United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DOI-BLM-ID-B000-2016-0002-EA
BOISE DISTRICT NOXIOUS WEED AND INVASIVE PLANT MANAGEMENT
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management Boise District Office 3948 Development Avenue Boise, ID 83705
June 2018
Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION ...... 1
1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ...... 1 1.2 CONFORMANCE WITH LAND USE PLANS ...... 2 1.3 RELATIONSHIP TO STATUTES, REGULATIONS OR OTHER PLANS ...... 3 1.4 TIERING AND INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE ...... 4 1.5 SCOPING, PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, AND ISSUES ...... 4 CHAPTER 2 – PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ...... 5
2.1 COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES ...... 6 2.2 ALTERNATIVE A - NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE: CONTINUE CURRENT INTEGRATED WEED MANAGEMENT … ... 9 2.3 ALTERNATIVE B - PROPOSED ACTION – ADDITION OF 3 ACTIVE INGREDIENTS ...... 13 2.4 ALTERNATIVE C - NO AERIAL APPLICATION OF HERBICIDES ...... 15 2.5 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT ANALYZED IN DETAIL ...... 15 2.6 MONITORING ...... 15 CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...... 16
3.1 ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE ANALYSIS ...... 16 3.2 VEGETATION (INCLUDING SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES) ...... 18 3.3 WILDLIFE (INCLUDING SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES) ...... 23 3.4 FISH AND AQUATIC SPECIES (INCLUDING SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES) ...... 27 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ...... 31 CHAPTER 4 – CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ...... 33
4.1 PAST, PRESENT AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE PROJECTS ...... 33 4.2 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF INTEGRATED WEED MANAGEMENT ...... 36 CHAPTER 5 – CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ...... 37
LIST OF PREPARERS ...... 38 CHAPTER 6 - REFERENCES ...... 39 APPENDIX A - STATE OF IDAHO NOXIOUS WEEDS AND BOISE DISTRICT INVASIVE PLANTS LIST TO DATE ...... 43 APPENDIX B - BIOLOGICAL CONTROL AGENTS AVAILABLE FOR USE ON BLM LANDS ...... 48 APPENDIX C - HERBICIDES AND ADJUVANTS APPROVED FOR USE ON BLM LANDS ...... 52 APPENDIX D – REQUIRED DESIGN FEATURES, BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES, AND STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES ...... 68 APPENDIX E - SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES ...... 88 APPENDIX F - MIGRATORY BIRD SPECIES OF CONSERVATION CONCERN IN THE GREAT BASIN ...... 99 APPENDIX G – ARMPA CONFORMANCE REVIEW ...... 101
Table of Contents i Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment
Table of Contents ii Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION
The productivity and health of public lands in the Boise District Office (BDO) is being adversely affected by the invasion and spread of invasive and noxious weeds. An invasive species is defined as a species that is 1) non-native (or alien) to the ecosystem under consideration, and 2) whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health (Executive Order 13112). Noxious weeds are invasive species that have been designated “noxious” by state law (Idaho Statute 22). Noxious weeds are highly competitive and persistent. These species typically germinate under a wide variety of conditions and show fast seedling growth; thus they establish quickly and compete with native plants for water and nutrients (USDA and USDI BLM 1997, Chapter 2). Noxious and invasive weeds can displace native plant species, degrade habitat, reduce recreational opportunities, and adversely impact water quality. Other organisms, including endangered species, that depend on plant community diversity may be displaced or eliminated by the competition for critical resources (Wilson & Young 1996). The cost and complexity of managing these weeds and restoring native habitats increases greatly the longer these situations exist. Twenty-eight species of noxious and invasive weeds currently or potentially pose a problem within the Boise District (Appendix A) (Whitson et al. 2002, Prather et al. 2006). This list may change as other invasive weeds are discovered. Although weeds are widely scattered throughout the BDO in varying degrees and densities, many infestations can be controlled and eradication is possible on some smaller weed infestations. The Boise District proposes to update the integrated weed management (IWM) plan on public lands to increase the number of herbicides available for use and to expand upon the types of treatment options available for use to include manual, biological, chemical (including ground and aerial application of herbicides) on localized infestations of less than 50 contiguous acres.
1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION The purpose of the proposed action is to improve effectiveness of the current BDO IWM program on BLM-administered public lands with the addition of three herbicide active ingredients (hereafter referred to as herbicide), aminopyralid, fluroxypyr, and rimsulfuron (BLM 2016) to the 181 herbicides currently approved (BLM 2007a). The three new chemicals were approved through a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) (BLM 2016) and are in addition to those approved in 2007. Integrated Weed Management strategies include the use of chemical (ground based and aerial applications), manual, and biological control treatments. The proposed action is necessary to incorporate herbicides approved in the 2007 and 2016 PEIs into the BDO’s IWM program and improve weed control effectiveness across the Boise District. The BDO IWM program requires a variety of effective tools for invasive plant management to
1 The 2007 PEIS analyzed and approved the use of 18 herbicides on BLM lands in 17 western states. However, Idaho BLM currently has a moratorium (Instruction Memorandum No.ID-2001-050) that disallows the use of sulfometuron methyl chemical on public lands. Therefore, throughout the document, reference will be made to 17 currently approved herbicides.
Purpose and Need 1 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment prevent spread into non-infested areas, restore desirable vegetation in degraded areas, and reduce wildfire risk. Weed treatments in the BDO are also reviewed for effectiveness and treatment methods based on topography, treatment access and presence of sensitive species. In some cases, the most cost- effective manner to treat some infestations may be by aerial herbicide applications.
1.2 CONFORMANCE WITH LAND USE PLANS Noxious weed and invasive plant treatments identified in the Proposed Action are consistent with the following applicable land use plans (LUPs): Bruneau Management Framework Plan (MFP) (BLM, 1983a) Watershed Objective #1 – Maintain stability of 408,300 acres of moderate, high and critical erosion hazard classes by reducing or minimizing wind and water erosion. Range Management Objective (RM-2) – Over the next 15 years, treat 85,600 acres of suitable public land to increase forage production and reduce the acreage of range in poor condition (subject to the following stipulation under RM 2.2) – If pesticides/herbicides spraying techniques are used for treating native rangelands, a buffer zone of 150 feet will be established around perennial streams and riparian habitat zones to ensure no chemicals affect those areas. Kuna MFP (BLM, 1983b) Manage all watersheds to achieve stable or moderate soil surface factor conditions and, where feasible/economical, strive for maintaining or establishing good perennial vegetation cover. Cascade Resource Management Plan (RMP) (BLM, 1988) BLM districts will work with respective county governments to monitor the location and spread of noxious weeds and to maintain up-to-date inventory records. BLM will control the spread of noxious weeds on public lands where possible, where economically feasible, and to the extent that funds are prioritized for that purpose. Jarbidge RMP (BLM, 1987) Maintain and/or improve the current condition of riparian habitat. Improve lands in poor ecological condition. Owyhee RMP (BLM, 1999) Improve unsatisfactory and maintain satisfactory vegetation health/condition on all areas. Design and implement vegetation treatments to improve habitat where juniper or shrub density is contributing to unsatisfactory habitat conditions. BLM will work with county governments to monitor the locations and spread of noxious weeds.
Purpose and Need 2 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment BLM will control the occurrence and spread of noxious weeds on public lands where economically feasible and to the extent funds are available. Noxious weed control will be conducted in accordance with the integrated weed management guidelines and design features. Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area RMP (BLM, 2008) The uplands would support healthy sagebrush and salt desert shrub communities, and provide habitats to sustain or increase raptor and raptor prey populations. The uplands would provide habitats to increase the populations of shrub obligate animals. Habitat conditions would contribute to long-term viability of special status species. Noxious weeds would only be present in small isolated areas. Plant communities would show an upward trend in species diversity, productivity, and structure. Healthy native and adapted non-native plant populations would minimize the establishment of invasive and noxious weeds. New infestations of noxious weeds would be eradicated, and existing populations of noxious and invasive weeds would be managed to prevent invasions of weed-free areas. Desirable native and non-native plant populations would minimize establishment of invasive noxious weeds. Applicable LUPs as amended by the Idaho and Southwestern Montana Greater Sage Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment (ARMPA)/Final EIS (BLM, 2015a) BLM Idaho conducts a conformance review of all proposed projects to determine how each project proposal conforms to the ARMPA. The completed conformance review is located in Appendix G. The conformance review determined that implementation of noxious weed and invasive plant management would be beneficial to GRSG habitat by reducing exotic species. The conformance review concluded the proposed action is in conformance with the ARMPA when following all applicable goals, objectives, and management decisions.
1.3 RELATIONSHIP TO STATUTES, REGULATIONS OR OTHER PLANS Broad objectives for management of vegetation on public lands are identified in the BLM’s Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan (WGA, 2006); Partners Against Weeds: An Action Plan for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM, 1996); and Pulling Together: National Strategy for Invasive Plant Management (Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds, 1998). Treatment activities at the local level are guided by the goals, standards, and objectives of land use and other plans developed at the field office level.
Purpose and Need 3 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment 1.4 TIERING AND INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE The EA will tier to the ROD for the Final Vegetation Treatments Using Aminopyralid, Fluroxypyr, and Rimsulfuron on BLM Lands in 17 Western States PEIS (2016 PEIS) (BLM, 2016b) that was released to the public on May 7, 2016. The ROD was signed on July 29, 2016. The 2016 PEIS was developed to include three new herbicides aminopyralid, fluroxypyr, and rimsulfuron. These three new herbicides are integrated into the herbicide treatment activities that were assessed in the 2007 PEIS (see below). The final decision increased the number of herbicide active ingredients available to the BLM from 17 to 20. The EA will also tier to the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Final Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (2007 PEIS) (BLM, 2007a) that was released to the public on June 29, 2007, and the Final Vegetation Treatments on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Report (PER) (BLM, 2007b). The ROD was signed on September 29, 2007. The PEIS was developed to guide the BLM’s actions through its proposed treatment of vegetation, specifically noxious weeds and invasive plants, in 17 western states in the United States using 17 approved herbicide active ingredients. The Vegetation Treatments PER includes analysis of prescribed fire, manual, mechanical, and biological treatment methods to control vegetation. The 2007 and 2016 PEISs provide NEPA compliance by assessing the use of 21 herbicide active ingredients to treat undesirable vegetation on public lands administered by the BLM and provide a broad, comprehensive background source of information to which subsequent environmental analyses can be tiered. The programmatic analysis in the PEIS contains broad regional descriptions of resources, provides a broad environmental impact analysis, including cumulative effects, focuses on general policies, and provides Bureau-wide decisions on herbicide use for vegetation management.
1.5 SCOPING, PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, AND ISSUES Internal BLM scoping was initiated on February 29, 2016. Public Scoping was initiated on March 21, 2016 when the Proposed Action was posted on the BLM NEPA Register. The BLM issued a press release and social media post notifying the interested public of the proposed project and a public meeting date on March 31, 2016. A public meeting was held at the Boise District Office, Boise, Idaho, on April 7, 2016. The public scoping comment period ended April 29, 2016. A total of 88 unique comments submitted by 10 unique commenters were received electronically and via mail. Commenters included federal, state, and local agencies, non-government organizations, and members of the public. Many comments pertained to concerns regarding health and human safety, e.g., What is the risk from possible exposure of herbicides to the public? These types of issues were addressed during development of the PEISs for all herbicides proposed for use, as a Human Health Risk Assessment was conducted prior to BLM authorizing the use of any herbicide on public lands. See pages 4- 174 through 4-197 of the 2007 PEIS and pages 4-87 through 4-103 of the 2016 PEIS. In addition to health and human safety, resource concerns include air and water quality, climate change,
Purpose and Need 4 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment livestock grazing management, special and congressional designations, visual resources, and recreation. The environmental consequences sections of the 2007 and 2016 PEISs, as well as a Programatic Environmental Review (attached to the 2016 PEIS) sufficiently disclose the effects of these herbicide and vegetation treatments to the various elements of the human environment. Numerous comments were also raised regarding the potential effects herbicides may have on plants and animals found throughout the BDO including wildlife, livestock, wild horses and burros. As a part of the EIS process for both the 2007 and 2016 PEISs, Ecological Risk Assessments (ERAs) were prepared for each herbicide proposed for use on BLM lands. ERAs documment the effects to plants and animals from each herbicide and provide for the basis of the effects analysis in the PEISs and this EA. Each ERA was used in the development of the PEISs and are available for review and download on the BLM eplanning website.
1.5.1 ISSUES FOR ANALYSIS As this EA tiers to the national PEISs, the focus of this analysis will be on issues specific to the use of herbicides and treatment methods identified for use in the BDO. The following issues were identified during internal (BLM) and external (public) scoping and were used to guide the range of alternatives and environmental effects analysis in Chapter 3. Vegetation (including Sensitive and Threatened & Endangered Species) How would noxious weed treatments affect native plant communities, riparian habitats or Special Status plant species? Wildlife, Fish and Other Aquatic Species (including Sensitive and Threatened & Endangered Species) How would disturbances associated with noxious weed treatment (noise, presence of humans) affect Special Status wildlife species and pollinators? How would noxious weed treatments affect wildlife habitat (forage and cover availability, quality, and quantity)? How would sediment or chemical deposition from noxious weed treatments affect fish, including Special Status fish and associated habitat? Cultural Resources (Including National Historic Trails and Sites of Tribal Concerns) How will the removal of noxious and invasive plants affect the condition of cultural or historical resources?
CHAPTER 2 – PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Invasive Weed Management (IWM) Plan in the Boise District. It describes the Proposed Action, the No Action, and the No Aerial Application of Herbicide alternatives and those actions eliminated from detailed study.
Purpose and Need 5 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment To maintain ecosystem health, the BLM is required by various laws, regulations, and policies to control invasive species, thus, a No Herbicide Use alternative is not an appropriate option for invasive species management. However, for environmental assessments, the Council on Environmental Quality recommends alternatives that compare the Proposed Action or other alternatives to: I) no activity taking place (No Herbicide Use); or 2) to continuing with the present course of action (No Action) which would continue use of chemicals through the Noxious and Invasive Weed Treatment for the Boise District and Jarbidge Field Offices EA, ID100-2005-EA-265. This analysis provides a benchmark, enabling managers to compare the magnitude of environmental effects of the action alternatives. The Proposed Action was primarily derived from the existing 2005 Noxious and Invasive Weed Treatment for the Boise District and Jarbidge Field Offices EA and is in accordance with BLM Manual 9015 (Integrated Weed Management). An analysis of herbicides was conducted in the Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides in 17 Western States, Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, (BLM, 2007a) and in Vegetation Treatments Using Aminopyralid, Fluroxypyr, and Rimsulfuron on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States (BLM, 2016a). These two EIS’s assessed five similar alternatives: Continued present herbicide use, Expand herbicide use, No use of herbicides, No aerial application of herbicides, No use of sulfonylurea and other acetolactate synthase- inhibiting active ingredients. More details regarding these alternatives can be found in chapter 2 of each PEIS. In accordance with Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) requirements, the alternatives analyzed in the two Programmatic EISs will not be reanalyzed here. The alternatives considered and analyzed in detail in this document focus upon the specific issues raised during scoping (see chapter 1). Where appropriate, elements of the affected environment and impact analysis from the two EISs are incorporated by reference.
2.1 COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES
2.1.1 INTEGRATED WEED MANAGEMENT Noxious and invasive weed control involves selecting from a range of control methods through an IWM Plan that matches the management requirements of each specific site with the goal of maximizing effective control and minimizing adverse environmental, economic, and social impacts. IWM combines prevention, detection, multiple treatment approaches, and education for use in eradicating, controlling, and/or containing noxious and invasive weeds. The proposed action would implement the treatments described below through an IWM approach, to control noxious and/or invasive plants. Typically treatments would occur where noxious and/or invasive plants pose a risk to the ecological health and function of a particular site. Appropriate treatment type, timing, and application method would depend on target species, site, and season, as well as other restrictions.
Proposed Action and Alternatives 6 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment
2.1.2 LOCATION Actions (common to all alternatives) would take place on the approximately 4.2 million acres of public land managed by the BDO which consists of three field offices: Bruneau Field Office (BFO), Four Rivers Field Office (FRFO) including the Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area (MNSRBOP), and Owyhee Field Office (OFO); in southwest Idaho. Figure 1.1 shows the location of the field offices within the BDO. These lands also include approximately 8,000 acres of public land in Elko County, Nevada2. The counties (or portions of counties) occurring within the bounds of the BDO are Ada, Adams, Boise, Canyon, Elmore, Gem, Owyhee, Payette, Valley, and Washington Counties, Idaho and Elko County, Nevada. There are a variety of natural landscapes within this area, differing in elevation and precipitation. Elevation ranges from a low of 2,200 feet at the Snake River to more than 8,000 feet in the Owyhee Mountains. Average annual precipitation varies from 6 inches or less on the Snake River plain to 22 inches or more in high elevation areas. The majority of precipitation falls during the winter and spring months. Mean temperatures vary from 15F in January to 95F in July. Temperature extremes of -20F and greater than 100F occur for short periods.
2 The 8,000 acres are managed under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the BLM Elko District Office.
Proposed Action and Alternatives 7 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment
Figure 1.1. Boise District Vicinity Map
Proposed Action and Alternatives 8 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment
2.1.3 TARGETED PLANT COMMUNITIES
2.1.3.1 Noxious Weeds The current Idaho noxious weeds list and those most likely to be found and treated in the BDO are included in Appendix A. They occur in a variety of environments including riparian, upland, and forested sites. These noxious weeds can potentially be moved about by a variety of means including humans, vehicles, livestock, wind, water, and wildlife. Noxious weeds are defined by the UDSA as a weed that has been designated by as being injurious to agricultural or horticultural crops, natural habitats or ecosystems, humans, or livestock.
2.1.3.2 Invasive Plants Invasive plants are defined as “non-native plants whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health” (Executive Order 13112). Invasive plants are not part of the original plant community or communities; have the potential to become a dominant or co-dominant species on the site if their future establishment and growth is not actively controlled by management interventions. Invasive plants not currently identified on the BDO can be introduced at any time. Not all newly introduced species become problematic. Species of concern that are very limited in extent or currently not yet known to occur on the District but are documented on adjacent lands or states and potentially threaten the BDO are listed in Table A-4 in Appendix A. This list may change as new species are constantly identified as posing a threat to public lands. Management of new invaders would be a high priority. Treatments would focus on treating new, small populations before they become established.
DESIGN FEATURES Design features were derived from land use plans, conservation plans and agreements, and existing NEPA documents. In addition, mitigation measures resulting from the ROD for the 2007 PEIS were adopted and included as design features. Additional design features or mitigation may be implemented on a site specific level as they may result from consultation with Tribes, USFWS, Idaho SHPO, or other coordinating agencies. Design features are attached in Appendix D.
2.2 ALTERNATIVE A - NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE: CONTINUE CURRENT INTEGRATED WEED MANAGEMENT … Under this alternative, the BDO would continue to implement treatments on noxious and invasive weeds in each field office limited to the herbicides listed in the 2007 PEIS and treatment methods analyzed in the 2005 BDO EA. All other noxious weed and invasive plant treatments (aerial herbicide and revegetation) would be analyzed and implemented in separate EAs. Manual, Biological Control, and Herbicide Treatments would be applied as described in Section 2.1. Herbicides that would be used under this alternative are listed in Table 2.2.
Proposed Action and Alternatives 9 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment Table 2.1 – Treatment Estimates under the No Action Alternative Estimated Acres of Treatment Methods Treatment Per Year Manual 250 - 500 Biological Control 50 – 150 Herbicide Application 1,000 -10,000
2.2.1TREATMENT METHODS Inventories would be conducted prior to selecting one or more methods. BLM staff would consider all feasible treatments, including potential effectiveness, best available science, potential impacts, and costs. The BLM weeds coordinator would consult with specialists or databases for information on sensitive resources within the BDO. If no current information exists, the proposed treatment area would be inventoried for special status species and evidence of cultural or historic sites.
Manual Methods Manual treatments would be accomplished by hand, hand tools, or chain saws, and may include pulling, digging, hoeing, or cutting to destroy weeds or interfere with their growth or reproduction. Mechanical treatments would typically be used on a limited basis, primarily to control individual plants or on very small, isolated infestations of weeds. Large weed infestations are very difficult to control with this type of treatment. Treatments within Special Management Areas3 would be evaluated to ensure that these treatments do not degrade the quality, character, or integrity of these areas. Approximately 250-500 acres of manual treatment would occur annually.
Biological Control Biological control agents (e.g., insects, pathogens, nematodes, mites) are live natural enemies of select noxious and invasive plants. These organisms are released within areas of established noxious or invasive plants to reduce targeted species. In most situations, biological control agents would be used in combination with other treatments as part of the IWM plan. Introductions of all biological control agents would be done in accordance with the guidelines provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture - Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and BLM Manual 9014. Approved biological control agent treatments would be applied where possible to reduce potential impacts from herbicide application. APHIS controls and permits the use of biological control agents (e.g., insects, nematodes, mites, or pathogens) after rigorous testing to ensure that agents are host-specific (BLM, 2007c).
3 Special Management Areas include Wilderness, Wild and Scenic Rivers, Wilderness Study Areas, and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern.
