the United States would be preserved and protected in their natural condition. The Act defines a wilderness area, in part, as an area which generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable. Areas included in the system are administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such manner as to leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness. Native species - With respect to a particular ecosystem, a species that, other than as a result of an introduction, historically occurred or currently occurs in that ecosystem (Executive Order 13122, 2/3/99). Naturalized - Applied to a species that originally was imported from another country but that now behaves like a native in that it maintains itself without further human intervention and has invaded native populations. Non-local native - This term has two meanings: (1) a population of a native plant species which does not occur naturally in the local ecosystem and/or (2) plant material of a native species that does not originate from genetically local sources. Non-target species - Any plant or animal that is not the intended organism to be controlled by a pesticide treatment. No-Observed-Adverse-Effect level (NOAEL) - Exposure level at which there are no statistically or biological significant differences in the frequency or severity of any adverse effect in the exposed or control populations. No-Observed-Effect-Level (NOEL) - Exposure level at which there are no statistically or biological significant differences in the frequency or severity of any effect in the exposed or control populations. Not Likely to Adversely Affect (NLAA) - Determinations are applied to those species that had very little habitat on National Forests in Region Six, were not in habitats susceptible to invasive plants, or were known to tolerate herbicide treatments without effects. Noxious weed - “Any living stage (including but not limited to, seeds and reproductive parts) of any parasitic or other plant of a kind, or subdivision of a kind, which is of foreign origin, is new to or not widely prevalent in the United States, and can directly or indirectly injure crops, other useful plants, livestock, or poultry or other interests of agriculture, including irrigation, or navigation or the fish and wildlife resources of the United States or the public health” (Public Law 93-629, January 3, 1975, Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974). Outstandingly Remarkable Value (ORV) - A characteristic of rivers or sections of rivers in the national Wild and Scenic River System. In order for a river to be included in the system, it must possess at least one “outstandingly remarkable” value, such as scenic, recreational, geologic, fish, wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar features. ORV’s are values or opportunities in a river corridor which are directly related to the river and which are rare, unique, or exemplary from a regional or national perspective. Partial Retention - A visual quality objective which in general means human activities may be evident but must remain subordinate to the characteristic landscape. Pathogen - A living organism, typically a bacteria or virus, that causes adverse effects in another organism.

73 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

Percolation - Downward flow or filtering of water through pores or spaces in rock or soil. Perennial - A plant species having a life span of more than two years. Periphyton - Microscopic plants and animals that are firmly attached to solid surfaces under water such as rocks, logs, pilings and other structures. Persistence - Refers to the length of time a compound, once introduced into the environment, stays there. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) - Clothing and equipment worn by pesticide mixers, loaders and applicators and re-entry workers, hazmat emergency responders, workers cleaning up Superfund sites, et. al., which is worn to reduce their exposure to potentially hazardous chemicals and other pollutants. Pest - An insect, rodent, nematode, fungus, weed or other form of terrestrial or aquatic plant or animal life that is classified as undesirable because it is injurious to health or the environment. Pesticide - Any substance used for controlling, preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest. Includes fungicides, herbicides, fumigants, insecticides, nematicides, rodenticides, desiccants, defoliants, plant growth regulators, etc. Pesticide tolerance - The amount of pesticide residue allowed by law to remain in or on a harvested crop. pH - The negative log of the hydrogen ion concentration. A high pH (greater than seven) is alkaline or basic and a low pH (less than seven) is acidic. Population - A group of individuals of the same species in an area. Population at Risk - A population subgroup that is more likely to be exposed to a chemical, or is more sensitive to the chemical, than is the general population. Porosity - Degree to which soil, gravel, sediment, or rock is permeated with pores or cavities through which water or air can move. Potable Water - Water that is considered safe for drinking and cooking. Project Design Features/Features (PDC, PDF) - A set of implementation Design Features/features applied to projects to ensure that the project is done according to environmental standards and adverse effects are within the scope of those predicted in this Environmental Impact Statement. Proposed species - Any plant or animal species that is proposed by the Fish and Wildlife Service or NOAA Fisheries in a Federal Register notice to be listed as threatened or endangered. Potential Vegetation Type (PVT) - The term Potential Vegetation Type is used to represent the combination of species that could occupy the site in the absence of disturbance. Protozoa - Single-celled, microorganisms without cell walls containing visibly evident nuclei and organelles. Most protozoa are free-living although many are parasitic. Recreational Rivers - A classification within the national Wild and Scenic River System. Recreational rivers are those rivers, or sections of rivers, that are readily accessible by road or railroad, that may have some development along their shorelines, and that may have undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past. Reference Dose (RfD) - The RfD is a numerical estimate of a daily exposure to the human population, including sensitive subgroups such as children, that is not likely to cause harmful effects during a lifetime. RfDs are generally used for health effects that are thought to have a threshold or minimum dose for producing effects. Registered Pesticides - Pesticide products which have been approved for the uses listed on