Proposed Action and Alternatives 10 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment Once released, biological control agents can remain in a single area for many years reducing the overall presence of targeted plants. Biological control would be expected to reduce target species to a negligible status, but would not result in the complete removal of targeted species. See Appendix B for further information on the effectiveness of biological control treatments for specific weeds. Based on past treatments, an estimated 10 to 30 agent releases would be made annually under this proposal effectively treating up to 10,000 acres.
Herbicide Treatments The herbicide treatments in the BDO currently include the use of 17 active ingredients (herbicides) as authorized for use in the Record of Decision for the 2007 PEIS. Herbicides would be used to control and eliminate areas of noxious weeds and invasive plants and to contain existing infestations. This list of active ingredients includes a broad spectrum of herbicides, each specifically chosen for increased flexibility and options when designing on-the-ground herbicide treatments. The criteria for consideration include: Mode-of Action: Different noxious and invasive species respond to different active ingredients with different modes of action; Pre-emergent control vs. post emergence control; Riparian vs. terrestrial environments; Potential herbicide resistance by some species; and Less environmental and human health impacts. The following herbicides approved for use in the 2007 PEID ROD are currently approved for use in the Boise District: 2,4-D, Bromacil, Chlorsulfuron, Clopyralid, Dicamba, Diflufenzopyr (in formulation with dicamba and known as Overdrive® and Distinct®) Diuron, Glyphosate, Hexazinone, Imazapic, Imazapyr, Metsulfuron methyl, Picloram, Tebuthiuron, Triclopyr Sulfometuron Methyl, Fluridone, and Diquat although approved nationally for BLM use, are not proposed for use in any alternative. More specific discussion is provided below. A list of these approved BLM herbicides, available formulations, registered trade names, and general effects can be found in Appendix C. The registered trade names are the most current as of June 2017. Other formulations of the active ingredient may be used and include less common trade named products. Herbicide applications include the use of adjuvants to enhance or prolong the activity of an active ingredient (USDI BLM, 2007b; USDI BLM, 2016a). Adjuvant is a broad term that includes surfactants, selected oils, anti-foaming agents, buffering compounds, drift control agents, compatibility agents, stickers, and spreaders. Adjuvants are not under the same registration guidelines as pesticides; the EPA does not register or approve the labeling of spray adjuvants. Individual herbicide labels contain lists with “label-approved” adjuvants for use with a particular herbicide under specific conditions. Currently more than 200 adjuvants are approved for use on BLM lands. The most commonly used adjuvants within the BDO are listed in Appendix C. Only BLM approved adjuvants would be used and all label restrictions would apply.
Proposed Action and Alternatives 11 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment Ecological risk assessments (ERAs) for herbicides analyzed in the 2007 and 2016 PEISs included the use of adjuvants; results of the ERAs were incorporated into the biological assessments (BAs) for the PEISs. Conservation measures resulting from the consultations for the 2007 and 2016 PEISs address the use of adjuvants for sensitive aquatic resources (BLM, 2007c; BLM, 2016a). These conservation measures are incorporated into the Design Features and Conservation Measures Appendix D. Application methods that would be used include liquid or granular forms of herbicide applied by ground based applications. Ground applications would include vehicle mounted or towed sprayers including OHV, truck, or tractor, as well as spot spraying, backpack spraying, hand spraying, wicking, wiping, dipping, painting or infecting. Additional targeted herbicide applications that could be used include wiping, brushing, or dabbing of herbicides onto noxious or invasive plant species that have been cut with chain saws or other hand tools. Typical herbicide treatments on the BDO range in size from a single plant up to 5 acres. Approximately 10,000-25,000 spot herbicide applications for weed control would occur annually across the BDO. Larger treatments up to 50 contiguous acres could occur. There would be fewer than 25 of these larger treatments yearly. Total acres treated yearly with herbicide would be 1,000 – 10,000 acres. Over the last 10 years, the BDO has averaged 2,000 acres of herbicide treatment annually. Under this alternative, the aerial herbicide application would not be authorized. Herbicides not considered for use in BDO Fluridone and diquat: Floating or submerged (hydrilla, Eurasian water milfoil, etc.) aquatic vegetation treatments in ponds, lakes and rivers that would require the use of fluridone or diquat would be analyzed in site specific NEPA, are not considered for further analysis. Sulfometuron methyl: The active ingredient sulfometuron methyl (OUST®) was approved for use in the ROD for the 2007 PEIS. Idaho BLM currently has a moratorium (Instruction Memorandum No.ID-2001-050) that prohibits the use of this chemical on public lands. Therefore, use of sulfometuron methyl is not included. In addition, herbicides containing sulfometuron methyl in combination with other active ingredients would not be used.
Herbicide Treatment Standard Operating Procedures The BLM would adopt Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) from the RODs for the 2007 and 2016 PEISs to ensure that risks to human health and the environment from herbicide treatment actions are kept to a minimum. The SOPs are the management controls and performance standards intended to protect and enhance natural resources that could be affected by vegetation treatments involving the use of herbicides. These SOPs are listed in Appendix D. Herbicide Application Criteria The current list of BLM approved herbicides and local site-specific herbicide use criteria are found in Appendix C. These criteria along with design features described in Appendix D would be used to formulate site-specific vegetation treatment plans and Pesticide Use Proposals (PUP) across the BDO. All application rates, procedures, and restrictions would be within label
Proposed Action and Alternatives 12 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment specifications.The 2007 PEIS decision concerning specific use of certain chemicals approved for BLM use would be included in the development of local use criteria.
2.3 ALTERNATIVE B - PROPOSED ACTION – ADDITION OF 3 ACTIVE INGREDIENTS Actions taken under this alternative would be similar to those described in the No Action alternative but with the addition of three active ingredients that were approved in the 2016 PEIS (BLM, 2016); aminopyralid, fluroxypr, and rimsulfuron. Table 2.3 lists approved active ingredients and those proposed for use on the BDO. Treatment methods would be the same as described in Section 2.2. In addition, BDO would be authorized to apply active ingredients labeled for aerial application according to herbicide specific design features and requirements. There would be 1- 10 aerial herbicide applications and would be limited to 50 acres per treatment and would be included in the annual herbicide treatment total described in Table 2.1. Aerial applications would be made from rotor or fixed wing aircraft.Aerial applications would be limited to Prior to any herbicide applications more than 10 contiguous acres, a site specific assessment would be completed to ensure that there are no special status species, cumulative actions, or previously unknown resource situations that may result in significant impacts. Table 2.1, above, descibes the anticipated yearly treatment acreages proposed for implementation. These estimates are based on past records, current noxious weed inventory and expected future needs. Design features are identified in Appendix D would be included to reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts. Table 2.2 Herbicides Proposed for use in BDO Alternative C Authorized Active Ingredient No Action Alternative B (No Aerial PEIS Application)
2,4-D 2007 X X X
Aminopyralid 2016 X X
Bromacil 2007 X X X
Chlorsulfuron 2007 X X X
Clopyralid 2007 X X X
Dicamba 2007 X X X
Proposed Action and Alternatives 13 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment
Alternative C Authorized Active Ingredient No Action Alternative B (No Aerial PEIS Application)
Diflufenzopyr (in formulation with dicamba and 2007 X X X known as Overdrive® and Distinct®)
Diuron 2007 X X X
Fluroxypr 2016 X X
Glyphosate 2007 X X X
Hexazinone 2007 X X X
Imazapic 2007 X X X
Imazapyr 2007 X X X
Metsulfuron 2007 X X X methyl
Picloram 2007 X X X
Rimsulfuron 2016 X X
Tebuthiuron 2007 X X X
Triclopyr 2007 X X X
Diquat 2007 X
Fluridone 2007 X
Sulfometuron 2007 Methyl
Proposed Action and Alternatives 14 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment 2.4 ALTERNATIVE C - NO AERIAL APPLICATION OF HERBICIDES Under this alternative, herbicide treatments would be limited to ground based application of all herbicides as authorized under the 2007 and 2016 PEISs. All other components of the Proposed Action would remain the same. This alternative would address concerns raised during scoping pertaining to potential impacts to habitat associated with ‘drift’ of herbicides. While the 2007 and 2016 PEISs did analyze a No Aerial Application of Herbicides alternative, the analysis did not adequately address the potential impacts of aerial application of herbicides to sensitive species habitat within the BDO. For this reason, it was determined that this alternative should be carried forward for detailed analysis.
2.5 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT ANALYZED IN DETAIL
2.5.1 NO USE OF HERBICIDES The No Use of Herbicides Alternative was analyzed in the 2007 PEIS. The 2007 ROD found that although there would be no risks to humans and the environment from herbicides, the risk of environmental damage from the spread of weeds and other invasive vegetation would be greater than the use of herbicide when SOPs and design features were followed (BLM, 2007a, ROD page 4-10). While this issue was brought forward during project scoping, it was determined that, based on the PEIS, this alternative did not warrant detailed analysis.
2.6 MONITORING Documenting herbicide use is accomplished through pesticide use proposals (PUPs) and subsequent pesticide application records (PAR). Both documents are required by the BLM in order to track pesticide use annually. The PUP lists the pesticide proposed for use and the maximum application rate as well as the number and timing of applications. Targeted and non- targeted species at the treatment site and other site characteristics are described, along with sensitive resources and mitigation measures to protect these resources and a description of the integrated weed management approach to be taken (i.e., the combination of treatments to be used). The NEPA document that analyzes the effects of the treatment must also be referenced. Idaho BLM requires the PUP must be signed by a BLM certified weed applicator, the District Manager, State Weed Coordinator, Branch Chief (Resources) and Deputy State Director before the treatment can go forward. The PAR, which must be completed within 24 hours after completion of the application, documents the actual rate of application and that all the above factors have been taken into account. PARs are used to develop annual state summaries of herbicide use by the BLM. Monitoring of invasive plant treatment effectiveness can range from site visits to compare the targeted population size against pre-treatment inventory data, to comparing pre-treatment and post-treatment photo points, to more elaborate transect work, depending on the species and site-specific variables. Monitoring should provide sufficient information to document the following factors, at a minimum. Changes in the distribution, amount, and proportion of invasive plant infestations resulting from treatments
Proposed Action and Alternatives 15 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment Reduction in infestation size at the project level Success of treatment methods, either separate or in combination for a particular species Anticipated or unanticipated effects to non-target species Baseline vegetation inventories would be conducted to determine invasive plant community conditions and to determine the need and scope of treatments to reduce infestations. Post treatment monitoring would occur to evaluate success of the treatments. The methods used to monitor treatments could include monitoring methods such as field observations, photo plots, cover transects, density, and belt transects.
CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
This chapter describes the affected environment and environmental consequences associated with the Proposed Action and action alternatives. It also provides the scientific and analytical basis for comparing the alternatives. For all resources evaluated, the probable environmental effects were quantified where possible; where not possible, qualitative descriptions are provided.
3.1 ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE ANALYSIS Treatments would be conducted from approximately April through October with treatments concentrated in the spring and the fall (see Appendix D Design Features for specific timing restrictions) on land areas less than 50 acres in size. All herbicide treatments would be applied according to specific herbicide labels and required design features (Appendix D). Table 3.1 summarizes the number of treatments for each treatment type performed in 2015, which are considered for analysis under the No Action Alternative, and the estimated number of annual treatments, which are considered for analysis under the Proposed Action and other action alternatives. At this time, it is estimated approximately 3 million acres have potential for noxious and/or invasive weed infestations. Owing to budgetary constraints, it is not reasonable to assume that annual treatments would cover 3 million acres. The numbers presented in Table 3.1 are based upon existing abilities to conduct treatments and represent only an estimate for purposes of analysis. Table 3.1 – Summary of treatments across the BDO Number of Estimated Number of Annual Treatment Type Treatments Under Treatments Under the and Size the No Action Action Alternatives Alternative Ground Based Herbicide Less than 0.1 acre 9,200 20,000 0.1 - 0.50 acre 1,200 2,000
Proposed Action and Alternatives 16 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment
Number of Estimated Number of Annual Treatment Type Treatments Under Treatments Under the and Size the No Action Action Alternatives Alternative 0.50 - 5.0 acres 323 1,000 5.0 - 50 acres 5 50 Aerial Herbicide (only under Alternative B) 0.1 - 50 acres 0 5
3.1.2 GENERAL METHODOLOGY The analysis for each resource area begins by explaining the methodology used to characterize potential impacts (including any assumptions made); describing the types of adverse and beneficial impacts that could occur as a result of the alternatives; and defining the duration of temporary, short-term, and long-term impacts. The duration of impacts varies with the resource and is defined for each resource area. The detailed impact analyses and conclusions are based on the BLM's knowledge of resources and the planning area, reviews of existing literature, and information provided by experts in the BLM, cooperating agencies, other agencies, interest groups, and concerned citizens. Impacts on resources and resource uses are analyzed and discussed in detail corresponding with resource issues and concerns identified throughout the process. Impacts on resources were also discussed in the BDO RMP's, Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides in 17 Western States, Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (BLM, 2007a) and the Vegetation Treatments Using Aminopyralid, Fluroxypyr, and Rimsulfuron on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States (BLM, 2016a) to which this EA is tiered. Assumptions regarding level of land use activity, resource condition, and resource response are made in the analysis. Potential impacts and their significance are determined based on these assumptions. The following assumptions were used in the analysis and apply to both action alternatives: Management actions proposed in the EA alternatives would apply to BLM• administered public lands and resources only. However, cumulative impacts analyses consider potential actions by individuals or entities other than the BLM. The alternatives would be implemented as described in Chapter 2 and would be implemented in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and standard management guidelines. Funding would be available to implement the alternatives, as described in Chapter 2. Monitoring would be completed as indicated, and adjustments or revisions would be made as identified.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 17 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment 3.2 VEGETATION (INCLUDING SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES)
3.2.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The BDO contains a wide range of elevations, rainfall, temperatures and soil types. The composition of species in the various plant communities is determined by soils, slope and aspect, elevation, and precipitation, with considerable overlap in range. This results in a variety of vegetation communities; there are 5 major vegetation communities within the district. Each major vegetation group is based on differences in proportions and kinds of plant species that are potentially dominant on a specific site. The vegetation cover types shown in Table 3.2 was aggregated from 51 vegetation cover types originally classified by the GAP Analysis Program for southern Idaho (Scott et al., 1993; Scott et al., 2002). Table 3.2 - Vegetation Cover Types in the BDO Vegetation Division Vegetation Sub-Division BLM Acres Native Shrubs and Low-Elevation Shrub Steppe 2,441,330 Perennial Species Perennial Grass 86,005 Mid-Elevation Shrub Steppe 1,615 Salt Desert Shrub 298,618 Forest and Woodland Dry Conifer 43,241 Species Aspen/Conifer 49,231 Juniper Woodlands 201,220 Other Woodlands1 22,516 Wetlands and Riparian Wetland and Riparian Vegetation 96,851 Noxious Weeds and Non-Native Annual Grasses 602,805 Invasive Plants Noxious Weeds and Other Invasive Plants 77,227 Non-Native Perennial Grasses and Forbs 25,050 Other Other (urban, agricultural, etc.) 183,970 Total Acreage 4,129,679 1The Other Woodlands category includes Inter-Mountain Basins Curl-leaf Mountain Mahogany Woodlands, Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flats and Mountain Shrub.
3.2.1.1 Native Upland and Riparian Vegetation In general, the native vegetation of southwestern Idaho was historically dominated by shrub- steppe plant communities. Within much of the BDO, common plant communities are characterized by various species of sagebrush, winterfat, bitterbrush, willows, and other native shrubs. Understory vegetation associated with low-elevation shrub steppe is dominated by perennial grasses and a variety of annual and perennial forbs. Where native species are absent or co-dominant with invasive annual grasses, forbs, and/or noxious weeds, the fast growing exotic species gain a competitive advantage and dominate the
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 18 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment community reducing the resilience of the plant community to recover following disturbance or wildfire. The landscape-scale composition of plant communities has shifted from a mosaic of shrub and herbaceous communities to large grass-dominated areas, and areas with a strong non- native annual grass component which are not resilient. BLM administers approximately 1,200 miles of perennial and intermittent stream-associated riparian areas throughout the BDO (BLM lands only). Riparian assessments show that less than 60 percent of these areas are functioning properly. A riparian area is considered to be functioning properly when adequate vegetation, landform, or large woody debris are present to dissipate streamflow energy, filter sediment, capture bedload, build floodplains, detain floodwaters, recharge groundwater and provide fish and wildlife habitat. The BDO also contains approximately 1,500 individual seep or spring associated wetlands (BLM, 2007d).
3.2.1.4 Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plants Approximately 80 percent (3.4 million acres) of the BDO has a high potential for invasion and domination by noxious weeds and invasive plants. These areas typically occur below an elevation of 5,500 feet. While noxious weeds and invasive plants are found at elevations above 5,500 feet, they have less potential to become dominant. Noxious weeds are known to occur throughout the BDO and occur in a variety of environments including riparian, upland, and forested sites. Of 66 plants listed as noxious weeds in the state of Idaho (See Appendix A), 52 are known to occur in at least one of the counties in the BDO. Species such as diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa), Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens), spotted knapweed (Centaurea biebersteinii), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula), and rush skeletonweed (Chondrilla juncea) have exhibited a tendency to increase and expand following wildland fires. This is especially true in disturbed or degraded areas such as roads, trails, livestock developments, and annual vegetation types.
3.2.1.5 Special Status Plants Special status plants (SSPs) include species listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing under the ESA, and species designated as sensitive by the BLM State Director. Special status plants are given a numeric ranking (from 1 to 4) according to scarcity and risk of extinction. Species listed under ESA as Threatened or Endangered are assigned a ranking of Type 1 and those with a lower threat of extinction are assigned a ranking of Type 2, 3 or 4, as described in Appendix E. There is one Type 1 designated plant species within the BDO, slickspot peppergrass (Lepidium papilliferum). Planning and implementation of vegetation treatment activities will comply with the Conservation Agreement between the USFWS and BLM (BLM-USFWS, 2014) or its successor agreement for ongoing actions for slickspot peppergrass. A complete discussion of the species and its habitat is available in the Biological Assessment (BA) completed for consultation with te USFWS (BLM, 2018 pages 33-63). The BA more fully discloses the effects of these actions on slickspot peppergrass (pages 74-80). Additional conservation measures, implementation actions, and design features from other plans and agreements would be incorporated as necessary. All SSPs in the BDO are listed in Appendix E.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 19 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment
3.2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Potential adverse impacts include direct effects on non-target plants in or adjacent to target weed infestations from damage by equipment and human activity in and traveling to and from weed treatment sites. Indirect adverse impacts could occur from removal of weed plants where colonization by native plants does not succeed, allowing resurgence of weed plants and damage to soils or contamination of soils that reduces their ability to support native vegetation. Long- term beneficial impacts could include long-term natural vegetation community stability, further sustaining desirable vegetation communities.
3.2.2.1 Alternative A: Impacts of the No Action Alternative: Continue with Current Integrated Weed Management Native Vegetation Communities Some disturbance to non-target vegetation occurs from foot or vehicle access of treatment locations. This results in, on a limted basis, damage or mortality of individual non-target plants due to crushing.
Herbicide Treatments The 17 herbicides available under the No Action Alternative only allow BLM to maintain their current level of effectiveness at managing noxious weeds and invasive plants. Some of the herbicides are selective and target only broadleaf species where others are non-selective and affect grasses. Herbicides could come into contact with and impact non-target plants through drift, runoff, wind transport, accidental spills, and direct spraying. Potential impacts include mortality, reduced productivity, and abnormal growth. Risk to off-site plants from spray drift is greater with smaller buffer zones. If non-selective herbicides are applied when the targeted weeds are actively growing and native vegetation is inactive, there is less potential for adverse impacts to native vegetation. Application rate is a major factor in determining risk, with higher application rates more likely to result in risk to plants in various exposure scenarios (USDI BLM 2005). Therefore, herbicide selection and application rates would be site-specific. Measures taken to limit exposure, such as selective application methods (e.g., spot applications, wiping, and hand-directed spraying), typical application rates (that are often less than the maximum allowed on the label), droplet size and drift reduction agents, and application restrictions based on environmental conditions (wind speed, precipitation, temperature, etc.), all reduce the risk of off‐target movement of herbicides. Herbicide labels and SOPs (Appendix D) would minimize risk to non‐target plants. Because applications of herbicides would consist of small-scale ground-based treatments, it is highly unlikely that treatments affect nearby vegetative communities, including wetlands or riparian areas. Treatment of noxious weeds and invasive plants in riparian areas provide long- term benefits to these areas by allowing the return of native riparian species. Herbicides are applied, directly or inadvertanly, to surface waters. Severe infestations of noxious weeds usually reduce community productivity, species diversity (relative abundance of species), and species richness (number of species) (Sheley and Petroff,
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 20 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment 1999). Based on this, controlling or eradicating noxious and invasive weeds would benefit native vegetation over the short- and long-term.
Manual Treatments Due to small scale targeting of individual plants, and ability to control the level of disturbance, manual methods would tend to minimize the potential for damage or mortality of non-target vegetation in the treatment area.
Biological Control Treatments Biological control agents reduce the abundance and reproductive capacity of host noxious weeds and invasive plants, ideally reducing vigor, abundance, and density within a plant community. These treatments may reduce vegetation cover from noxious weeds and invasive plants. Reduction in cover would not be expected to be complete; however, it may be enough to keep weeds to a minor part of the community and allow increase of desirable vegetation cover. These agents have no direct effect on nontarget species, but by reducing the competitiveness of their host plant have an indirect benefit to the native upland and riparian plant communities. Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plants
Herbicide Treatments Effective use of these herbicides would continue to allow the BDO to develop containment boundaries around many of the larger infestations to prevent or slow their spread over the long- term. The BDO would also maintain the ability to manage species not currently present but with the potential to invade.
Manual Treatments Manual treatments are used to control some noxious weeds and invasive plants, particularly if the population is relatively small. Treatments must typically be administered several times annually to prevent the invasive plant from reestablishing, which makes manual treatments of noxious weeds and invasive plants in remote locations impractical. In the process, applicators trample vegetation and disturb soil, providing isolated but prime conditions for re‐invasion by the same or other weeds.
Biological Control Treatments Biological control efforts would have long-term beneficial impacts as these treatments would only impact the target plant (i.e. specific noxious or invasive weeds). The aim of biological control is not to eradicate the target weed, but rather to exert enough pressure on the weed to reduce its dominance to a more acceptable level (Sheley and Petroff, 1999). Special Status Plants (SSP) Many special status plant species, and especially their habitats, are vulnerable to the spread of noxious weeds and invasive plants. The spread of noxious weeds and invasive plants into SSP habitats causes reductions in SSP population size and vigor, and, in extreme cases, extirpation.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 21 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment Herbicide Treatments All of the herbicides analyzed in the 2007 PEIS, would pose risks (individual mortality and structural or physical damage) to SSPs if plants are directly sprayed, at either typical or maximum application rates, during a treatment. Specific effects of herbicdes are described in the 2007 PEIS (BLM 2007a). Measures taken to limit exposure, such as selective application methods (e.g., spot applications, wiping, and hand-directed spraying), typical application rates (that are often less than the maximum allowed on the label), droplet size and drift reduction agents, and application restrictions based on environmental conditions (wind speed, precipitation, temperature, etc.), all reduce the risk of off‐target impacts of herbicides. Applying herbicide according to the labels and design features (Appendix D) would minimize risk to non‐target plants. Additional indirect effects to certain SSPs could occur if populations of pollinators or their habitat were damaged by herbicide spraying. Adverse effects to pollinators would be short-term, and population-level effects to SSPs would not be anticipated when these types of management practices are conducted in conjunction with design features. Even with the expected loss of individual plants (as components of pollinator habitat), there would likely be a sufficient amount of pollinator habitat in and around SSP populations and occurences.
Manual Treatments Design features apply specific measures to avoid effects to SSPs and habitat during manual treatments (Appendix D). Thus, adverse impacts on special status plants from manual treatments would be avoided.
Biological Control Treatments No potential direct or indirect effects on special status plants would occur using insects, nematodes, mites, or pathogens as these control agents target species-specific plants. Using biological controls to reduce or eliminate noxious weeds and invasive plants would have long- term beneficial effects on habitat for special status plants in the area treated.
3.2.2.2 Alternative B: Impacts of the Proposed Action
Herbicide Treatments The use of the three additional herbicides would allow BLM managers more options in choosing herbicides (or combinations of active ingredients, Appendix C) to best match treatment goals and application conditions, and would therefore reduce overall risk to native vegetation, decrease the need for recurring treatments, and increase positive ecosystem benefits from treatments. However, the Proposed Action could potentially result in a higher degree of impacts to non-target vegetation from off-site drift where aerial spraying would be utilized, as compared to the No Action Alternative. However, drift would be minimized by following the herbicide label specifications, and implementing design features as described in Appendix D. With adherence to herbicide label specification and design features, all treatment methods that remove noxious weeds and invasive plants are likely to have beneficial effects on native and desirable vegetation, provided that treated areas naturally regenerate with desirable vegetation. Because more acres would be treated than under the other alternatives, greater control of
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 22 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment noxious weeds and invasive plants would occur under the Proposed Action. Therefore, populations of special status plants would most likely benefit from treatments that provide habitat improvements under this alternative. It is expected that the extent and rate of spread of weeds would be lowest under the Proposed Action, and that there would be less competition for special status plants than under the other alternatives. Having additional herbicides available would help prevent development of herbicide resistance in target weeds by adding chemicals that control the plants through different modes of action. The additional herbicides available under this alternative would permit more effective rotation of herbicides that, would help prevent the development of herbicide resistance. This alternative would also provide more options in choosing herbicides to best match treatment goals and application conditions, which would provide the best possibilities for successful control of targeted weeds and would minimize the chance that invasive species would become resistant to herbicides. The ability to employ the most technologically advanced herbicides would reduce risk to non-target plants and therefore also reduce the risk of weed reinvasion occurring prior to reestablishment of native vegetation. Weed resistance to herbicides may be minimized by using multiple herbicides with different modes of action in the same application, alternating herbicides with different modes of action each year, or alternating herbicide use with other effective forms of treatment (BLM 2007a). Overall, this alternative provides the greatest likelihood of reducing the level of weed infestations within the BDO and successfully controlling new invasions.
3.2.2.3 Impacts of the No Aerial Application of Herbicides Alternative Potential impacts from manual, biological, and re-vegetation treatments would be the same as those discussed under the Proposed Action. Under this alternative, the total treatment acreage would be reduced because some large and remote areas could not be effectively treated by ground application methods. This alternative would result in less potential for drift of herbicides to non-target vegetation as compared to the Proposed Action where aerial spraying would be utilized. It would also result in less short-term impacts to nontarget plants. However, it is likely that long-term adverse effects on desired plant communities and ecosystems would be greater than any potential short-term adverse effects that would result from aerial applications. In addition, direct and indirect impacts from other vegetation treatment options could increase if these methods were used more extensively to compensate for the reduced number of acres treated by herbicides. These impacts could include greater vegetation damage from the use of ground-based equipment than under the other alternatives.
3.3 WILDLIFE (INCLUDING SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES)
3.3.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Wildlife refers to all wild animal species present within the BDO, either permanent residents or migratory species. The wildlife present in the BDO are a reflection of the habitat and forage available in the area and are indirectly affected by impacts to the environment including impacts to vegetation. Fish and aquatic species are discussed in the Section 3.4.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 23 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment 3.3.1.1 General Wildlife The BDO boundary includes all lands managed by the BLM, actual treatments would most likely be confined to habitats with relatively intact native or other desirable vegetation but which include patchily distributed noxious weeds and invasive plants on public lands. Wildlife habitat management of public lands within the BDO consists of maintaining and improving food, water, and cover. Significant differences in habitat requirements exist between species, whereby good habitat conditions for one species may not meet adequate habitat conditions for another species. Riparian zones are regarded as the most important habitats for wildlife, providing water and highly variable structural diversity.Wildlife diversity in areas where noxious weeds and invasive plants are invading is considered at risk, and the quality within the patches of noxious weeds may also be reduced; however, the greatest threat in these habitats is a situation where weeds are unchecked and habitat continues to be invaded and lost. General terrestrial wildlife species known to occur within the BDO include pronghorn antelope, mule deer, elk, migratory birds, and sagebrush obligate birds. A large number of other species also occur here: 1) a variety of mammalian predators; 2) small mammals such as bats, shrews, rodents, and rabbits; 3) waterfowl; 4) non-native game birds; and 5) a diversity of reptiles and amphibians. Every vegetation community type within the BDO provides important year-long or seasonal habitat for some combination of these animals. Fish and wildlife populations are administered by the IDFG or in the case of migratory species the USFWS. The IDFG has developed management objectives for big game animals and worked with various federal agencies in setting and achieving these objectives. These management plans divide the state into Analysis Areas, include species status management objectives, and are designed to be reviewed and updated regularly.
3.3.1.2 Special Status Species Potentially affected special status terrestrial wildlife includes all the ESA listed and candidate species, BLM sensitive wildlife species, and USFWS migratory Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) which occur in the BDO. BLM sensitive species can be designated by the State Director. The intent of designating BLM sensitive species is to manage habitat in a manner that reduces the likelihood of a species being listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA. In Idaho, BLM special status species consist of two types as described in Appendix E. Four threathened (Type 1) terrestrial species including northern Idaho ground squirrel (Urocitellus brunneus), Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), North American wolverine (Gulo gulo luscus) and the yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) are identified as potentially occurring on the BDO. However, their occurrence is unlikely due to a lack of suitable habitat. Of the four species, only yellow-billed cuckoo has been documented (rarely) on the Boise District and these were likely migratory individuals. Due to the lack of suitable habitat and the little likelihood of occurring on the BDO, there would be no effect to these species and they will not be discussed further in this document. Type 2 terrestrial species on the BDO include 25 species of mammals, 26 species of birds, five species of amphibians, three species of reptiles, and one species of invertebrates. Appendix E contains a full list of all special status species that occur in the BDO.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 24 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment
3.3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Impacts to wildlife species are evaluated by determining the type of treatment to be conducted (ground herbicide/aerial herbicide, manual, biological control, and re-vegetation) and the impacts to habitat as a result of the treatment. Impacts to wildlife that would occur under the Proposed Action and action alternatives are compared against the No Action Alternative using the analyses conducted in the 2007 and 2016 PEISs. This assessment of impacts assumes that guidance provided in BLM manuals, handbooks, and SOPs would be followed during all vegetation treatment activities.
3.3.2.1 Alternative A - Impacts of the No Action Alternative: Continue with Current Integrated Weed Management Under the No Action Alternative, the BDO would continue to implement treatments, on noxious weeds and invasive plants using the 17 herbicides approved by the 2007 PEIS. There is potential for localized adverse effects to wildlife habitat from vegetation treatments resulting from the unintended damage to native plant species. Proposed treatments would generally be directed only at noxious weeds and invasive plants, rather than over broad areas. Treatments would be designed to reduce damage to native vegetation and reduce unnecessary site disturbance that favors reinvasion by noxious weeds and invasive plants. Collateral damage to native vegetation and habitats would be minimal and limited to the immediate area of the treatment site. The BLM would use design features when implementing treatments, as well as the least amount of herbicide needed to kill a noxious weed or invasive plant, so that the risk of non-target plant mortality would be low. Integrated weed management treatments would temporarily displace and disturb wildlife, due to the presence of people and equipment. Disturbance would be a temporary disruption of an animal’s activities. Large mammals may avoid an area during treatment activities, but it is common for the animals to return to the area as soon as activities cease. Small mammals or birds, including raptors, may be disturbed while workers are in the immediate area, but they may resume normal activities when workers have moved a few yards away. Adverse impacts on wildlife from disturbance are likely to be minimal. Herbicide Treatments Herbicides have the potential to directly harm wildlife through toxic reactions. Herbicide effects to wildlife are described in detail in the 2007 PEIS in Table 4.22 on page 4-103 and Table 4.23 on page 4-107. Direct adverse effects of herbicides on wildlife would vary depending on the chemical type, chemical concentration, season of application, exposure rate, exposure method, and species. Indirectly, herbicide treatments may reduce cover temporarily. Spot treatments of noxious weeds and invasive plants in small areas would not have measurable indirect effects on wildlife populations. Perennial shrub and grass cover would be expected to remain. Some diversity may be temporarily lost as a result of this treatment; however, diversity would be expected to
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 25 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment improve in the long-term because of reduced competition from noxious weeds and invasive plants. As with the other treatments, beneficial effects on wildlife and habitat would occur with control of noxious weeds and invasive species using herbicide applications. Expected habitat improvements would include increased cover of desirable perennial grass species, increased structural diversity of vegetation, increased forage, and increased plant species diversity. Manual Treatments Manual methods (such as pulling, digging, and grubbing invasive plants) can cause disturbance and displacement when animals flee the area surrounding the treatment activities. Wildlife would likely be displaced temporarily as a result of manual treatments. Manual treatments would not likely modify habitats to the extent that adverse effects would occur. Potential for harm or injuries to wildlife would not generally be expected because manual techniques would be applied in small areas of noxious weed and invasive plant infestations. Impacts to wildlife from human disturbance would be minimal because work crews could more easily spot and avoid animals in their path than would heavy equipment operators. Additionally, work crews’ movement would be slow enough that most animals would be able to leave the area before coming into contact with workers. Wildlife would be expected to indirectly benefit from manual treatments in the long-term. The removal of noxious weeds and invasive plants would be expected to curtail habitat loss. In areas where treatments have been applied, desirable vegetation would recover, which would be expected to increase available habitat for wildlife. Biological Control Treatments Direct effects on wildlife from the use of invertebrates as a biological control agent would not occur since the species being used are host-specific herbivores (BLM, 2007a). These host-specific herbivores would not reduce forage or habitat of wildlife and would cause no direct effects. Some plant cover may be reduced as infestations are reduced by biological control agents. Indirectly, the use of biological control agents would be expected to improve the habitat quality for wildlife over the long-term as desirable vegetation recovers. As target vegetation decreases with the use of biological control, the area treated would be recolonized by existing surrounding vegetation.
3.3.2.2 Alternative B - Impacts of the Proposed Action Under the Proposed Action, IWM strategies may include herbicide applications including aerial, manual methods, and biological control. Effects from treatments under the Proposed Action would be the same as those effects described under the No Action Alternative for those activities which are conducted under both alternatives. The impacts of additional herbicides, aerial application of herbicides and revegetation are discussed below. The use of the three additional herbicides would allow BLM managers more options in choosing herbicides that best match treatment goals and application conditions and are less toxic, and
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 26 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment may therefore reduce overall risk to wildlife and increase habitat and ecosystem benefits from treatment. A summary of effects to wildlife from the three additional herbicides is available in the 2016 PEIS on pages 4-54 through 4-59. Effects at the population scale would be beneficial, as the benefits of controlling noxious weeds and invasive plants would result in proportionately fewer degraded sites and better retention of forage compared to the No Action Alternative. Having more herbicides available for control of invasive plants would allow for more targeted treatment of infestations and allow for rehabilitation of infested sites to try to restore usable wildlife and special status species habitat. Aerial applications of up to 50 acres would potentially have a greater affect on wildlife as opposed to ground based spot treatments. Disturbance of wildlife from aerial applications in any one area would be of short duration. Wildlife species vary in their sensitivity to over-flight disturbance, but most responses would be indirect and related to wildlife seeking new cover or food for short periods of time. As all herbicide applications would occur in accordance with applicable timing restrictions, BMPs and SOPs (Appendix D), the likelihood of these impacts are minimal.
3.3.2.3 Alternative C - Impacts of the No Aerial Application of Herbicides This alternative would allow the use of the same herbicides in the same areas as under the Proposed Action, and would have similar benefits resulting from the increased availability of all 18 herbicides. However, this alternative would not allow the use of aerial application methods, thereby reducing the acreage on which treatments would be possible because some remote or difficult terrain areas cannot be effectively treated by ground application methods. This alternative would result in fewer impacts to wildlife as there would be no risk from off-site drift with aerial spraying of herbicides.. Conversely, without the option for aerial spraying, the BLM would be unable to treat larger infestations, which would adversely impact wildlife habitat in these areas over the long-term. Over time, untreated infestations would continue to expand, thereby altering native vegetation composition upon which wildlife species depend.
3.4 FISH AND AQUATIC SPECIES (INCLUDING SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES) Special status fish and aquatic invertebrates include those species that are federally listed under the ESA of 1973 and the aquatic species included on the Idaho BLM’s special status animal species list (BLM, 2015b). These special status fish and aquatic invertebrates, as well as the non-special status aquatic species, are discussed in this section. All water bodies within the BDO, which include rivers, creeks, lakes, reservoirs, groundwater seeps and springs, and ponds serve as the area for analysis.
3.4.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3.4.1.1 Special Status Species Three Type 1 aquatic animal species, The Bruneau hot springsnail (Pyrgulopsis bruneauensis), Bliss Rapids snail (Taylorconcha serpenticola), Snake River physa snail (Physella natricina) all occupy specific aquatic habitats in the project area. Critical habitat for bull trout (Salvelinus
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 27 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment confluentes) occurs within the Bruneau River. This project does not include application of herbicides to surface water or aquatic vegetation so there would be no effect to bull trout, Bliss Rapids snails, or Snake River physa snails. Bruneau hot springsnail habitat is closely connected to riparian habitats and any treatments there may impact the springsnail habitat. The impacts discussed in this document will only relate to the Bruneau hot springsnail, unless specifically mentioned otherwise. The other three aquatic species will not be discussed further. The Bruneau hot springsnail was listed as endangered under ESA in 1993; however, critical habitat has not been designated. Despite previous conservation efforts, populations are in decline and threats persist, putting the species at risk for extinction. The USFWS is actively working with the state of Idaho and other conservation partners to reduce threats and ultimately recover this species. The BA for this project more fully describes the species, its habitat, and the effects of the proposed actions (BLM, 2018 pages 26-31 and 69-74). The Bruneau hot springsnail is endemic to a series of thermal springs and seeps that occur along 5 miles (8 km) on both the east and west sides of the Bruneau River in southwest Idaho (e.g., Hot Creek) (Mladenka, 1992). A majority of occupied springsnail springs and seeps (typically 1.6 square feet [0.15 square meters] to 398 square feet [37 square meters] in area) are located along both shorelines of the Bruneau River up to 2.77 miles (4.46 km) above its confluence with Hot Creek, while the remaining sites occur up to 2.67 miles (4.30 km) below the Hot Creek-Bruneau River confluence (Mladenka, 1992). Bruneau River geothermal springs occupied by the spring snail have declined from 146 in 1991 to 66 in 2006 upstream of Hot Creek and have increased downstream of Hot Creek from 20 in 1996 to 88 in 2006 (Myler, 2006). As geothermal springs and seeps have dried up, historically large Bruneau hot springsnail colonies have become fragmented into smaller colonies. Although the number of low-density springsnail colonies have increased downstream of Hot Creek, the remaining geothermal spring habitats are smaller, resulting in an overall decline in springsnail population size. There are nine Type 2 amphibian and fish species in the project area. These include Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris) and redband trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdneri). See Appendix E for a full list of Type 2 aquatic species Over 30 non-special status native and non-native fish species occupy the Snake River and smaller rivers, streams, creeks, and reservoirs within the BDO. In general, the habitat requirements for native non-special status fish include stream channels with low levels of instream fine sediments, cool water temperatures, streamflows suitable for successful spawning and passage, and water quality with minimal chemical and nutrient contamination. The rivers, streams, and reservoirs within the BDO are also occupied by a diverse assemblage of aquatic invertebrate species such as freshwater snails, clams, and aquatic insects (e.g., stoneflies, mayflies, and caddisflies).
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 28 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment
3.4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
3.4.2.1 Impacts of the No Action Alternative: Continue with Current Integrated Weed Management For purposes of analysis, the impacts to all fish and aquatic species, including special status species, would be the same. For this reason, the analysis does not differentiate between special status and non special status fish and aquatic species. The No Action Alternative includes design features to reduce the potential for adverse direct or indirect impacts to aquatic species and habitats. Collectively, these features will be developed during ESA consultation with the USFWS and adopted by the BLM as practices to reduce the threats to aquatic species and their habitats. Although the design features (Appendix D) may not completely eliminate all direct or indirect impacts, they will be expected to reduce impacts below levels that would have adverse effects on special status aquatic species. All vegetation treatments implemented under this EA would be consistent with ESA consultation(s).
Herbicide Treatments Ground-based herbicide treatments outside of the riparian area buffers would not have direct impacts to special status aquatic species. All chemicals would be applied to federal label requirements which would preclude drift. Under this alternative, the BDO would continue to implement treatments on noxious weeds and invasive plants using the 17 herbicides approved by the 2007 PEIS (BLM, 2007a) as part of the BDO IWM Plan. Impacts to all fish and aquatic species from herbicide treatments under the No Action Alternative would be the same as those described within the 2007 PEIS under the Preferred Alternative (pages 4-41 through 4-42). Generally, BLM would continue to treat infestations using currently available herbicides which would provide long term beneficial impacts to riparian areas by reducing the potential for encroaching noxious species to dominate the ecosystem. The BLM would follow the design features described in Appendix D to reduce potential unintended adverse impacts to fish and aquatic species from the application of herbicides. The use of design features that limit the herbicide application method, weather conditions, chemical use, and identify distances from live water (all also covered in the federal herbicide label) would reduce the potential for herbicides to enter streams. Although temporary and short- term adverse direct or indirect impacts cannot be completely eliminated, the impacts are expected to be less than if noxious weeds and invasive plants were to displace hydric vegetation necessary to maintain streambank stability and streamside shading. In the long-term, special status aquatic species are expected to benefit from management actions to eliminate noxious weeds and invasive plants from the occupied riparian areas.
Manual Treatments Manual treatments within riparian areas may be necessary to remove invasive or noxious weeds and involve the use of manual labor, hand tools and hand-operated power tools to cut, clear, or prune herbaceous and woody species. Manual treatments within riparian areas are expected to result in fewer impacts to aquatic species than if noxious weeds and invasive plants displaced the deep-rooted hydric herbaceous
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 29 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment and woody vegetation. Reduced bank stabilization and stream shading associated with noxious and invasive weeds would have long term and potentially adverse effects on aquatic species. Therefore, manual treatments would result in long-term indirect benefits to aquatic species.