74 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

the label. Registration - Formal licensing with EPA of a new pesticide before it can be sold or distributed. Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, EPA is responsible for registration (pre-market licensing) of pesticides on the basis of data demonstrating no unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment when applied according to approved label directions. Restoration - Ecological restoration is the process of assisting the recovery and management of ecological integrity. Ecological integrity includes a critical range of variability in biodiversity, ecological processes and structures, regional and historical context, and sustainable cultural practices. Retention - A visual quality objective which in general means human activities are not evident to the casual forest visitor. Revegetation - The re-establishment of plants on a site. The term does not imply native or nonnative; does not imply that the site can ever support any other types of plants or species and is not at all concerned with how the site ‘functions’ as an ecosystem. Riparian Area - A geographic area containing an aquatic ecosystem and adjacent upland areas that directly affect it. Riparian Reserves - Areas along live and intermittent streams, wetlands, ponds, lakes, and unstable and potentially unstable areas where riparian-dependent resources receive primary emphasis. Riparian Reserves are important to the terrestrial ecosystem as well, serving as dispersal habitat for certain terrestrial species. Risk Assessment - An analytic process that is firmly based on scientific considerations, but also requires judgments to be made when the available information is incomplete. These judgments inevitably draw on both scientific and policy considerations. Risk - The chance of an adverse or undesirable effect, often measured as a percentage. Risk assessment - The qualitative and quantitative evaluation performed in an effort to estimate the risk posed to human health and/or the environment by the presence or potential presence and/or use of specific chemical or biological agents. Saturated zone - A subsurface area in which all pores and cracks are filled with water under pressure equal to or greater than that of the atmosphere. Scenery Management - The art and science of arranging, planning, and designing landscape attributes relative to the appearance of places and expanses in outdoor settings. Scenic - Of or relating to landscape scenery; pertaining to natural or natural-appearing scenery; constituting or affording pleasant views of natural landscape attributes or positive cultural elements. Scenic Integrity - State of naturalness or, conversely, the state of disturbance created by human activities or alteration. Integrity is stated in degrees of deviation from the existing landscape character in a national forest. Scenic Quality - The essential attributes of landscape that when viewed by people, elicit psychological and physiological benefits to individuals and to society in general. Scenic Rivers - A classification within the national Wild and Scenic River System. Scenic rivers are those rivers, or sections of rivers, that are free of impoundments, with shorelines or watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in places by roads.

75 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

Seen Area - The total landscape area observed based upon landform screening. Seen-areas may be divided into zones of immediate foreground, foreground, middleground, and background. Some landscapes are seldom seen by the public. Sensitive species - Species identified by the Regional Forester for which population variability is a concern, as evidenced by significant current or predicted downward trend in population numbers or density; or significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species existing distribution. Sensitivity Level - A particular degree or measure of viewer interest in the scenic qualities of the landscape. Species of Local Interest (SOLI) - Threatened, endangered and proposed species; Regional Forester’s Sensitive species, management indicator species, and other rare or endemic species of concern. Species - “A group of organisms, all of which have a high degree of physical and genetic similarity, generally interbreed only among themselves, and show persistent differences from members of allied groups of organisms.” (Executive Order 13122, 2/3/99). Spot application - Herbicide treatment involving use of a backpack sprayer or other means. Application is aimed at specific target species, with methods of prevention (such as barriers,) to control damage to non-target species. Standards and guidelines - The rules and limits governing actions, as well as the principles specifying the environmental conditions or levels to be achieved and maintained. Sub-chronic exposure - An exposure duration that can last for different periods of time (5 to 90 days), with 90 days being the most common test duration for mammals. The sub-chronic study is usually performed in two species (rat and dog) by the route of intended use or exposure. Sub-chronic toxicity - The ability of one or more substances to cause effects over periods from about 90 days but substantially less than the lifetime of the exposed organism. Sub- chronic toxicity only applies to relatively long-lived organisms such as mammals. Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) - Vegetation that lives at or below the water surface; an important habitat for young fish and other aquatic organisms. In contrast to “emergent vegetation,” which is growing out of or standing in water. Substrate - With reference to enzymes, the chemical that the enzyme acts upon. Surface water - All water naturally open to the atmosphere (rivers, lakes, reservoirs, streams, impoundments, seas, estuaries, etc.) and all springs, wells, or other collectors which are directly influenced by surface water. Surfactant - A surface active agent; usually an organic compound whose molecules contain a hydrophilic group at one end and a lipophilic group at the other. Promotes solubility of a chemical, or lathering, or reduces surface tension of a solution. Survey and Manage - Mitigation measure adopted as a set of standards and guidelines within the Northwest Forest Plan Record of Decision and replaced with standards and guidelines in 2001 (Record of Decision) intended to mitigate impacts of land management efforts on those species that are closely associated with Late-Successional or old-growth forests whose long-term persistence is a concern. This mitigation measure applies to all land allocations and requires land managers to take certain actions relative to species of plants and animals, particularly some amphibians, bryophytes, lichens, mollusks, vascular plants, fungi, and arthropods, which are rare or about which little is known. These actions include: (1) manage known sites; (2) survey prior to habitat-disturbing activities; and, (3) conduct