Biological Control Treatments The use of biological controls is expected to be effective in reducing noxious weeds within riparian areas without having adverse impacts to hydric or other native riparian vegetation. Biological control treatments are not expected to have short-term direct or indirect adverse impacts to aquatic species. In the long-term, beneficial effects to aquatic species would be similar to those described under manual treatments.
3.4.2.2 Impacts of the Proposed Action
Herbicide Treatments The types of effects of herbicides under this alternative would be similar to those described under the No Action Alternative. The addition of three herbicides available for treatments under this alternative would not result in any different types of impacts than those disclosed under the No Action Alternative, as the three new herbicides are not approved for aquatic use. In considering the wind speed requirements during the time of application, it is expected that the chemical applied would remain within the treatment area and not drift into areas where occupied habitats would be adversely impacted. Any impacts are expected to be less than if noxious weeds and invasive plants displace the hydric vegetation needed to maintain streambank stability and streamside shading. In the long-term, all aquatic species are likely to benefit from herbicide treatments that reduce or eliminate noxious weeds and invasive plants because the threat for weeds to adversely impact riparian areas is reduced. Overall, the adverse effects of herbicide application under the Proposed Action are expected to be similar to the No Action Alternative as described in the PEISs. Beneficial effects to all aquatic species are expected to be higher than the No Action Alternative due to increased effectiveness of herbicide use from the three additional herbicides available for use for noxious weed and invasive plant removal and the increased number of acres treated would provide the most benefit to riparian areas. Ground-based herbicide treatments outside of the riparian area buffers would not have direct impacts to special status aquatic species. All chemicals would be applied to federal label requirements which would preclude drift.
3.4.2.3 Impacts of the No Aerial Application of Herbicides Alternative Potential impacts from manual, biological, and re-vegetation treatments would be the same as those discussed under the Proposed Action for all treatments. Potential impacts from ground based herbicide application would be the same as those discussed under the Proposed Action. As described under the design features, aerial application of herbicides would not occur within prescribed setbacks of riparian areas. The lack of aerial application of herbicides under this alternative may result in long term negative impacts to all aquatic species as the potential for
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 30 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment infestations of noxious and/or invasive species to encroach into riparian areas would be increased.
3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
3.5.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Cultural, Historic, and Archaeological Resources Including National Historic Trails and Native American Sites The project area provides important subsistence resources to members of the Northern Paiute, Northern Shoshone, Bannock and Eastern Shoshone Tribes and their ancestors. Camas Prairie was an important area providing camas root (Camassia quamash) in the summer (BLM, 2011). Camas root is considered a species of traditional use to groups that traveled between the Snake River and Camas Prairie for seasonal rounds. Remnants of the Oregon National Historic Trail (NHT) traverse the entire BDO in a southeast to northwestern direction. As a congressionally-designated trail, the BLM must manage the scenic and historic integrity of the selected historic sites and cross country segments, avoid destruction of Trail resources, and consider trail management responsibilities in land use plans.
3.5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
3.5.2.1 Impacts of the No Action Alternative: Continue with Current Integrated Weed Management Vehicles used in noxious weed control efforts would have the potential to break or move surface artifacts and features. Chemical and biological weed treatments have little effect on archaeological resources such as stone or lithic artifacts, although they could significantly impact traditional cultural properties or native plant gathering and collection places. As a result of applied Design Features, Tribal, and SHPO consultation; adverse impacts to cultural, historic, and archaeological resources from the continued implementation of small scale treatments would be minimal. Potential adverse impacts from individual weed treatment projects (except spot treatments) could include temporary and short-term site surface erosion or worsening of existing poor conditions of trails from the removal of vegetation via chemical, or manual methods. Because vegetation conditions dominated by noxious weeds and invasive plant species or sparse vegetation can diminish the visual quality of a NHT and increase the potential for soil erosion, herbicide treatments could have beneficial impacts to NHT visual aesthetics by allowing native plant cover to re-establish and reflect the historic setting of trails. Under the No Action Alternative, adverse impacts to tribal rights and interests on public lands from the continued implementation of small scale weed treatments would be minimal and unlikely. Appropriate design features would be followed, and consultations would be conducted as necessary to avoid or mitigate impacts. Treatments to control noxious weeds and other
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 31 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment invasive species could benefit populations of native plant species used as subsistence or for other traditional practices by eliminating competition with the native plant community.
3.5.2.2 Impacts of the Proposed Action The types of potential impacts from herbicide applications, biological treatments and manual treatments under the Proposed Action would be similar to the treatments described under the No Action Alternative. Because herbicide applications would not increase the potential for impacts to cultural resources, the addition of three new herbicides and the use of aerial application of herbicides under the Proposed Action would not result in additional impacts. The Proposed Action would increase the potential for impacts to non-target species, including native plants traditionally used by Shoshone-Bannock and Shoshone-Paiute Tribes through the use of aerial applications of herbicides. Additionally, the use of aerial application would reduce the amount of vehicles trips over the treatments area, thus reducing direct impacts and damage to cultural sites. Consultations and mitigation would be conducted and developed in the same manner as in the No Action Alternative to minimize potential impacts for a particular project.
3.5.2.3 Impacts of the No Aerial Application of Herbicides Alternative The types of potential impacts from ground based herbicide applications, manual and biological treatments would be the same as those described for the Proposed Action. Impacts to Tribal rights and interests on public lands would be more limited than for the Proposed Action because the impacts to non-target species of cultural significance to tribes would be less likely to occur without the use of aerial herbicide applications. Consultations and potential mitigation would be conducted and developed to minimize potential impacts for a particular treatment.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 32 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment CHAPTER 4 – CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
NEPA requires an assessment of potential cumulative impacts in the decision-making process. Federal regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508) define cumulative impacts as: …the impact on the environment which 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. Potential cumulative impacts are assessed at the resource level. This discussion of potential cumulative impacts assumes the successful implementation of the design features, standard operating procedures, and best management practices outlined in Appendix D, as well as compliance with applicable Land Use Plan and all applicable federal, state, and local regulations and requirements. The analysis of cumulative impacts addresses both potential negative and positive impacts and is applicable to all alternatives. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects and actions that may contribute to cumulative effects in the BDO are listed below (if there is no field office specified, the activity or project applies to all field offices in BDO). As the proposed action and action alternatives consider similar types of projects across the entire district, the cumulative impact analysis does not differentiate analysis based on the alternatives.
4.1 PAST, PRESENT AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE PROJECTS 4.1.1 Activities Livestock Grazing; Recreation; Mining; Oil and Gas (FRFO); Wild Horse Grazing; Wildfire; Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation; Fuels management; Wildlife habitat management
4.1.2 Projects Past, present, and potential future actions are considered in the analysis to identify whether and to what extent the environment has been degraded or enhanced, whether ongoing activities are causing impacts, and trends for activities in and impacts on the area. Projects and activities are evaluated on the basis of proximity, connection to the same environmental systems, potential for subsequent impacts or activity, similar impacts, the likelihood a project will occur, and whether the project is reasonably foreseeable.
Cumulative Effects 33 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment Effects of past actions and activities are manifested in the current condition of the resources, as described in the affected environment (see Chapter 3). Reasonably foreseeable future actions (RFFAs) considered in the cumulative analysis include those that have either been permitted or are in the permitting process and considered reasonably foreseeable.
Gateway West Transmission Line The Gateway West project would originate at the proposed Windstar substation near Glenrock, Wyoming and terminate at the Hemingway substation near Melba, Idaho, about 20 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho and cross the BDO.
Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line PacifiCorp, Bonneville Power Administration, and Idaho Power jointly propose to design, construct, operate and maintain a new 500 kilovolt, single-circuit electric transmission line from a proposed substation near Boardman, Oregon to the Hemingway Substation near Melba, Idaho - known as the Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project or B2H Project. The Final EIS was published in November, 2016.
Tri-State Fuel Breaks (OFO and BFO) The BLM Boise and Vale districts propose to develop a strategic fuel break system using established roads to protect habitat for the Northern Great Basin sage-grouse population, as well as other sagebrush obligates, from the threat of wildfire. The location of the fuel breaks would cross district and state boundaries, tying into the existing network of contiguous fuel breaks established on the Nevada BLM Elko and Winnemucca districts. Preparation of the EIS for this project is currently underway.
Bruneau Owyhee Sage-grouse Habitat Juniper Thinning (OFO and BFO) The BDO is proposing a landscape level project to protect and maintain sage-grouse habitat in southwest Idaho. The proposal is to eliminate juniper that is in the early stages of encroachment and convert habitat into otherwise suitable and functioning sage-grouse habitat. An EIS is currently being prepared.
Bruneau Fuel Breaks to Maintain and Restore Sage-grouse Habitat (BFO) This project is developing a network of fuel breaks along 128 miles of road to restore and maintain sage-grouse habitat and enhance firefighting capability in the southern portion of the BFO. The Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for this project was released on April 30, 2013.
Paradigm (FRFO) The BDO FRFO and Fuels Management Team proposed to create a network of strategic fuel breaks between Bonneville Point and Glenns Ferry in Elmore County, Idaho. The FONSI for this project was released on April 27, 2015. Over the next six to ten years, the BLM will establish a 356-mile network of fuel breaks in the Paradigm Project area, primarily incorporating existing transportation corridors to maximize fire suppression efforts and limit disturbance.
Cumulative Effects 34 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment Soda Fire Fuel Breaks (OFO) The BLM proposed to establish a strategic system of fuel breaks inside and outside the Soda Fire perimeter in the Owyhee (Idaho) and Malheur (Oregon) Field Offices in western Idaho and eastern Oregon by constructing approximately 400 miles of mechanical fuel breaks along existing roads. The EA was released for public review on May 13, 2016.
Trout Springs and Pole Creek Projects (OFO) These adjacent projects are aimed at treating juniper encroachment in the area of Juniper Mountain in the Owyhee Field Office. The projects covers 47,786 acres within the Trout Springs and Pole Creek Allotments and authorizes a combination of treatments including tree cutting, prescribed fire, herbicide treatment and adjusted livestock grazing. The FONSIs for Pole Creek and Trout Springs were released on March 1, 2012 and May 2, 2014, respectively. Ongoing Weed Management on lands not managed by the BLM Over the years, Idaho has enacted statutes and created programs designed to prevent and manage a wide variety of invasive species. Often, these programs are administered in cooperation with various partners and range from monitoring site-specific populations to landscape-wide trends. The agencies involved include: Ada, Adams, Boise, Canyon, Elmore, Gem, Owyhee, Payette, Twin Falls, and Washington County Weed Departments; Idaho Department of Lands; Idaho Department of Fish and Game; Idaho Department of Transportation; Idaho Department of Agriculture; Idaho Power Company; private landowners; USDA’s Animal, Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and Forest Service (USFS); and the Lower Gem, Lower Weiser River, Jordan Valley, Adams, Upper Payette, and South Fork of the Boise Cooperative Weed Management Areas (CWMAs). In addition, the University of Idaho’s colleges of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the Cooperative Extension Service play important research and educational roles. Finally, local governments, industries and their associations, various interest groups and individuals work cooperatively in control and educational efforts, often coming together in successful efforts such as cooperative weed management areas and the Idaho Weed Awareness Campaign. Idaho’s Strategic Plan for Managing Noxious Weeds was released in February of 1999, which created Statewide Cooperative Weed Management Areas (CWMAs) that developed and integrated weed management plans. These weed management programs are responsible for identifying local and regional invasive and noxious weed concerns and educating local landowners on treatments, government aids, etc. Currently there are 29 successfully functioning CWMA’s that cover approximately 82% of the State, including the area surrounding the BDO. This cooperative process has since lead to the establishment of the Idaho Invasive Species Council (IISC), which was established by Governor Kempthorne’s Executive Order No. 2001-11. Their primary task is to “provide policy level direction and planning for combating harmful invasive species infestations throughout the State and for preventing the introduction of others that may be potentially harmful”. In addition to these and other invasive and noxious weed management programs implemented by the State, and on a county-by-county basis, various federal statutes have been put in place to combat invasive and noxious weeds as well.
Cumulative Effects 35 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment 4.1.3 Physical and Temporal Boundaries of Cumulative Impacts The cumulative impact analysis area (CIAA) includes past, existing and reasonably foreseeable actions that may generate cumulative impacts. The CIAA’s physical and temporal boundaries can vary by resource depending on the types of projects and nature of the proposed action. The analysis period covered by the cumulative effects analysis includes the past 20 years to 10 years in the future. Unless otherwise noted, the spatial domain for past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities is the Boise District. This area is comprised of public land with varying degrees of state and private lands. Although BLM does not have authority to regulate activities on lands that it does not administer, actions occurring on public lands can cause direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on non-federal lands. Actions on non-federal lands may also affect adjacent public lands as well.
4.2 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF INTEGRATED WEED MANAGEMENT Due to the limited scale of IWM treatments and the variability of location, there is not expected to be any measurable cumulative effects from any of the above described alternatives. There are a multitude of ongoing projects across the CIAA on private, state, and public lands. Any cumulative effects that do occur as a result of these weed treatments, immeasurable or not, are expected to benefit, over the short and long term, the habitats and condition of the resources analyzed. Any attempt to further analyze the potential cumulative effects where there are little to no measurable direct or indirect effects would not result in a meaningful discussion and disclosure of effects, beyond what is discussed in Chapter 3. Therefore, there will be no further discussion of these effects in this document.
Cumulative Effects 36 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment CHAPTER 5 – CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
In response to the threats of noxious weeds and invasive plants in Idaho, the BLM and other federal agencies signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in 2015 with the State of Idaho, Idaho Association of Counties, the University of Idaho and the Nez Perce Tribe for the establishment of a Strategic Plan for Managing Noxious Weeds for Idaho. This EA has been developed consistent with the objectives defined in the MOU in coordination with the signatories and members of the Idaho Weed Coordinating Committee.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Endangered Species Act section 7 consultation was conducted with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). A final decision based on the EA will not be made until consultation is concluded. Since this consultation is based on a programmatic analysis, continued coordination between the USFWS and the BLM would assist in monitoring weed control projects. If site-specific weed treatments exceed the parameters described under the Proposed Action and/or may adversely affect proposed or listed species or their habitats, additional site-specific ESA section 7 consultation may be required prior to individual project implementation.
TRIBAL CONSULTATION BLM is required to consult with Native American tribes to “help assure (1) that federally recognized tribal governments and Native American individuals, whose traditional uses of public land might be affected by a proposed action, will have sufficient opportunity to contribute to the decision, and (2) that the decision maker will give tribal concerns proper consideration” (U.S. Department of the Interior, BLM Manual Handbook H-8120-1). Tribal coordination and consultation responsibilities are implemented under laws and Executive Orders (EOs) that are specific to cultural resources which are referred to as “cultural resource authorities,” and under regulations that are not specific which are termed “general authorities.” Cultural resource authorities include: the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA); the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA); and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990, as amended (NAGPRA). General authorities include: the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1979 (AIRFA); NEPA; the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA); and EO 13007-Indian Sacred Sites. The proposed action is in compliance with the aforementioned authorities. Southwest Idaho is the homeland of two culturally and linguistically related tribes: The Northern Shoshone and the Northern Paiute. In the latter half of the 19th century, a reservation was established at Duck Valley on the Nevada/Idaho border west of the Bruneau River. The Shoshone- Paiute Tribes residing on the Duck Valley Reservation today actively practice their culture and retain aboriginal rights and/or interests in this area. The Shoshone-Paiute Tribes assert aboriginal rights to their traditional homelands as their treaties with the United States, the Boise Valley Treaty of 1864 and the Bruneau Valley Treaty of 1866, which would have extinguished aboriginal title to the lands now federally administered, were never ratified. Other tribes that have ties to southwest Idaho include the Bannock Tribe and the Nez Perce Tribe. Southeast Idaho is the homeland of the Northern Shoshone Tribe and the Bannock Tribe. In 1867
Consultation and Coordination 37 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment a reservation was established at Fort Hall in southeastern Idaho. The Fort Bridger Treaty of 1868 applies to BLM’s relationship with the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. The northern part of the BLM’s Boise District was also inhabited by the Nez Perce Tribe. The Nez Perce signed treaties in 1855, 1863, and 1868. BLM considers off-reservation treaty-reserved fishing, hunting, gathering, and similar rights of access and resource use on the public lands it administers for all tribes that may be affected by a proposed action. The BDO consulted with the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes through the Wings & Roots Program and completed such in March 2018. Consultation with the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes was conducted in June 2016.
IDAHO STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER (SHPO) Herbicide application where it would be unlikely to affect rock art or traditional Native American plant gathering areas is an exempted undertaking that is excluded from project specific consultation with SHPO provided the Cultural Resource (CR) specialist determines the applicability of the exclusion on a case by case basis upon review of previous survey work. The CR may require an inspection or inventory of the exempt undertaking if they anticipate that historic properties will be disturbed (BLM/SHPO Protocol, 2014).
LIST OF PREPARERS BLM Seth Flanigan Boise District Assistant Project Manager and NEPA Specialist Mike McGee Fish and Wildlife Biologist Chris Clay Boise District GIS Lead Cindy Fritz Supervisory ESR Specialist Jon Haupt Rangeland Management Specialist Lonnie Huter Weed Management Specialist Kathi Kershaw Ecologist Lois Palmgren Archeologist Mark Steiger Botanist
Solv LLC Eveline Martin Project Manager; Environmental Analyst: Vegetation Rachel Gittman Environmental Analyst: Fish and Aquatic Species Blake Hamilton Environmental Analyst: Cultural Resources Chelsie Romulo GIS Specialist; Environmental Analyst: Wildlife
Consultation and Coordination 38 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment CHAPTER 6 - REFERENCES (BLM, 1983a). United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1983. Bruneau Management Framework Plan. Boise District, Idaho. Available online at: https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front- office/projects/lup/35605/41978/44479/BruneauMFP.pdf. (BLM, 1983b). United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1983. Kuna Management Framework Plan. Boise District, Idaho. Available online at: https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front- office/projects/lup/35354/41602/44002/Kuna_MFP.pdf. (BLM, 1987). United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1987. Jarbidge Resource Management Plan Record of Decision. Boise District, Idaho. (BLM, 1988). United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1988. Cascade Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement. Boise District, Idaho. Available online at: https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front- office/projects/lup/35606/41979/44480/Cascade_PRMP_FEIS_1988_Part_I.pdf (BLM, 1996). United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1996. Partners Against Weeds - An Action Plan for the Bureau of Land Management. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Land Management. (BLM, 1999). United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1999. Owyhee Resource Management Plan. Lower Snake River District, Boise Field Office, Idaho. Available online at: https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front- office/projects/lup/35607/41983/44484/Owyhee_RMP_ROD_1999.pdf. (BLM, 2007a). United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2007. Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Available online at: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/veg_eis.html. (BLM, 2007b). United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management 2007. Vegetation Treatments Final Programmatic Environmental Report. Available online at: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/veg_eis.html. (BLM, 2007c). United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2007. Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides Final Biological Assessment. Available online at: http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Planning_and_Renewable_Resources/veis. Par.81642.File.dat/Final%20Biological%20Assessment%20%20(June%202007).pdf. (BLM, 2007d). United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2007. Noxious and Invasive Weed Treatment Environmental Assessment for the Boise District and Jarbidge Field Offices. DOI-BLM-ID-100-2005-265. (BLM, 2007e). United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2007. Noxious and Invasive Weed Treatment Biological Assessment for the Boise District and Jarbidge Field Offices.
Appendix A 39 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment (BLM, 2008). United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2008. Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement. ID-111-2006-EIS-1740. Boise District Office, Idaho. Available online at: https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front- office/projects/lup/35553/41908/44408/SRBOPA_NCA_FEIS_V1_508.pdf. (BLM, 2011). United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2015. Paradigm Fuel Break Project Environmental Assessment. 2011. DOI-BLM-ORWA-P000- 2011-0019-EA. Available online at: https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front- office/projects/nepa/15052/46426/50138/DOI-BLM-ID-B010-2011-0060- EA_Paradigm_Public_Draft_01232013.pdf. (BLM, 2012). United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2012. Management of wilderness study areas. Manual 6330. Bureau of Land Management, Washington D.C. 56 pp. (BLM, 2015a). United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2015. Idaho and Southwestern Montana Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment. Idaho State Office. Available online at: https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front- office/projects/lup/31652/63338/68680/IDMT_ARMPA_web.pdf. (BLM, 2015b). United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2015. Idaho Special Status Animal Species. October 2015. Internal Document. (BLM, 2016a). United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2016. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vegetation Treatments Using Aminopyralid, Fluroxypyr, and Rimsulfuron on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States. Available online at: https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front- office/eplanning/planAndProjectSite.do?methodName=dispatchToPatternPage¤t PageId=103601 (BLM, 2016b). United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2016. Record of Decision Vegetation Treatments Using Aminopyralid, Fluroxypyr, and Rimsulfuron on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States. Available online at: https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front- office/eplanning/planAndProjectSite.do?methodName=dispatchToPatternPage¤t PageId=103601 (BLM, 2018). United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2018. Biological Assessment for Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management. (BLM/SHPO Protocol, 2014). United States Department of Interior, Idaho Bureau of Land Management, Idaho State Historic Preservation Office. 2014. State protocol agreement between the Idaho State Director of the Bureau of Land Management and the Idaho State Historic Preservation Officer. 2014. (BLM-USFWS, 2014). United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Idaho State Office and Unites States Fish and Wildlife Service, Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office.
Appendix A 40 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment 2014. Conservation Agreement, Idaho Bureau of Land Management Existing Land Use Plans and Ongoing Actions Affecting Slickspot Peppergrass. (Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds, 1998). Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds. 1998. Pulling Together: National Strategy for Invasive Plant Management. 2nd Edition. US Government Printing Office. 22 pages. Available online at: http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Planning_and_Renewable_Resources/fish_ _wildlife_and/weeds.Par.85024.File.dat/Pulling%20Together.pdf. (Meinke et al., 2009). Meinke, C.W., S.T. Knick, and D.A. Pyke. 2009. A spatial model to prioritize sagebrush landscapes in the intermountain west (U.S.A.) for restoration. Restoration Ecology 17:652-659. (Mladenka, 1992). Mladenka, G.C. 1992. The ecological life history of the Bruneau Hot Springs Snail (Pyrgulopsis bruneauensis). Stream Ecology Center, Department of Biological Sciences, Idaho State Univeristy, Pocatello, Idaho. Final Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Boise Field Office, Boise, Idaho. 116 pp. (Myler, 2006). Myler, C.D. 2006. Report on the re-survey of the Bruneau hot springsnail sites for 2005 and 2006 monitoring years. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Boise, Idaho. 12 pp. (Rowland et al., 2006). Rowland, M.M., M.J. Wisdom, L.H. Suring, and C.W. Meinke. 2006. Greater sage-grouse as an umbrella species for sagebrush-associated vertebrates. Biological Conservation, 129, 323-335. (Scott et al., 1993). Scott, J.M., F. Davis, B. Csuti, R. Noss, B. Butterfield, C. Groves, H. Anderson, S. Caicco, F. D'Erchia, T. C. Edwards, Jr., J. Ullirnan, and R.G. Wright. 1993. Gap analysis: a geographic approach to protection of biological diversity. Wildlife Monographs 123: 1- 41. (Scott et al., 2002). Scott, J.M., P. Heglund, M.L. Morrison, J.B. Haufler, M.G. Raphael, W.A. Wall, and F.B. Samson, editors. 2002. Predicting species occurrences, issues of accuracy and scale. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. (Sheley and Petroff, 1999). Sheley, R.L. and J.K. Petroff. 1999. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. (USFWS, 2014). United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. 5-Year Status Review for Snake River physa (Physa (Haitia) natricina). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office, Boise, ID. 45 pages. Available online at: https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc4373.pdf. (WGA, 2006). Western Governors’ Association. 2006. A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment: 10-Year Strategy Implementation Plan. Denver, CO: Western Governors’ Association. Available online at: https://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/resources/plan/documents/10- yearstrategyfinal_dec2006.pdf.
Appendix A 41 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment
Appendix A 42 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment APPENDIX A - STATE OF IDAHO NOXIOUS WEEDS AND BOISE DISTRICT INVASIVE PLANTS LIST TO DATE
The following lists included in this appendix identify species identified by Idaho Department of Agriculture as Noxious Weeds as of 2017. This list is annually reviewed and updated based upon new information. The Boise BLM District will update this list in accordance with the State of Idaho. For the most current list of species identified as noxious weeds in the Boise district, please see http://invasivespecies.idaho.gov/noxious-weed-program/ for the most current listing of Noxious weeds in the state of Idaho.
Table A-1. State of Idaho Noxious Weeds: Statewide Early Detection Rapid Response List Known Counties of Common Name1 Scientific Name Occurrence in the BDO Brazilian Elodea (A) Egeria densa None Common European Frogbit (A) Hydrcharis morsus-ranae None Fanwort (A) Cobomba caroliniana None Feathered Mosquito Fern (A) Azolla pinnata None Giant Hogweed (T) Heracleum mantegazzianum None Giant Salvinia (A) Salvinia molesta None Iberian Starthistle (T) Centaurea iberica None Hydrilla (A) Hydrilla verticillata Ada, Owyhee Policeman’s Helmet (T) Impatiens glandulifera None Purple Starthistle (T) Centaurea calcitrapa None Squarrose Knapweed (T) Centaurea trimfetti Elmore Syrian Beancaper (T) Zygophyllum fabago Washington Tall Hawkweed (T) Hieracium piloselloides None Variable-Leaf-Milfoil (A) Myriophyllum heterophyllum None Water Chestnut (A) Trapa natans None Water Hyacinth (A) Eichhornia crassipes None Yellow Devil Hawkweed (T) Hieracium glomeratum None Yellow Floating Heart (A) Nymphoides pelata Gem
Table A-2. State of Idaho Noxious Weeds: Statewide Control List Known Counties of Common Name1 Scientific Name Occurrence in the BDO Black Henbane (T) Hyoscyamus niger Ada, Adams, Elmore, Owyhee,
Appendix A 43 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment
Known Counties of Common Name1 Scientific Name Occurrence in the BDO Bohemian Knotweed (T) Polygonum bohemicum Ada, Adams, Boise, Washington Buffalobur (T) Soalnum rostratum Ada, Adams, Gem, Owyhee, Washington Common Crupina (T) Crupina vulgaris Washington Common Reed (A) Phragmites australis Ada, Canyon, Elmore, Owyhee, Payette Dyer’s Woad (T) Isatis Tinctoria Ada, Adams, Boise, Elmore, Owyhee, Washington Eurasian Watermilfoil (A) Myriophyllum spicatum Ada, Boise, Canyon, Gem, Owyhee, Valley, Washington Giant Knotweed (T) Polygonum None sachalinense Japanese Knotweed (T) Polygonum cuspidatum Ada, Adams, Gem, Payette, Washington Johnsongrass (T) Sorghum halepense None Matgrass (T) Nardus stricta None Meadow Knapweed (T) Centaurea debeauxii None Mediterranean Sage(T) Salvia aethiopis Adams, Boise, Payette Musk Thistle (T) Carduss nutans Boise, Gem, Owyhee, Payette Orange Hawkweed (T) Hieracium aurantiacum Adams, Boise, Elmore, Valley, Washington Parrotfeather Milfoil (A) Myriophyllum Ada, Gem, Payette aquaticum Perennial Sowthistle (T) Sonchus arvensis None Russian Knapweed (T) Acroptilon repens Ada, Adams, Canyon, Elmore, Gem, Owyhee, Payette, Washington Scotch Broom (T) Cytisus scoparius None Small Bugloss (T) Anchusa arvensis None Vipers Bugloss (T) Echium vulgare None Yellow Hawkweed (T) Hieracium caespitosum Adams
Appendix A 44 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment Table A-3. State of Idaho Noxious Weeds: Statewide Containment List Known Counties of Common Name1 Scientific Name Occurrence in the BDO Canada Thistle (T) Cirsium arvense Ada, Adams, Boise, Canyon, Elmore, Gem, Owyhee, Payette, Valley, Washington Curlyleaf Pondweed (A) Potamogeton crispus Ada, Boise, Canyon, Elmore, Gem, Owyhee, Payette, Valley, Washington Dalmatian Toadflax (T) Linaria dalmatica ssp. Ada, Adams, Boise, Canyon, Dalmatica Elmore, Gem, Owyhee, Payette, Valley, Washington Diffuse Knapweed (T) Centaurea diffusa Ada, Adams, Boise, Elmore, Gem, Owyhee, Payette, Valley, Washington Field Bindweed (T) Convolvulus arvensis Ada, Adams, Boise, Canyon, Elmore, Gem, Owyhee, Payette, Valley, Washington Flowering Rush (A) Butomus umbelltus None Hoary Alyssum (T) Berteroa incana Adams, Boise, Valley Houndstongue (T) Cynoglossum officinale Ada, Adams, Boise, Elmore, Gem, Owyhee, Payette, Valley, Washington Jointed Goatgrass (T) Aegilpos cylindrical Ada, Adams, Boise, Canyon, Elmore, Gem, Owyhee, Payette, Valley, Washington Leafy Spurge (T) Euphorbia esula Ada, Adams, Boise, Elmore, Gem, Owyhee, Valley, Washington Milium (T) Milium vernale None Oxeye Daisy (T) Leucanthemum Adams, Boise, Gem, Valley, vulgare Washington Perennial Pepperweed Lepidium latifolium Ada, Adams, Boise, Canyon, (T) Elmore, Gem, Owyhee, Payette, Washington Plumeless Thistle (T) Carduus acanthoides None Poison Hemlock (T) Conium maculatum Ada, Adams, Boise, Canyon, Elmore, Gem, Owyhee, Payette, Washington
Appendix A 45 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment
Known Counties of Common Name1 Scientific Name Occurrence in the BDO Puncturevine (T) Tribulus terrestris Ada, Adams, Boise, Canyon, Elmore, Gem, Owyhee, Payette, Valley, Washington Purple Loosetrife (T) Lythrum salicaria Ada, Adams, Boise, Canyon, Elmore, Gem, Owyhee, Payette, Washington Rush Skeletonweed (T) Chondrilla juncea Ada, Adams, Boise, Canyon, Elmore, Gem, Owyhee, Payette, Valley, Washington Saltcedar (T) Tamarix spp. Ada, Adams, Canyon, Elmore, Gem, Owyhee, Payette, Washington Scotch Thistle (T) Onopordum acanthium Ada, Adams, Boise, Canyon, Elmore, Gem, Owyhee, Payette, Washington Spotted Knapweed (T) Centaurea stoebe Ada, Adams, Boise, Canyon, Elmore, Gem, Owyhee, Payette, Valley, Washington Tansy Ragwort (T) Senecio jacobaea Boise White Bryony (T) Bryonia alba Ada, Owyhee Whitetop (T) Cardaria draba Ada, Adams, Boise, Canyon, Elmore, Gem, Owyhee, Payette, Washington Yellow Flag Iris (A) Iris psudocorus Ada, Adams, Canyon, Elmore, Gem, Owyhee, Payette, Washington Yellow Starthistle (T) Centaurea solstitialis Ada, Adams, Elmore, Gem, Owyhee, Payette, Washington Yellow Toadflax (T) Linaria vulgaris Ada, Adams, Boise, Gem, Payette, Valley, Washington 1 (A)= Aquatic Species, (T) = Terrestrial Species
The following table represents invasive species that are not currently recognized as noxious weeds in the state of Idaho. Invasive plants are species of concern that are very limited in extent or not yet known to occur on the District but are documented on adjacent lands or states. This list is not exclusive as new species are constantly identified as posing a threat to public lands. Management of new invaders would be a high priority for treatment. Treatments would focus on eradicating newly identified species before they become established on the District.
Appendix A 46 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment Table A-4. Invasive Plants that Threaten the BDO Primary Common Name Scientific Name Rangea Habitat Camelthorn Alhagi maurorum Upland Rare Sulfur Cinquefoil Potentilla recta Riparian Restricted Siberian Elm Ulmus spp. Riparian Restricted Tree of Heaven Ailanthus altissima Riparian Restricted Ventenata Ventenata dubia Upland Numerous Indigo Bush Amorpha fruticosa Riparian Numerous African Rue Peganum harmala Upland Adjacent Bull Thistle Cirsium vulgare Riparian Numerous Clary Sage Salvia sclarea Riparian Adjacent Burdock Arctium spp. Riparian Numerous Giant Reed Arundo donax Riparian Adjacent Myrtle Spurge Euphorbia myrsinites Upland Restricted Eggleaf Spurge Euphorbia oblongata Upland Adjacent Italian Thistle Carduus pycnocephalus Upland Adjacent Bur Chervil Anthriscus caucalis Riparian Restricted Russian Olive Elaeagnus angustifolia Riparian Widespread Bouncingbet Sapanaria officianalis Upland Restricted Common tansy Tanacetum vulgare Riparian Restricted a Range: Adjacent – species found adjacent to District or State; Rare – species known only in one or two locations; Restricted – species limited to few areas; Numerous – species found in numerous areas; Widespread – species found over large areas Sources: http://plants.usda.gov/ and BLM. The list shown above was compiled by BLM staff based on observations in the field.
Appendix A 47 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment APPENDIX B - BIOLOGICAL CONTROL AGENTS AVAILABLE FOR USE ON BLM LANDS
Biological control involves the intentional use of insects, nematodes, mites, or pathogens (agents such as bacteria or fungi that can cause diseases in plants), or domestic animals that weaken, consume, or destroy vegetation (USDI BLM, 1991). The concept of biological control is to introduce natural enemies that are specific to particular weeds and which would not attack other plants. The use of biological agents other than domestic animals is strictly controlled and permitted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) following rigorous testing to ensure that agents are host-specific. The goal of biological control is to reduce the weed to a minor part of the vegetation community instead of the dominant member of the community. Biological control will not eradicate a weed species and is not appropriate to be used when eradication of a weed is the management goal. Biological control agents have been utilized in the BDO weed control program for approximately 20 years. Biological controls used to date include insects and domestic animals. Under the proposed action, currently approved biological control agents would be released as necessary. As new agents are approved for release, they would also be considered as a control method. If additional weeds become established in the BDO for which approved agents are available, those agents will also be considered as a treatment tool if their use would help to achieve treatment goals. Table B1 details the biological control agents currently approved for use in Idaho. Based on past treatments, an estimated 60 releases of biological control agents could be made per year under this proposal. Table B1- Approved Biological Control Agents for Idaho Target Weed Biological Control Agent(s)
Canada thistle Canada thistle stem weevil (Hadroplontus [Ceutorhynchus] litura) Canada thistle gall fly (Urophora cardui)
Dalmatian toadflax Toadflax flower-feeding beetle (Brachypterolus pulicarius) Yellow toadflax Toadflax moth (Calophasia lunula) Toadflax root boring moth (Eteobalea intermediella) Toadflax root boring moth (Eteobalea serratella) Dalmatian toadflax stem weevil (Mecinus janthiniformis) Yellow toadflax stem weevil (Mecinus janthinus) Toadflax seed capsule weevil (Rhinusa [Gymnetron] antirrhini) Toadflax root galling weevil (Rhinusa [Gymnetron] linariae)
Appendix B 48 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment
Target Weed Biological Control Agent(s)
Diffuse knapweed Knapweed root boring moth (Agapeta zoegana) Russian knapweed Russian knapweed gall wasp (Aulacidea acroptilonica) Spotted knapweed Knapweed seed head weevil (Bangasternus fausti) Squarrose knapweed Knapweed seed head fly (Chaetorellia acrolophi) Knapweed root boring weevil (Cyphocleonus achates) Russian knapweed gall midge (Jaapiella ivannikovi) Knapweed seed head weevil (Larinus minutus) Knapweed seed head weevil (Larinus obtusus) Knapweed seed head moth (Metzneria paucipunctella) Knapweed root boring moth (Pelochrista medullana) Knapweed root boring moth (Pterolonche inspersa) Knapweed root boring beetle (Sphenoptera jugoslavica) Russian knapweed nematode (Subanguina picridis) Knapweed seed head fly (Terellia virens) Knapweed seed head gall fly (Urophora affinis) Knapweed seed head gall fly (Urophora quadrifasciata)
Field bindweed Bindweed gall mite (Aceria malherbae) Bindweed defoliating moth (Tyta luctuosa)
Hydrilla Indian hydrilla tuber weevil (Bagous affinis) Australian hydrilla stem boring weevil (Bagous hydrillae) Australian hydrilla leaf mining fly (Hydrellia balciunasi) Indian hydrilla leaf mining fly (Hydrellia pakistance)
Appendix B 49 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment
Target Weed Biological Control Agent(s)
Leafy spurge Minute spurge flea beetle (Aphthona abdominalis) Brown dot spurge flea beetle (Aphthona cyparissiae) Black spurge flea beetle (Aphthona czwalinae) Copper spurge flea beetle (Aphthona flava) Brown-legged spurge flea beetle (Aphthona lacertosa) Black dot spurge flea beetle (Aphthona nigriscutis) Spurge root/defoliating beetle (Aphthona spp.) Spurge clearwing moth (Chamaesphecia crassicornis) Spurge clearwing moth (Chamaesphecia hungarica) Spurge gall midge (Dasineura capsulae) Spurge hawk moth (Hyles euphorbiae) Red-headed spurge stem borer (Oberea erythrocephala) Spurge tip gall midge (Spurgia esulae)
Mediterranean sage Mediterranean sage root weevil (Phrydiuchus tau)
Musk thistle Musk thistle seed head fly (Urophora solstitialis)
Puncturevine Puncturevine seed weevil (Microlarinus lareynii) Puncturevine stem weevil (Microlarinus lypriformis)
Purple loosestrife Black-margined loosestrife beetle (Galerucella calmariensis) Golden loosestrife beetle (Galerucella pusilla) Loosestrife root weevil (Hylobius transversovittatus) Loosestrife seed weevil (Nanophyes marmoratus)
Rush skeletonweed Rush skeletonweed root boring moth (Bradyrrhoa gilveolella) Rush skeletonweed gall midge (Cystiphora schmidti) Rush skeletonweed gall mite (Eriophyes chondrillae) Rush skeletonweed rust(Puccinia chondrillina)
Russian thistle Russian thistle gall mite (Aceria salsolae) Russian thistle casebearer (Coleophora klimeschiella) Russian thistle stem mining moth (Coleophora parthenica)
Saltcedar Saltcedar defoliating beetle (Diorhabda carinulata) Saltcedar defoliating beetle (Diorhabda elongate) Saltcedar defoliating beetle (Diorhabda sublineata)
Appendix B 50 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment
Target Weed Biological Control Agent(s)
Scotch broom Broom seed beetle (Bruchidius villosus) Scotch broom seed weevil (Exapion fuscirostre) Scotch broom twig miner (Leucoptera spartifoliella)
Yellow starthistle Yellow starthistle bud weevil (Bangasternus orientalis) Yellow starthistle peacock fly (Chaetorellia australis) Yellow starthistle hairy weevil (Eustenopus villosus) Yellow starthistle flower weevil (Larinus curtus) Yellow starthistle rust (Puccinia jacea soltitialis) Yellow starthistle gall fly (Urophora sirunaseva)
Whitetop Hoary cress gall mite (Aceria draba)1 Stem galling weevil (Ceutorhynchus cardariae) 2 Seed feeding weevil Ceutorhynchus turbatus) 2 Root galling weevil (Ceutorhynchus assimilus) 2 .
1 EA, BA and BO completed. 2 Potential whitetop biological control agents that have begun the approval process.
Appendix B 51 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment APPENDIX C - HERBICIDES AND ADJUVANTS APPROVED FOR USE ON BLM LANDS
The following tables list the approved herbicides and adjuvants that may be used on BLM lands in Idaho at this time, and their general affects to vegetation. The BLM would also be able to use new active ingredients that are developed in the future if: 1) they are registered by the EPA for use on one or more land types (e.g., rangeland, aquatic, etc.) managed by the BLM; 2) the BLM determines that the benefits of use on public lands outweigh the risks to human health and the environment; and 3) they meet evaluation criteria to ensure that the decision to use the active ingredient is supported by scientific evaluation and NEPA documentation. The BLM maintains a BLM approved herbicide list that is updated annually. To see most current list of herbicides, formulations and manufacturers see BLM.gov
Registered Aerial Ground Active Ingredient General Effects to Target Vegetation Trade Names Application Application Aminopyralid Milestone, Yes Yes Aminopyralid is a post emergence, selective herbicide that is Milestone VM used to manage invasive annual, biennial, and perennial species. It is a plant growth regulator that binds to receptor sites normally used by the plant’s natural growth hormones, causing death of the plant.
The BLM has identified this herbicide for its activity on difficult-to-control species in rangelands, among other uses. It is an alternative to other growth regulator herbicides that are commonly used on broadleaf weeds, such as picloram, clopyralid, 2,4-D, and dicamba Species targeted include: Knapweeds, yellow starthistle, thistles, and rush skeletonweed
Amonopyralid + Grazon Next, Yes Yes See Aminopyralid and 2,4-D for effects of these chemicals. 2,4-D ForeFront HL, ForeFront R&P
Appendix C 52 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment
Registered Aerial Ground Active Ingredient General Effects to Target Vegetation Trade Names Application Application Aminopyralid + Opensight Yes Yes See Aminopyralid and Metsulfuron Methyl for effects of these Metsulfuron chemicals. Methyl Aminopyralid + Milestone VM Yes Yes See Aminopyralid and Triclopyr for effects of these chemicals. Triclopyr Plus Bromacil Hyvar X; Hyvar No Yes Bromacil is a non-selective, “broad-spectrum,” systemic X-L; Bromacil herbicide, which is most effective against annual and perennial 80DF; Bromacil weeds, brush, woody plants, and vines. Bromacil kills target 80WG; plants by blocking electron transport and the transfer of light energy, thereby disrupting photosynthesis. Because of its non- selective nature, bromacil may be highly effective in areas where a variety of invasive species dominate and where very few non-target plants exist. Bromacil is best used in areas where bare ground is desired (e.g., around fences and structures); it has high residual activity, so it would be effective for an extended period of time. Areas where registered use is appropriate include rangeland habitats, ROW, and oil, gas and minerals Bromacil + Diuron Krovar I DF; No Yes See bromacil and diuron for effects of these chemicals Weed Blast 4G; DiBro 2+2; DiBro 4+2; DiBro 4+4;
Appendix C 53 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment
Registered Aerial Ground Active Ingredient General Effects to Target Vegetation Trade Names Application Application Chlorsulfuron Telar DF; Yes Yes An ALS‐inhibitor (acetolactate synthase herbicides inhibit Alligare growth) that is especially effective on broadleaf plants such as Chlorsulfuron; whitetop, perennial pepperweed, Mediterranean sage, and thistles. It is often mixed with 2,4‐D to reduce the likelihood of developing plant resistance and to deter seed production.