76 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

extensive and general regional (strategic) surveys. Synergistic effect - Situation in which the combined effects of exposure to two chemicals simultaneously is much greater than the sum of the effect of exposure to each chemical given alone. Take - "The term 'take' means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct." (Title 16, Chapter 35, Section 1532, Endangered Species Act of 1973) Threatened species - Plant or animal species likely to become endangered throughout all, or a significant portion of, its range within the foreseeable future. A plant or animal identified and defined in accordance with the 1973 Endangered Species Act and published in the Federal Register. Threshold - The maximum dose or concentration level of a chemical or biological agent that will not cause an effect in the organism. Tolerances - Permissible residue levels for pesticides in raw agricultural produce and processed foods. Whenever a pesticide is registered for use on a food or a feed crop, a tolerance (or exemption from the tolerance requirement) must be established. EPA establishes the tolerance levels, which are enforced by the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Agriculture. Toxicity - The inherent ability of an agent to affect living organisms adversely. Toxicity is the degree to which a substance or mixture of substances can harm humans or animals. Toxicology - The study of the nature, effects, and detection of poisons in living organisms. Also, substances that are otherwise harmless but prove toxic under particular conditions. The basic assumption of toxicology is that there is a relationship among the dose (amount), the concentration at the affected site, and the resulting effects. Treatment Area - An infested area where weeds have been treated or retreated by an acceptable method for the specific objective of controlling their spread or reducing their density. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (US FWS) - The federal agency that is the listing authority for species other than marine mammals and anadromous fish under the ESA. U.S. Forest Service (USDA FS or USFS) - The federal agency responsible for management of the nation’s National Forest lands. Variety Class - A particular level of visual variety or diversity of landscape character. Viability - Ability of a wildlife or plant population to maintain sufficient size to persist over time in spite of normal fluctuations in numbers, usually expressed as a probability of maintaining a specific population for a specified period. Viable Population - A wildlife or plant population that contains an adequate number of reproductive individuals appropriately distributed on the planning area to ensure the long- term existence of the species. Viewshed - Total visible area from a single observer position, or the total visible area from multiple observer position. Viewsheds are accumulated seen-areas from highways, trails, campgrounds, towns, cities, or other viewer locations. Examples are corridor, feature, or basin viewsheds. Visual Absorption Capability - A classification system used to denote relative ability of a landscape to accept human alterations without loss of character of scenic quality.

77 Gold Beach and Powers Invasive Plant Treatment Environmental Assessment

Visual Quality Objective - A desired level of excellence based on physical and sociological characteristics of an area. Refers to degree of acceptable alteration of the characteristic landscape. Well-distributed - Distribution sufficient to permit normal biological function and species interactions, considering life history characteristics of the species and the habitats for which it is specifically adapted. Wetland - An area that is regularly saturated by surface or ground water and subsequently is characterized by a prevalence of vegetation that is adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Examples include swamps, bogs, fens, marshes, and estuaries. Wild and Scenic River System - The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 established a system of selected rivers in the United States, which possess outstandingly remarkable values, to be preserved in free-flowing condition. Within the national system of rivers, three classifications define the general character of designated rivers: Wild, Scenic, and Recreational. Classifications reflect levels of development and natural conditions along a stretch of river. Classifications are used to help develop management goals for the river. Wilderness - Areas designated by Congressional action under the 1964 Wilderness Act. Wilderness is defined as undeveloped federal land retaining its primeval character and influence without permanent improvements or human habitation. Wilderness areas are protected and managed to preserve their natural conditions, which generally appear to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature with the imprint of human activity substantially unnoticeable; have outstanding opportunities for solitude or for a primitive and confined type of recreation; include at least 5,000 acres, or are of sufficient size to make practical their preservation, enjoyment, and use in an unimpaired condition; and may contain features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value as well as ecological and geologic interest. Wild Rivers - A classification within the national Wild and Scenic River System. Wild rivers are those rivers, or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments and generally inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and waters unpolluted.

78