Areas where registered use is appropriate include rangelands, ROW, recreation and cultural resources, and oil, gas and minerals Clopyralid Reclaim; Yes Yes Clopyralid is a selective herbicide most effectively used post- Stinger; emergence for the control of broadleaf weeds. Clopyralid is a Transline; plant growth regulator that is rapidly absorbed across leaf Spur; Pyramid surfaces, and acts as a synthetic auxin hormone, causing a R&P; proliferation of abnormal growth that interferes with the Clopyralid 3; transport of nutrients, which can then result in substantial Cody damage to the plant, or death. Herbicide; Clopyralid targets many of the same species as picloram, but is CleanSlate more selective. It is particularly effective on knapweeds and Canada thistle, while minimizing risk to surrounding desirable brush, grass, and trees. Areas where registered use is appropriate include rangelands, forestlands, ROW, recreation and cultural resources, and oil, gas and minerals Clopyralid + 2,4-D Curtail; Yes yes See 2,4-D and clopyralid for effects of these chemicals. Commando; Cutback; Cody Herbicide
Appendix C 54 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment
Registered Aerial Ground Active Ingredient General Effects to Target Vegetation Trade Names Application Application 2,4-D HardBall; Yes Yes 2,4-D is a plant growth regulator and acts as a synthetic auxin Unison; Clean hormone. 2,4‐D is effective on a wide range of broadleaf Amine; Low invasive plants while not affecting most grasses. 2,4‐D can help Vol 6 Ester inhibit seed production, prevent herbicide resistance, and Weed Killer; effectively treat multiple invasive plant species when a variety Saber; Salvo; are encountered in a particular treatment area. Savage DS; Aqua-Kleen; In addition, adding a small amount of 2,4‐D to a tank mix can Esteron 99C; often improve the effectiveness of the other herbicides and Weedar 64; reduce the likelihood of a population developing herbicide Weedone LV- resistance. The amount of 2,4‐D used in combination with 4; Weedone other herbicides would vary based on these factors. LV-4 Dicamba Dicamba DMA; Yes Yes A growth-regulating herbicide readily absorbed and Vision; Cruise translocated from either roots or foliage. This herbicide Control; produces effects similar to those found with 2,4-D. Used Banvel; Clarity; primarily for control of knapweeds, thistles, and whitetop. Rifle; Diablo; Vanquish Herbicide; Vanquish; Sterling Blue; Kam-Ba Dicamba + 2,4-D Range Star; Yes Yes See Dicamba and 2,4-D for effects of these chemicals. Weedmaster; Brush-Rhap; Latigo; Rifle-D; KambaMaster;
Appendix C 55 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment
Registered Aerial Ground Active Ingredient General Effects to Target Vegetation Trade Names Application Application Veteran 720; Brash; Outlaw; Dicamba + 2,4- D DMA Dicamba + Distinct; No Yes Overdrive® is an herbicide formulation containing the active Diflufenzopyr Overdrive ingredients dicamba and diflufenzopyr. It is a selective, systematic herbicide for the management of broadleaved weeds pre- or post-emergence. Diflufenzopyr inhibits the transport of auxin (a hormone that regulates plant growth and development), and dicamba functions as a synthetic auxin. When used together, these chemicals disrupt plant hormone balance and protein synthesis (Retzinger and Mallory-Smith 1997). Because Overdrive® targets dicotyledons (broadleaved plants), it can be used in native grasslands, particularly if invasive broadleaves are more of a problem than invasive annual grasses. This herbicide provides a good option for vegetation and wildlife habitat management in forested rangeland settings. It can be used to control several broadleaf species, including leafy spurge, knapweeds, and thistles. Diuron Diuron 80 DF; No Yes Diuron is a non-selective, broad-spectrum herbicide, effective Karmex; Direx; both pre and post-emergence. Diuron disrupts photosynthesis Diuron 4L; by blocking electron transport and the transfer of light energy, Diuron 80 DF; thereby resulting in plant death. Because of its non-selective Diuron-DF; nature, diuron may be highly effective in areas where a variety Direx 4L; of invasive species dominate and where very few non-target Parrot DF; plants exist. Diuron is best used in areas where bare ground is Parrot 4L desired (e.g., around fences and structures).
Appendix C 56 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment
Registered Aerial Ground Active Ingredient General Effects to Target Vegetation Trade Names Application Application Fluroxypyr Comet, Yes Yes Fluroxypyr is a selective, post-emergent herbicide that is used Fluroxypyr to manage broadleaf species in rangelands and other areas Herbicide, and disrupts plant cell growth by inducing auxin-like Vista, Vista responses. It is often used in industrial sites, along roads and XRT railroads, and along ROWs. Fluroxypyr would be used at locations where complete removal of vegetation is desired. In these situations, non- target plants would not be present within the treatment area. Fluroxypyr + Truslate Yes yes See Fluroxypyr and Clopyralid for effects of these chemicals. Clopyralid Fluroxypyr + Surmount, Yes yes See Fluroxypyr and Picloram for effects of these chemicals. Picloram Trooper Pro Fluroxypyr + PastureGard, Yes Yes See Fluroxypyr and Triclopyr for effects of these chemicals. Triclopyr PastureGard HL Glyphosate Aqua Star; Gly Yes Yes Glyphosate is a non-selective systemic herbicide that can Star Plus; damage all groups or families of non-target plants to varying Rodeo; degrees. Glyphosate inhibits the production of aromatic amino Showdown; acids and certain phenolic compounds. This leads to a variety Mirage Plus; of toxic effects in plants, including the inhibition of Aquamaster; photosynthesis, respiration, and nucleic acid synthesis, thereby Honcho Plus; resulting in cellular disruption, decreased growth, and death at Roundup sufficiently high levels of exposure. PROMAX; Because of its non-selective nature, glyphosate may be highly Rattler; effective in spot applications or in areas where a variety of Buccaneer invasive species dominate and where very few non-target Plus; Mirage plants exist. Glyphosate is best used in areas where bare
Appendix C 57 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment
Registered Aerial Ground Active Ingredient General Effects to Target Vegetation Trade Names Application Application Herbicide; ground is desired (e.g., around fences and structures); Mirage Plus however, it has low residual activity, so it would not be Herbicide; effective for an extended period of time. Glyphosate may also Agrisolutions be used in riparian and aquatic habitats on shoreline and Rascal Plus; floating-leaved species such as purple loosestrife, phragmites, KleenUp Pro; and yellow flag iris. Mad Dog Plus; Roundup Custom Glyphosate + 2,4- Landmaster Yes Yes See 2,4-D and glyphosate for effects of these chemicals. D BW; Campaign; Imitator Plus D Hexazinone Velpar ULW; Yes Yes Hexazinone is an “s-triazine” herbicide that inhibits Velpar L; photosynthesis and the synthesis of RNA, proteins, and lipids. Velpar DF; Although some foliar absorption may occur, the major route of Velossa; exposure involves hexazinone moving from the soil surface to Pronone MG; the root system of plants, where, in most species, it is readily Pronone 10G; absorbed and translocated throughout the plant. The Pronone 25G; differential toxicity of hexazinone to plants is based on Pronone variations in the ability of different plants to absorb, degrade, Power Pellet; and eliminate the herbicide. Velpar DF VU; A foliar-or soil-applied herbicide with soil activity. It is used for Velpar L VU broadleaf weed, brush, and grass control in non-cropland, ROWs and adjacent to facilities.
Appendix C 58 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment
Registered Aerial Ground Active Ingredient General Effects to Target Vegetation Trade Names Application Application Imazapic Plateau; Yes Yes This is a selective, systemic herbicide that can be applied both Panoramic 2SL; pre-emergence and post-emergence for the management of Nufarm selective broadleaf and grassy plant species. Its mode of action Imazapic 2SL is associated with the synthesis of branch-chained amino acids. Imazapic, an ALS-inhibitor, is a selective, systemic herbicide used on annual and perennial broadleaf weeds and grasses. Due to its activity, imazapic may be highly effective, particularly in spot applications, at controlling aggressive invasive species that have not responded to other herbicides or treatment methods. Imazapic is used on leafy spurge, white top and perennial pepperweed. Imazapic + Journey Yes Yes See imazapic and glyphosate for effects of these chemicals. Glyphosate Imazapyr Imazapyr 2 SL; Yes Yes Imazapyr is an ALS-inhibiting herbicide used in the control of a Arsenal variety of grasses, broadleaf weeds, vines, and brush species. Railroad Although post-emergence application is more effective than Herbicide; pre-emergence application, toxicity can be induced either Chopper; through foliar or root absorption. Due to its activity, imazapyr Arsenal may be highly effective in controlling aggressive invasive Applicators species that have not responded to other herbicides or Conc.; Stalker; treatment methods. The strength of this herbicide is in the Habitat; management of saltcedar in riparian zones. In addition, Polaris; SSI imazapyr may also be used in riparian and aquatic habitats on Maxim Rotary shoreline and floating-leaved species such as purple 2 SL loosestrife, phragmites, and yellow flag iris.
Imazapyr + Diuron Mojave 70 EG; Yes Yes See imazapyr and diuron for effects of these chemicals. Sahara DG;
Appendix C 59 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment
Registered Aerial Ground Active Ingredient General Effects to Target Vegetation Trade Names Application Application Imazuron E- Pro; SSI Maxim Topsite 2.5G Imazapyr + Lineage Yes Yes See imazapyr and metsulfuron methyl for effects of these Metsulfuron Clearstand chemicals. methyl Metsulfuron MSM 60; Yes Yes Metsulfuron methyl is a selective ALS-inhibiting herbicide used methyl AmTide MSM pre- and post-emergence in the control of many annual and 60DF perennial weeds and woody plants. Due to its potency, Herbicide; metsulfuron methyl may be highly effective in controlling Escort DF; aggressive invasive species that have not responded to other Escort XP; herbicides or treatment methods. Metsulfuron methyl can be used for the management of wildlife habitat and for the control of invasive plant species such as hoary cress, perennial pepperweed, biennial thistles ( musk, and Scotch), and yellow starthistle. Metsulfuron methyl is a selective herbicide used pre- and post- emergence in the control of many annual and perennial weeds and woody plants. Metsulfuron Cimarron X- Yes Yes See metsulfuron methyl and chlorsulfuron for effects of these methyl + tra; Cimarron chemicals. Chlorsulfuron Plus Metsulfuron Cimarron MAX Yes Yes See metsulfuron methyl, dicamba, and 2,4-D for effects of methyl + Dicamba these chemicals. + 2,4-D Picloram Triumph K; Yes Yes Picloram is a pyridine herbicide that acts as a plant growth Triumph 22K; regulator. It mimics naturally occurring plant auxins or
Appendix C 60 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment
Registered Aerial Ground Active Ingredient General Effects to Target Vegetation Trade Names Application Application Picloram K; hormones in a manner that leads to uncontrolled and Picloram 22K; abnormal growth that can in turn lead to gross signs of toxicity Grazon PC; or death (SERA 2003b). Picloram is more toxic to broadleaf and OutPost 22K; woody plants than grains or grasses (Extension Toxicology Tordon K; Network 1996c, SERA 2003b). Picloram is effective on Tordon 22K; knapweeds, toadflax, Mediterranean sage, rush skeletonweed, Trooper 22K leafy spurge, and thistles, and provides good residual control.
Picloram is more toxic to broadleaf and woody plants than grains or grasses. Picloram + 2,4-D Graslan L; Yes Yes See Picloram, and 2,4-D for effects of these chemicals. GunSlinger; Picloram + D; Tordon 101 M; Tordon 101 R Forestry; Tordon RTU; Grazon P+D; HiredHand P+D; Pathway; Trooper 101; Trooper P + D Picloram + 2,4-D + Trooper Extra Yes Yes See Picloram, 2,4-D and dicamba for effects of these Dicamba chemicals. Rimsulfuron Matrix, Matrix Yes Yes Rimsulfuron is a selective, ALS-inhibiting herbicide that SG, Matrix FNV controls target weeds by inhibiting the biosynthesis of certain amino acids. It is applied both pre- and post-emergence, and is active in both the xylem and the phloem of the plant. Invasive
Appendix C 61 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment
Registered Aerial Ground Active Ingredient General Effects to Target Vegetation Trade Names Application Application plants targeted by this active ingredient include cheatgrass, medusahead rye, and other annual grasses that have invaded public lands in the western U.S. Tebuthiuron Alligare Yes Yes Tebuthiuron is a relatively non-selective herbicide absorbed by Tebuthiuron plant roots through the soil for use against broadleaved and 80 WG; woody weeds and grasses. Tebuthiuron disrupts Alligare photosynthesis by blocking electron transport and the transfer Tebuthiuron of light energy. Because of its non-selectivity, tebuthiuron 20 P; SpraKil S- should be used in areas dominated by invasive species, 5 Granules particularly woody invasives, such as in rangelands or ROWs invaded by shrubs, trees, and other undesirable species. A soil-applied herbicide used for control of woody plants and vegetation. Tebuthiuron has a two to four year residual on dry sites depending on application rates. Tebuthiuron + SpraKil SK-13 No Yes See tebuthiuron and diuron for effects of these chemicals. Diuron Granular; SpraKil SK-26 Granular
Appendix C 62 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment
Registered Aerial Ground Active Ingredient General Effects to Target Vegetation Trade Names Application Application Triclopyr Garlon 3A; Yes Yes Triclopyr is a selective, systemic herbicide used on broadleaf Garlon 4; and woody species. Triclopyr mimics auxin, a plant growth Garlon 4 Ultra; hormone, thus disrupting the normal growth and viability of Remedy; plants. Triclopyr could be used to manage woody riparian and Remedy Ultra: aquatic species of interest, including saltcedar, broadleaf Pathfinder II; weeds and thistles. It is effective in riparian areas as a Tahoe 3A; treatment for purple loosestrife because it does not damage Tahoe 4E; native grasses and sedges. Tahoe 4E A growth-regulating herbicide for control of woody and Herbicide; broadleaf perennial weeds in non-cropland, forest lands, and lawns. Triclopyr + 2,4-D Everett; Yes Yes See triclopyr and 2,4-D for effects of these chemicals. Crossbow; Aquasweep; Candor Triclopyr + Prescott Yes Yes See triclopyr and clopyralid for effects of these chemicals. Clopyralid Herbicide; Redeem R&P; Brazen
Appendix C 63 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment Adjuvants Approved for Use on BLM Administered Lands
Adjuvant Adjuvent Type Trade Name Manufacturer Class Sufactant Non-Ionic Surfactant Activator 90 Loveland Products, Inc. Ad Spray 90 Helena Chemical Company Alligare Surface Alligare, LLC Alligare Surface West Alligare, LLC Alligare Trace Alligare, LLC Denali-EA Wilbur-Ellis Co. Induce Setre (Helena) Induce pH Helena Chemical Company Inlet Helena Chemical Company LI-700 Loveland Products, Inc. Rainer-EA Wilbur-Ellis Co. Scanner Loveland Products, Inc. Spec 90/10 Helena Chemical Company Spreader 90 Loveland Products, Inc. Spret Helena Chemical Company Super Spread 90 Wilbur-Ellis Co. Super Spread 7000 Wilbur-Ellis Co. Spreader/Sticker Attach Loveland Products, Inc. Aqua-King Plus Winfield Solutions, LLC Bond Loveland Products, Inc. Cohere Helena Chemical Company Insist 90 Wilbur-Ellis Co. Lastick Setre (Helena) R-56 Wilbur-Ellis Co. Tactic Loveland Products, Inc. Sillicone Based Aero Dyne-Amic Helena Chemical Company Alligare OSS/NIS Alligare, LLC Dyne-Amic Helena Chemical Company Kinetic Setre (Helena) Phase Loveland Products, Inc. Phase II Loveland Products, Inc. Silwet L-77 Loveland Products, Inc.
Appendix C 64 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment
Adjuvant Adjuvent Type Trade Name Manufacturer Class Sylgard 309 Wilbur-Ellis Co. Syl-Tac Wilbur-Ellis Co. Oil Based Crop Oil Concentrate Agri-Dex Helena Chemical Company Alligare Forestry Oil Alligare, LLC Mor-Act Wilbur-Ellis Co. R.O.C. Rigo Oil Conc. Wilbur-Ellis Co. Methylated Seed Oil Alligare MSO Alligare, LLC Alligare MSO West Alligare, LLC Destiny HC Winfield Solutions, LLC Hasten Wilbur-Ellis Co. Hasten-EA Wilbur-Ellis Co. Methylated Spray Oil Conc. Helena Chemical Company MSO Concentrate Alligare, LLC MSO Concentrate Loveland Products, Inc. Premium MSO Helena Chemical Company Super Kix Wilbur-Ellis Co. Super Spread MSO Wilbur-Ellis Co. Methylated Seed Oil + Alligare MVO Plus Alligare, LLC Organosilicone Syl-Tac-EA Wilbur-Ellis Co. Turbulence Winfield Solutions, LLC Vegetable Oil Amigo Loveland Products, Inc. Competitor Wilbur-Ellis Co. Fertilizer- Nitrogen-based Actamaster Soluble Spray Loveland Products, Inc. based Adjuvant Actamaster Spray Adjuvant Loveland Products, Inc. Bronc Wilbur-Ellis Co. Bronc Max Wilbur-Ellis Co. Bronc Total Wilbur-Ellis Co. Cayuse Plus Wilbur-Ellis Co. Dispatch Loveland Products, Inc. Flame Loveland Products, Inc. Quest Helena Chemical Company TransActive HC Helena Chemical Company Brimstone Wilbur-Ellis Co.
Appendix C 65 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment
Adjuvant Adjuvent Type Trade Name Manufacturer Class Buffering Agent Buffers P.S. Helena Chemical Company Tri-Fol Wilbur-Ellis Co. Colorants/Dyes Alligare Super Marking Dye Alligare, LLC BullsEye Milliken Chemical Hi-Light Becker-Underwood Marker Dye Loveland Products, Inc. Signal Precision Laboratories, LLC TurfTrax Blue Spray Indicator Loveland Products, Inc. Compatibility/ Blendex VHC Setre (Helena) Suspension Agent Convert Precision Laboratories, LLC E Z MIX Loveland Products, Inc. Support Loveland Products, Inc. Defoaming Agent Alligare Anti-Foamer Alligare, LLC Alligare Defoamer Alligare, LLC Foam Buster Setre (Helena) Foambuster Max Helena Chemical Company No Foam Wilbur-Ellis Co. Unfoamer Loveland Products, Inc. Special Deposition Aid Alligare Downforce Alligare, LLC Function Alligare Pattern Alligare, LLC Bivert Wilbur-Ellis Co. Clasp Helena Chemical Company Compadre Loveland Products, Inc. Coverage G-20 Wilbur-Ellis Co. Crosshair Wilbur-Ellis Co. EDT Concentrate Wilbur-Ellis Co. Grounded Helena Chemical Company Infuse Loveland Products, Inc. Liberate Loveland Products, Inc. Sta Put Setre (Helena) Strike Zone DF Helena Chemical Company Weather Gard Loveland Products, Inc. Diluent/Deposition Bark Oil Crop Production Services Agent Bark Oil EC Crop Production Services
Appendix C 66 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment
Adjuvant Adjuvent Type Trade Name Manufacturer Class In-Place Wilbur-Ellis Co. W.E.B. Oil Wilbur-Ellis Co. Foam Marker Align Helena Chemical Company R-160 Wilbur-Ellis Co. Trekker Trax Loveland Products, Inc. Tuff Trax Foam Concentrate Loveland Products, Inc. Invert Emulsion Agent Redi-vert II Wilbur-Ellis Co. Tank Cleaner All Clear Loveland Products, Inc. Kutter Wilbur-Ellis Co. Neutral-Clean Wilbur-Ellis Co. SSC-11 Wilbur-Ellis Co. Tank and Equipment Cleaner Loveland Products, Inc. Wipe Out Helena Chemical Company Water Conditioning AccuQuest WM Helena Chemical Company Alligare Water Conditioner Alligare, LLC Choice Weather Master Loveland Products, Inc. Choice Xtra Loveland Products, Inc. Climb Wilbur-Ellis Co. Cut-Rate Wilbur-Ellis Co. Hel-Fire Helena Chemical Company Smoke Helena Chemical Company
Appendix C 67 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment APPENDIX D – REQUIRED DESIGN FEATURES, BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES, AND STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES
Resource Treatment Protection Measures Authority/ Type Source
General Herbicide Prepare operational and spill contingency plan in advance of treatment. BLM Handbook H-9011-1 Treatment Conduct a pretreatment survey before applying herbicides. (Chemical Pest Control); Select herbicide that is least damaging to the environment while providing the and BLM Manuals 1112 desired results. (Safety), 9011 (Chemical Select herbicide products carefully to minimize additional impacts from Pest Control), 9012 degradates, adjuvants, inert ingredients, and tank mixtures. (Expenditure of Rangeland Insect Pest Apply the least amount of herbicide needed to achieve the desired result. Control Funds), 9015 Follow herbicide product label for use and storage. (Integrated Weed Have licensed applicators apply herbicides. Management), and 9220 Use only BLM-approved herbicides and follow product label directions and (Integrated Pest “advisory” statements. Management); BLM 2007 Review, understand, and conform to the “Environmental Hazards” section on PEIS; BLM 2016 PEIS. the herbicide product label. This section warns of known pesticide risks to the environment and provides practical ways to avoid harm to organisms or to the environment. Consider surrounding land use before assigning aerial spraying as a treatment method and avoid aerial spraying near agricultural or densely populated areas. Minimize the size of application area, when feasible. Comply with herbicide-free buffer zones to ensure that drift will not affect crops or nearby residents/landowners. Post treated areas and specify reentry or rest times, if appropriate. Notify adjacent landowners prior to treatment. Keep a copy of Safety Data Sheets (SDSs) at work sites. SDSs are available for review at http://www.agrian.com. Keep records of each application, including the active ingredient, formulation, application rate, date, time, and location.
Appendix D 68 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment
Resource Treatment Protection Measures Authority/ Type Source Avoid accidental direct spray and spill conditions to minimize risks to resources. Avoid aerial spraying during periods of adverse weather conditions (snow or rain imminent, fog, or air turbulence). Make helicopter applications at a target airspeed of 40 to 50 miles per hour (mph), and at about 30 to 45 feet above ground. Do not apply herbicides when winds exceed >10 mph (>6 mph for aerial applications), or a serious rainfall event is imminent. Conduct pre-treatment surveys for sensitive habitat and special status species within or adjacent to proposed treatment areas. Consider site characteristics, environmental conditions, and application equipment in order to minimize damage to non-target vegetation. Use drift reduction agents, and low volatile formulations as appropriate, to reduce the drift hazard to non-target species. Turn off applied treatments at the completion of spray runs and during turns to start another spray run. Refer to the herbicide product label when planning revegetation to ensure that subsequent vegetation would not be injured following application of the herbicide. Clean OHVs to remove seeds. Prior to helicopter fueling operations prepare a transportation, storage, and emergency spill plan and obtain the appropriate approvals; for other heavy equipment fueling operations use a slip-tank not greater than 250 gallons; prepare spill containment and cleanup provisions for maintenance operations. Where feasible, access work sites only on existing roads, and limit all travel on roads when damage to the road surface will result or is occurring. Refer to the herbicide label when planning revegetation to ensure that subsequent vegetation would not be injured following application of the herbicide. Use weed-free feed for horses and pack animals. Use weed-free straw and mulch for revegetation and other activities.
Appendix D 69 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment
Resource Treatment Protection Measures Authority/ Type Source Clean all vehicles and equipment prior to entering the area, to minimize the introduction of undesirable and/or invasive plant species. Take into account the different types of application equipment and methods, where possible, to reduce the probability of contaminating non-target food and water sources for wildlife, livestock and wild horses. Contain and clean up spills and request help as needed. Secure containers during transport. Dispose of unwanted herbicides promptly and correctly. Soils Herbicide Minimize treatments in areas where herbicide runoff is likely, such as steep BLM Manual 7000 (Soil, slopes when heavy rainfall is expected. treatments Water, and Air Minimize use of herbicides that have high soil mobility, particularly in areas Management); BLM 2007 where soil properties increase the potential for mobility. PEIS; BLM 2016 PEIS. Do not apply granular herbicides on slopes of more than 15% where there is the possibility of runoff carrying the granules into non-target areas. Surface Water Herbicide Consider climate, soil type, slope, and vegetation type when developing BLM manual 7000 (Soil, herbicide treatment programs. Quality treatments Water, and Air Select herbicide products to minimize impacts to water. This is especially Management); BLM 2007 important for application scenarios that involve risk from active ingredients in PEIS; BLM 2016 PEIS. a particular herbicide, as predicted by risk assessments. Conduct mixing and loading operations in an area where an accidental spill would not contaminate an aquatic body. Do not rinse spray tanks in or near water bodies. Do not broadcast pellets where there is danger of contaminating water supplies. Maintain buffers between treatment areas and water bodies. Buffer widths should be developed based on herbicide- and site-specific criteria to minimize impacts to water bodies. Minimize the potential effects to surface water quality and quantity by stabilizing terrestrial areas as quickly as possible following treatment.
Appendix D 70 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment
Resource Treatment Protection Measures Authority/ Type Source
Air Quality Herbicide Select proper application equipment (e.g., spray equipment that produces BLM Manual 7000 (Soil, 200- to 800-micron diameter droplets [spray droplets of 100 microns and less treatments Water, and Air are most prone to drift]). Management) BLM 2007 Select proper application methods (e.g., set maximum spray heights, use PEIS; BLM 2016 PEIS. appropriate buffer distances between spray sites and non-target resources). Wetlands and Herbicide Use a selective herbicide and a wick or backpack sprayer BLM 2007 PEIS; BLM Riparian Areas Treatments Use appropriate herbicide-free buffer zones for herbicides not labeled for 2016 PEIS. aquatic use based on risk assessment guidance, with minimum widths of 100 feet for aerial, 25 feet for vehicle, and 10 feet for hand spray applications.Use a selective herbicide and a wick or backpack sprayer
See Figure D1 and table D1 for details of riparian and wetland zones
Vegetation Herbicide Establish appropriate (herbicide-specific) buffer zones (see Tables 4-12 and 4- BLM Handbook H-4410-1 Treatments 14 in the 2007 PEIS) around downstream water bodies, habitats, and (National Range species/populations of interest. Consult the ecological risk assessments (ERAs) Handbook), and manuals prepared for the PEIS for more specific information on appropriate buffer 5000 (Forest distances under different soil, moisture, vegetation, and application scenarios. Management) and 9015 (Integrated Weed Management); BLM 2007 PEIS; BLM 2016 PEIS.
BLM Special All Treatments Determine presence or absence of special status plant element occurrences and/or habitats in potential project areas using BLM GIS database and IDFG Status and IFWIS (Idaho Fish and Wildlife Information System). Sensitive Plants If necessary, surveys of proposed project areas within possible SSP habitat would be performed or overseen by a qualified BLM botanist, and conducted as per BLM botany inventory and clearance standards to determine the presence/absence of the SSP plants and/or SSP habitat before implementation.
Appendix D 71 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment
Resource Treatment Protection Measures Authority/ Type Source Consider the biology and ecology of SSPs when selecting method of noxious weed control, i.e. herbicides, associated application methods, timing, manual treatment method and biological controls. Design treatments to avoid adverse impacts to sensitive plant populations and their habitats, to the greatest extent possible. Apply protective buffers for broadcast herbicide treatments as needed to protect BLM sensitive plants and their pollinators. Avoid on- and off-road vehicle travel through known SSP habitat during conditions (e.g. saturated soils) that would result in damage to SSP plants or habitat. Slickspot The Conservation Agreement (US BLM and FWS 2014) for slickspot peppergrass Peppergrass states the following in regards to herbicide use: “Although non-chemical methods will be the preferred approach in occupied habitat, when appropriate, projects involving the application of pesticides, (including herbicides, fungicides and other related chemicals) in habitat categories for slickspot peppergrass that may affect the species would be analyzed at the project level and designed such that herbicide applications will support conservation and minimize risks of exposure.” For the current proposed action, project planning and implementation of noxious and invasive weed herbicide treatment methods would comply with the applicable conservation measures outlined in the Biological Assessments (USDI BLM 2007 and USDI BLM 2015a). Additional design features specific to slickspot peppergrass are described below. Project planning Potential project areas would be assessed via BLM GIS and IDFG IFWIS data sets to determine presence or absence of slickspot peppergrass element occurrences and/or habitats. Prior to noxious weed spot and/or small-scale broadcast low boom treatment within slickspot peppergrass habitats the Project Manager, BDO Noxious Weed Specialist, and BDO Botanist would coordinate on the planned treatment. Site-specific, on-the-ground inventories of proposed project areas within habitat categories for slickspot peppergrass are necessary
Appendix D 72 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment
Resource Treatment Protection Measures Authority/ Type Source unless, the scope of the project, quality of habitat, and/or absence of slickspot plants can be determined. If an inventory is necessary it would be performed or overseen by a qualified BLM botanist, and conducted per BLM slickspot peppergrass inventory and clearance standards to determine the presence/absence of the species and/or its habitat before implementation. An annual report would be provided to the FRFO botanist specifying locations and details of noxious and invasive weed spot treatments within LEPA Management Areas. Where needed and feasible, projects would be coordinated with adjacent land owners and local governments regarding treatment of noxious weeds and invasive plants in upland areas through cooperative weed management programs. BLM weed staff, county weed management cooperators, and contractors would be trained annually in slickspot peppergrass plant and slickspot habitat identification. Use of full-size vehicles for treatment site access and equipment staging would be limited to existing roads in slickspot peppergrass habitats. All ATV and/or UTV operators would be educated and instructed to avoid driving through slickspots in slickspot peppergrass habitat categories. EOs, Occupied Habitat, PCH, and Slickspot Peppergrass Habitat Herbicide Aerial application of herbicide would not be authorized under the current Treatments proposed action in any habitat category for slickspot peppergrass. Site specific NEPA and section 7 consultation would be required for this treatment method within EOs, Occupied Habitat, PCH, and Slickspot Peppergrass Habitat. Aerial application of herbicide would not occur within a ½ mile buffer of EOs, Occupied Habitat, PCH, or Slickspot Peppergrass Habitat.
EOs and minimize risks of exposure (US BLM and FWS 2014). Develop site-specific stipulations and assure coordination between project manager, BDO Noxious Weed Specialist, and BLM Botanist. Evaluate the benefits and risks of vegetation treatment including the following: mode of action, application methods, individual herbicide
Appendix D 73 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment
Resource Treatment Protection Measures Authority/ Type Source characteristics, carriers, and surfactants used, necessary treatment buffers, and potential use of non-chemical noxious weed control (e.g., biological control and manual treatment methods). Herbicide application treatments would be conducted by BLM staff and/or weed management cooperators or contractors trained annually in slickspot peppergrass plant and slickspot habitat identification. Ground- based low boom application of contact herbicides would be overseen by the BLM Noxious Weed Specialist and BLM Botanist, and would be implemented by personnel trained in plant and slick spot identification. These treatments would focus on the control of noxious and invasive plants while promoting the preservation of native forbs through native forb avoidance.
Occupied Habitat outside of an EO (Pollinator Buffer) Within the Pollinator Buffer Ground-based low boom application of pre- emergents would only be applied by a BLM certified pesticide applicator trained in slick spot identification and coordinated with BLM botanist. Application of pre-emergent herbicides would not occur within 100 feet of a slick spot (USDI BLM 2016). Noxious or invasive weeds within this buffer area would be treated using a contact herbicide or manual removal. Pre- emergents would not be used within active EOs until the effects of the active ingredients are shown to have no effect to the slickspot peppergrass seed bank. Personnel conducting manual removal would be trained in slickspot Manual Removal peppergrass plant and habitat identification so as to avoid trampling or otherwise damaging plants and slickspots. Hand pulling of noxious and invasive weeds would be the only manual treatment that would occur within slickspot peppergrass EOs. Personnel conducting the hand pulling would be trained in slickspot peppergrass plant and habitat identification so as to avoid trampling or otherwise damaging plants and slickspots. If cut or pulled plants are fruiting, flowering and capable of producing fruit, or can propogate vegetatively even after manual removal than the pulled
Appendix D 74 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment
Resource Treatment Protection Measures Authority/ Type Source plants will be disposed of off site in such a way as to avoid spreading noxious weeds. Only biological control agents that are approved for use in the state of Idaho Biological Control by the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) would be utilized. Agents are approved through extensive testing, included in regional PEIS and ROD analysis for use on public lands, and section 7 consultation has been completed Biological Control using domestic animals would not be utilized in this proposed action Pollinators Herbicide When feasible, complete vegetation treatments seasonally before pollinator Fish and Other Aquatic Treatments foraging plants bloom. Organisms When feasible, time vegetation treatments to take place when foraging See manuals 6500 pollinators are least active both seasonally and daily. (Wildlife and Fisheries Design vegetation treatment projects so that nectar and pollen sources for Management) and 6780 important pollinators and resources are treated in patches rather than in one (Habitat Management single treatment. Plans); BLM 2007 PEIS; Minimize herbicide application rates. Use typical rather than maximum BLM 2016 PEIS. application rates where there are important pollinator resources. Maintain herbicide free buffer zones around patches of important pollinator nectar and pollen sources and nesting habitat and hibernacula. Make special note of pollinators that have single host plant species, and minimize herbicide spraying on those plants (if invasive species) and in their habitats. Wildlife General Herbicide Use herbicides of low toxicity to wildlife, where feasible. BLM 2007 PEIS; BLM Treatments Use spot applications or low-boom broadcast operations where possible to 2016 PEIS. limit the probability of contaminating non-target food and water sources, especially non-target vegetation over areas larger than the treatment area. Use timing restrictions (e.g., do not treat during critical wildlife breeding or staging periods) to minimize impacts to wildlife.
Appendix D 75 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment
Resource Treatment Protection Measures Authority/ Type Source Use appropriate buffer zones (see Table 4-12 and 4-14 in Chapter 4 of the 2007 PEIS) to limit contamination of off-site vegetation, which may serve as forage for wildlife. Special Status Herbicide Survey for special status species before treating an area. Consider effects to special status species when designing herbicide treatment programs. Species General Treatments BLM Manual 6840 Avoid treating vegetation during time-sensitive periods (e.g., nesting and (Special Status Species); migration, sensitive life stages) for special status species in area to be treated. BLM 2007 PEIS; BLM Implement all conservation measures for special status plant and animal 2016 PEIS. species presented in the 2007 and 2016 PEIS BAs. Big Game All Treatments Disruptive activities in big game habitat would be restricted during the following periods unless short-term exceptions are granted by the appropriate line officer. These dates, as specified, are general in nature and may be adjusted as needed based on local conditions. Treatments in big game winter range or breeding habitat would be coordinated with IDFG. Big game winter range: November 15–April 30; and Calving/fawning/lambing habitat o Elk/deer: May 1–June 30 o Pronghorn: May 15–June 30 o Bighorn sheep lambing: April 15–June 30 Greater Sage- All Treatments Sage-grouse would be used as an umbrella species when planning vegetation treatments in sagebrush steppe (Noss, 1990; Rich and Altman, 2001; Rowland grouse et al., 2006). The assumption is habitat needs for other sagebrush-obligate sensitive species would benefit from protection, improvement, and restoration of sage-grouse habitat. Other sagebrush obligates include pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis), sage thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus), sage sparrow (Amphispiza belli), and Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri). In some cases, some species may have habitat needs in addition to what is outlined for sage-grouse. Where identified, the interdisciplinary team would address unique habitat needs of other sagebrush obligates. The following design features would apply to sagebrush steppe habitats. Adjustments to dates may occur based on land use plan guidance and local conditions.
Appendix D 76 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment
Resource Treatment Protection Measures Authority/ Type Source No repeated or sustained behavioral disturbance (e.g., visual, noise over 10 dbA at lek, etc.) to lekking birds from 6:00 pm to 9:00 am within 2 miles (3.2 kilometers) of leks during the lekking season, unless given exemption by a line manager. Vegetation treatments within 0.6 miles of occupied sage-grouse leks that could result in or could likely result in disturbance to lekking birds would be avoided from 6:00 pm to 9:00 am. This guideline would apply from February through May 15, unless given exemption by a line manager. Treatments in areas supporting sage-grouse nesting habitat would be limited from March 1 through June 15, unless given exemption by a line manager. Treatments in close proximity to sage-grouse wintering habitats would be limited from November 1 to March 15, unless given exemption by a line manager. Give higher priority to vegetation rehabilitation or manipulation projects that include: o Sites where environmental variables contribute to improved chances for project success (Meinke et al., 2009). o Areas where seasonal habitat is limiting GRSG distribution and/or abundance (wintering areas, wet meadows and riparian areas, nesting areas, leks, etc.). o Cooperative efforts that may improve GRSG habitat quality over multiple ownerships. o Projects that may provide connectivity between suitable habitats or expand existing good quality habitats. Treat areas that contain cheatgrass and other invasive or noxious species to minimize competition and favor establishment of desired species. Conduct integrated weed management actions for noxious and invasive weed populations that are impacting or threatening GRSG habitat quality using a variety of eradication and control techniques including chemical, mechanical and other appropriate means. Implement noxious weed and invasive species control using integrated vegetation management actions per national guidance and local weed
Appendix D 77 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment
Resource Treatment Protection Measures Authority/ Type Source management plans for Cooperative Weed Management Areas in cooperation with State and Federal agencies, affected counties, and adjoining private lands owners. Bruneau Dunes All Treatments Vegetation treatments to control noxious weeds and invasive plants would preserve the natural integrity and character of sand dune habitats to the Tiger Beetle greatest extent possible. Columbian All Treatments Treatments within 0.6 miles of occupied Columbian sharp-tail grouse leks that results in or could likely result in disturbance to displaying birds would be Sharp Tail avoided from 6:00 pm to 9:00 am. This guideline would be applied from mid- Grouse March through June. Treatments in nesting habitat would be limited in May through mid-July. Adjustments to these dates may occur based on land use plan guidance and local conditions. Fish and Aquatic Herbicide Minimize treatments near fish-bearing water bodies during periods when fish Treatments are in life stages most sensitive to the herbicide(s) used, and use spot rather species than broadcast or aerial treatments. Use appropriate application equipment/method near water bodies if the potential for off-site drift exists. Limit the use of terrestrial herbicides in watersheds with characteristics suitable for potential surface runoff that have fish-bearing streams during periods when fish are in life stages most sensitive to the herbicide(s) used. Consider the proximity of application areas to salmonid habitat and the possible effects of herbicides on riparian and aquatic vegetation. Maintain appropriate buffer zones around salmonid-bearing streams (see Appendix C, Table C-16, of the 2007 PEIS, and recommendations in the individual ERAs). Do not broadcast spray glyphosate or picloram in upland habitats adjacent to aquatic habitats that support or may potentially support Threatened/Endangered/Proposed aquatic species under conditions that would likely result in off-site drift. In watersheds that support Threatened/Endangered/Proposed aquatic species or their habitat, do not apply tebuthiuron in upland habitats within 0.5 mile
Appendix D 78 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment
Resource Treatment Protection Measures Authority/ Type Source upslope of aquatic habitats that support Threatened/Endangered/Proposed aquatic species under conditions that would likely result in surface runoff. No surfactants would be used within 15 feet of streams containing TEP and BLM sensitive aquatic species. Fish and Aquatic Site Access for all Where threatened/endangered/proposed aquatic species occur, consider BLM 2007 PEIS; BLM ground-disturbing activities on a case by case basis, and implement SOPs to species treatment 2016 PEIS. methods ensure minimal erosion or impact to the aquatic habitat. Bull Trout and Redband Trout Herbicide No aerial herbicide treatment would occur within 300 feet of the canyon rim Treatments for the Bruneau River
Bruneau Hot Herbicide Aerial herbicide treatments would not occur within 0.5 mile of the Snake River Treatments or lower Bruneau River downstream of the wilderness boundary (Bruneau Hot Springs Snail Springs Snail Recovery Area) No spraying of herbicides would occur within 15 feet of geothermal springs within the Bruneau Hot Springs Snail Recovery Area. Manual treatments and aquatic-approved herbicide applications using wicking, wiping, dipping, painting, or injection are the only treatment methods allowed in these habitats.
Livestock Herbicide Whenever possible and whenever needed, schedule treatments when Treatments livestock are not present in the treatment area. Design treatments to take advantage of normal livestock grazing rest periods, when possible. As directed by the herbicide product label, remove livestock from treatment sites prior to herbicide application, where applicable. Use herbicides of low toxicity to livestock, where feasible. For aerial treatments, notify permittees of the herbicide treatment project to improve coordination and avoid potential conflicts and safety concerns during implementation of the treatment. Wild Horses and Herbicide Minimize using herbicides in areas grazed by wild horses and burros. BLM Handbook H-4120-1 Burros Treatments Use herbicides of low toxicity to wild horses and burros, where feasible. (Grazing Management);
Appendix D 79 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment
Resource Treatment Protection Measures Authority/ Type Source Minimize potential risks to wild horses by applying glyphosate, hexazinone, BLM 2007 PEIS; BLM and tebuthiuron at the minimum application rate, where feasible, in areas 2016 PEIS. associated with wild horse use.
Minimize the treatment area to the extent necessary to meet objectives when making applications of 2,4-D, dicamba, Overdrive®, and picloram in order to reduce potential impacts to wild horses. Apply herbicide label grazing restrictions for livestock to herbicide treatment areas that support populations of wild horses. Do not apply 2,4-D in the HMA during the peak foaling season (March through June, and especially in May and June). Native American Herbicide Consult with tribes to locate any areas of vegetation that are of significance to BLM 2007 PEIS; BLM the tribe and that might be affected by herbicide treatments. Traditional Uses Treatments 2016 PEIS. Work with tribes to minimize impacts to these resources. Follow guidance under Human Health and Safety in the PEIS in areas that may be visited by Native peoples after treatments. Do not exceed the typical application rate when applying 2,4-D, hexazinone, and tebuthiuron in known traditional use areas. Avoid applying tebuthiuron aerially in known traditional use areas. Human Health Herbicide Establish a buffer between treatment areas and human residences based on BLM Manual 8120; BLM guidance given in the HHRA, with a minimum buffer of ¼ mile for aerial and Safety Treatments Handbook H-8120-1; applications and 100 feet for ground applications, unless a written waiver is BLM 2007 PEIS; BLM granted. 2016 PEIS. Use protective equipment as directed by the herbicide product label. Use the typical application rate, where feasible, when applying 2,4-D, hexazinone, and tebuthiuron to reduce risk to occupational and public receptors. Do not apply hexazinone with an over-the-shoulder broadcast applicator. Wilderness Herbicide Complete a Minimum Requirements Analysis per BLM Wilderness BLM 2007 PEIS; BLM management policy prior to any treatments. Areas Treatments 2016 PEIS.
Appendix D 80 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment
Resource Treatment Protection Measures Authority/ Type Source Encourage backcountry pack and saddle stock users to feed their livestock only weed-free feed for several days before entering a wilderness area. Encourage stock users to tie and/or hold stock in such a way as to minimize soil disturbance and loss of native vegetation. Re-vegetate disturbed sites with native species if there is no reasonable expectation of natural regeneration. Provide educational materials at trailheads and other wilderness entry points to educate the public on the need to prevent the spread of weeds. Use the “minimum tool” to treat noxious and invasive vegetation, relying primarily on the use of ground-based tools, including backpack pumps, hand sprayers, and pumps mounted on pack and saddle stock. Use chemicals only when they are the minimum method necessary to control weeds that are spreading within the wilderness or threaten lands outside the wilderness. Give preference to herbicides that have the least impact on non-target species and the wilderness environment. Implement herbicide treatments during periods of low human use, where feasible. The use of motorized or mechanized vehicles and equipment will be evaluated through a Minimum Requirements Analysis (MRA) for the purpose of protecting and preserving wilderness character. The MRA will determine whether the proposal is consistent and compatible with requirements of the Wilderness Act, the OPLMA, House Report 101-405. Wilderness All Treatments Vegetation treatment activities within Wilderness and Wild and Scenic River BLM Handbook H-8560-1 corridors would be applied following the management considerations and Areas (Management of vegetation treatment guidelines approved in the final decision record of the Designated Wilderness WSAs Owyhee Canyonlands Wilderness and Wild and Scenic Rivers MP and EA (DOI- Study Areas); BLM 2007 BLM-ID-B000-2011-0001-EA), signed April 10, 2015. PEIS; BLM 2016 PEIS.
Herbicide Encourage backcountry pack and saddle stock users to feed their livestock only Treatments weed-free feed for several days before entering a wilderness area.
Appendix D 81 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment
Resource Treatment Protection Measures Authority/ Type Source Encourage stock users to tie and/or hold stock in such a way as to minimize soil disturbance and loss of native vegetation. Re-vegetate disturbed sites with native species if there is no reasonable expectation of natural regeneration. Provide educational materials at trailheads and other wilderness entry points to educate the public on the need to prevent the spread of weeds. Use the “minimum tool” to treat noxious and invasive vegetation, relying primarily on the use of ground-based tools, including backpack pumps, hand sprayers, and pumps mounted on pack and saddle stock. Use chemicals only when they are the minimum method necessary to control weeds that are spreading within the wilderness or threaten lands outside the wilderness. Give preference to herbicides that have the least impact on non-target species and the wilderness environment. Implement herbicide treatments during periods of low human use, where feasible. Address wilderness and special areas in management plans. WSAs All Treatments Vegetation treatments in wilderness study areas (WSAs) would be designed BLM Handbook H 8550-1 consistent with BLM Manual 6330–Management of Wilderness Study Areas (Management of Wild and Scenic (BLM, 2012). Wilderness Study Areas Rivers (WSAs); BLM 2007 PEIS; BLM 2016 PEIS.
Herbicide Maintain adequate buffers for aerial treatments near Wild and Scenic Rivers Treatments (¼ mile on either side of river).
Wild and Scenic All Treatments Vegetation treatment activities within Wilderness and Wild and Scenic River BLM Manual 8351 (Wild corridors would be applied following the management considerations and Rivers and Scenic Rivers); BLM vegetation treatment guidelines approved in the final decision record of the 2007 PEIS; BLM 2016 Owyhee Canyonlands Wilderness and Wild and Scenic Rivers MP and EA (DOI- PEIS. BLM-ID-B000-2011-0001-EA), signed April 10, 2015.
Appendix D 82 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment
Resource Treatment Protection Measures Authority/ Type Source
National Historic Revegetation Surface disturbing activities associated with revegetation will not occur on the Trails trail or designated visual corridors along segments of the Oregon Trail per the BDO Oregon Trail Management Plan, 1984. If treatments are proposed within 0.25 to 0.5 miles of either side of the Oregon NHT (the designated viewshed on some segments), treatment methods would be evaluated by the Field Office Archaeologist. Depending on the archaeologist’s evaluation, additional cultural surveys may be required if the APE for the proposed treatments overlaps or is within the viewshed of an Oregon NHT segment to determine the exact location of the trail, and whether there is trail braiding. Cultural All Treatments Follow standard procedures for compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act as implemented through the Programmatic Resources Agreement among the Bureau of Land Management, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers Regarding the Manner in Which BLM Will Meet Its Responsibilities Under the National Historic Preservation Act and the Idaho BLM / SHPO Protocol of 2014 or 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, including necessary consultations with State Historic Preservation Officers and interested tribes and publics. All treatments would be conducted in accordance with the 2014 State Protocol Agreement between the Idaho SHPO and the BLM (BLM/SHPO Protocol, 2014). Herbicides may be applied on National Register listed or eligible sites either through the use of hand sprayers or UTV/ATV mounted sprayers. UTV/ATV use across a site would only be done when the soils are firm and not wet or saturated. UTV/ATVs will not turn around in any site. Single-pass cross-country travel by rubber-tired vehicles (under 10,000 lbs GVW) engaged in official BLM activities where inventory is completed and appropriate site avoidance measures are in-place is acceptable.
Appendix D 83 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment
Resource Treatment Protection Measures Authority/ Type Source
Travel and All Treatments Use different ingress and egress routes when using off-road vehicles for BLM Manual 8100 (The treatment application (e.g. spraying noxious weeds) or transporting supplies Transportation Foundations for (e.g. shrub seedlings for large planting projects) to avoid route creation. Managing Cultural Management Utilize hardened or previously disturbed areas for staging equipment. Resources); Programmatic Agreement among the Bureau of Land Management, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers Regarding the Manner in Which BLM Will Meet Its Responsibilities Under the National Historic Preservation Act; BLM 2007 PEIS; BLM 2016 PEIS.
Paleontological Herbicide Follow BLM Handbook H-8270-1 (General Procedural Guidance for Treatments Paleontological Resource Management) to determine known Condition I and Resources Condition 2 paleontological areas, or collect information through inventory to establish Condition 1 and Condition 2 areas, determine resource types at risk from the proposed treatment, and develop appropriate measures to minimize or mitigate adverse impacts. Recreation Herbicide Schedule treatments to avoid peak recreational use times, while taking into BLM Manual 8270 Treatments account the optimum management period for the targeted species. (Paleontological Notify the public of treatment methods, hazards, times, and nearby Resource Management); alternative recreation areas. BLM Handbook H- 8270- 1 (General Procedural
Appendix D 84 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment
Resource Treatment Protection Measures Authority/ Type Source Guidance for Paleontological Resource Management); BLM 2007 PEIS; BLM 2016 PEIS.
Social and Herbicide When proposing aerial application, notify the public of the project to improve BLM Handbook H-1601-1 coordination and avoid potential conflicts and safety concerns during Economic Values Treatments (Land Use Planning implementation of the treatment. Handbook, Appendix C); To the degree possible within the law, hire local contractors and workers to BLM 2007 PEIS; BLM assist with herbicide application projects and purchase materials and supplies, 2016 PEIS. including chemicals, for herbicide treatment projects through local suppliers. To minimize fears based on lack of information, provide public educational information on the need for vegetation treatments and the use of herbicides in an integrated pest management program for projects proposing local use of herbicides. Rights-of-way Herbicide Coordinate vegetation management activities where joint or multiple use of a BLM 2007 PEIS; BLM Treatments ROW exists. 2016 PEIS. Notify other public land users within or adjacent to the ROW proposed for treatment.
Appendix D 85 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment
Figure 1: Schematic depicting Riparian zones.
Appendix D 86 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment Table D2: Descriptions of riparian zones Zone Area of Influence Herbicide Application Method Maximum Wind Speed
>100 feet from Herbicides approved for aerial application 1 live water or 6 mph riparian zone
>100 feet from All herbicides 1 live water or 10 mph Ground application methods including boom spraying riparian zone
>25 feet from live All herbicides except: Picloram or ester formulations of 2,4-D 2 water or riparian 8 mph Ground application methods including boom spraying zone
15-25 feet from All herbicides except: Picloram or ester formulations of 2,4-D 3 live water or 8 mph Ground spot application methods except boom spraying riparian zone
< 15 feet from live All herbicides except: Picloram or ester formulations of 2,4-D water or riparian 4 Selective treatment of target species (e.g. spot treatment of 5 mph zone individual plants).
Riparian Zone (No Aquatic approved herbicides approved for use to the water edge TEP species) Injecting or painting (cut-stump method). 5 5 mph Selective treatment of target species (e.g. spot treatment of individual plants).
Appendix D 87 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment APPENDIX E - SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES
Special Status Animal Categories Type 1. Federally listed Threatened or Endangered species, Experimental Essential populations, and designated Critical Habitat. Type 2. Idaho BLM Sensitive Species, including USFWS Proposed and Candidate species, ESA species delisted during the past five years, and ESA Experimental Non-essential populations. Special Status Plant Categories Type 1. Federally listed Threatened or Endangered Species and designated Critical Habitat. Type 2. These are species that have a high likelihood of being listed in the foreseeable future due to their global rarity and significant endangerment factors. Species also include USFWS Proposed and Candidate species, ESA species delisted during the past five years, ESA Experimental Non- essential species, and ESA Proposed Critical Habitat. Type 3. Range-wide or State-wide Imperiled – Moderate Endangerment These are species that are globally rare or very rare in Idaho, with moderate endangerment factors. Their global or state rarity and the inherent risks associated with rarity make them imperiled species. Type 4. Species of Concern These are species that are generally rare in Idaho with small populations or localized distribution and currently have low threat levels. However, due to the small populations and habitat area, certain future land uses in close proximity could significantly jeopardize these species. NOTE: The species listed in Table H-1 (special status animals) and Table H-2 (special status plants) are dynamic, and the conservation status for individual species may change in the future.
Appendix E 88 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment Table E-1. Special Status Animals Scientific Name Common Name Status BOP BFO FRFO OFO Mammals Urocitellus brunneus Northern Idaho Type 1 X Ground Squirrel (Endangered) Eptesicus fuscus Big Brown Bat Type 2 X X X X Ovis canadensis spp. Bighorn Sheep Type 2 X X X X Myotis californicas California Myotis Type 2 X Parastrellus hesperus Canyon Bat Type 2 X X X X Scapanus orarius Coast Mole Type 2 X schefferi Microdipodops Dark Kangaroo Type 2 X megacephalus Mouse Martes pennanti Fisher Type 2 X Myotis thysanodes Fringed Myotis Type 2 X X X Canis lupis Gray Wolf Type 2 X (Delisted) Lasiurus cinereus Hoary Bat Type 2 X X Vulpes macrotis Kit Fox Type 2 X X X Myotis lucifugus Little Brown Bat Type 2 X X X X Myotis evotis Long-eared Myotis Type 2 X X X X Mytis volans Long-legged Myotis Type 2 X X X X Urocitellus canus Merriam's Ground Type 2 X Squirrel Antrozous pallidus Pallid Bat Type 2 X X X X Urocitellus mollis Piute Ground Squirrel Type 2 X X X X Brachylagus idahoensis Pygmy Rabbit Type 2 X X X X Lasionycterus Silver-haired Bat Type 2 X X X X noctivagans Euderma maculatum Spotted Bat Type 2 X X X Corynorhinus Townsend's Big-eared Type 2 X X X X townsendii Bat Myotis ciliolabrum Western Small-footed Type 2 X X X X Myotis Gulo gulo luscus Wolverine Type 2 X
Appendix E 89 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment
Scientific Name Common Name Status BOP BFO FRFO OFO Myotis yumanensis Myotis yuma Type 2 X X X X Birds Coccyzus americanus Yellow-billed cuckoo Type 1 X (Threatened, Proposed Critical Habitat) Haliaeetus Bald eagle Type 2 X X X leucocephalus (Delisted) Chlidonias niger Black Tern Type 2 X X X Amphispiza bilineata Black-throated Type 2 X X X X sparrow Spizella breweri Brewer's sparrow Type 2 X X X X Athene cunicularia Burrowing Owl Type 2 X X X X Carpodacus cassinii Cassin's Finch Type 2 X Tympanuchus Columbian Sharp- Type 2 X pasianellus columbianus tailed Grouse Otus flammeolus Flammulated Owl Type 2 X X Buteo regalis Ferruginous Hawk Type 2 X X X X Ammodramus Grasshopper Sparrow Type 2 savannarum Centrocercus Greater Sage-Grouse Type 2 X X X X urophasianus Pipilo Chlorurus Green-tailed Towhee Type 2 X X X X Histrionicus histrionicus Harlequin Duck Type 2 X Melanerpes lewis Lewis' Woodpecker Type 2 X X X X Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike Type 2 X X X X Numeius americanus Long-billed curlew Type 2 X X X X Oreortyx pictus Mountain Quail Type 2 X Accipiter gentilis Northern Goshawk Type 2 X X X X Contopus cooperi Olive-sided Flycatcher Type 2 X X X X Amphispiza belli Sage Sparrow Type 2 X X X X Oreoscoptes montanus Sage Thrasher Type 2 X X X X Asio flammeus Short-eared Owl Type 2 X X X X
Appendix E 90 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment
Scientific Name Common Name Status BOP BFO FRFO OFO Cygnus buccinator Trumpeter Swan Type 2 X X Picoides albolarvatus White-headed Type 2 X X Woodpecker Empidonax trailii Willow Flycatcher Type 2 X X X X Amphibians Rana luteiventris Columbia spotted Type 2 X frog (Candidate) Anaxyrus boreas and Western/Boreal Toad Type 2 X X X X Anaxyrus boreas boreas Dicamptodon aterrimus Idaho Giant Type 2 X Salamander Lithobates pipiens Northern Leopard Type 2 X X X X Frog Anaxyrus woodhousii Woodhouse's Toad Type 2 X X X X Invertebrates Cicindela waynei Bruneau Dunes Tiger Type 2 X Beetle Reptiles Crotaphytus bicinctores Great Basin Black- Type 2 X X X X collared Lizard Rhinocheilus lecontei Longnose Snake Type 2 X X X X Sonora semiannulata Ground Snake Type 2 X X X X Fishes Salvelinus confluentus Bull Trout Threatened X X Taylorconcha Bliss Rapids Snail Threatened X X serpenticola Physa natricina Snake River Physa Endangered X X X X Snail Pyrgulopsis Bruneau Hot Spring Endangered X bruneauensis Snail Oncorhynchus mykiss Redband Trout Sensitive X X X gairdneri Acipenser White Sturgeon Sensitive X X X X transmontanus Fisherola nuttalli Shortface Lanx Sensitive X
Appendix E 91 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment
Scientific Name Common Name Status BOP BFO FRFO OFO Fluminicola fuscus Ashy Pebblesnail Sensitive X X X
Appendix E 92 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment
Global State BLM Species Name Common name ESA Status Rank1 Rank2 Type FRFO BOP BFO OFO
Allium aaseae Aase’s Onion G2G3 S3 2 X Angelica kingii Great Basin G4 S1 3 X Angelica Aspicilia rogeri Coral Lichen G2G3 * 3 X X Astragalus atratus var. Mourning G4G5T3 S3 4 X X inseptus Milkvetch Astragalus conjunctus Stiff Milkvetch or G4 S2 4 X var. conjuctus Idaho Milkvetch Astragalus cusickii var. Packard's Milkvetch G5T1 S1 2 X packardiae Astragalus cusickii var. Barren Milkvetch G5T2 S1 3 X sterilis
Astragalus mulfordiae Mulford’s G2 S2 2 X X X X Milkvetch Astragalus newberryi Newberry’s G5T5 S2 4 X X var. castoreus Milkvetch Astragalus purshii var. Snake River G5T3 S3 4 X X X X ophiogenes Milkvetch Astragalus tetrapterus Four-Wing G4G5 S1 4 X Milkvetch Astragalus yoder- Mudflat Milkvetch G3 S3 3 X X williamsii Blepharidachne kingii King’s Desert Grass G4 S1 3 X Camassia cusickii Cusick’s Camas G4 S2 4 X X
Appendix E 93 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment
Global State BLM Species Name Common name ESA Status Rank1 Rank2 Type FRFO BOP BFO OFO
Camissonia Pygmy Suncup G4 S2 4 X pterosperma Carex aboriginum Indian Valley Sedge G1 S1 2 X Carex tumulicola Foothill or Splitawn G4 SH 4 X Sedge Catapyrenium Earth Lichen G4 S2 4 X X X congestum Ceanothus prostratus Prostrate G5? S1 3 X Ceanothus Chaenactis cusickii Cusick’s Pincushion G3 S2 2 X Chaenactis stevioides Desert Pincushion, G5 S2 4 X X X X Broadflower Pincushion Cleomella plocasperma Twisted or Alkali G4 S1 3 X Cleomella Cryptantha propria Malheur G4 S2 4 X X Cryptantha Cymopterus acaulis var. Greeley’s G5T2 S2 3 X X X greeleyorum Wavewing Cyperus bipartitus Shining Flatsedge G5 S2 4 X Dermatocarpon Silverskin Lichen G2 S1 3 X lorenzianum Dimeresia howellii Dimeresia or G4? S2 3 X X Doublet
Appendix E 94 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment
Global State BLM Species Name Common name ESA Status Rank1 Rank2 Type FRFO BOP BFO OFO
Downingia bacigalupii Bacigalupi’s G4 S2 4 X X Downingia Downingia insignis Harlequin G4 S1 3 X Calicoflower Eatonella nivea White Eatonella or G4G5 S3 4 X X X X False Tickhead Epipactis gigantea Chatterbox or G4 S3 3 X X X Stream Orchid Ericameria bloomeri Rabbitbrush or G4 S1 4 X Bloomer’s Goldenweed Eriogonum Calcereous G5T3 S2 3 X ochrocephalum var. Buckwheat calcareum Eriogonum shockleyi Packard’s G5T2Q S2 4 X X X X var. packardiae Buckwheat Eriogonum shockleyi Shockey’s or G5T4? S2 4 X var. shockleyi Matted Cowpie Buckwheat Glyptopleura marginata White-Margined G4G5 S3 4 X X X X Wax Plant Hackelia cronquistii Cronquist’s Forget- G3 S1 3 X Me-Not
Appendix E 95 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment
Global State BLM Species Name Common name ESA Status Rank1 Rank2 Type FRFO BOP BFO OFO
Hackelia ophiobia Owyhee Forget- G3 S2 3 X X Me-Not or Stickseed Ipomopsis polycladon Spreading Gilia G4 S2 3 X X X Lepidium davisii Davis’ Peppergrass G3 S3 3 X X X X Lepidium papilliferum Slickspot Threatened G2 S1 1 X X Peppergrass Leptodactylon glabrum Bruneau River G2 S2 3 X Prickly Phlox Lewisia sacajaweana Sacajawea’s G2 S2 4 X Bitterroot Lomatium packardiae Packard’s Desert G2 S2 2 X X Parsley Lupinus uncialis Inchhigh Lupine G4 S2 4 X X Melica stricta Rock melic, G4 S1 4 X nodding melicgrass Mentzelia mollis Smooth Stickleaf G2 S2 2 X Mimulus evanescens Disappearing G3 SH 4 X X Monkeyflower Mimulus Washington G4 S1 2 X washingtonensis Monkeyflower
Monardella angustifolia G1 S1 2 X Nemacladus rigidus Rigid Threadbush G4 S2 4 X X X
Appendix E 96 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment
Global State BLM Species Name Common name ESA Status Rank1 Rank2 Type FRFO BOP BFO OFO
Pediocactus simpsonii Simpson’s G5 S3 4 X X X Hedgehog Cactus Penstemon janishiae Janish’s Penstemon G4 S2 3 X X Penstemon seorsus Short-Lobed G4? S2 4 X Penstemon Peraphyllum Wild Crabapple G4 S2 3 X ramosissimum Peteria thompsoniae Spine-Noded G4 S2 4 X Milkvetch Phacelia lutea var. calva Yellow G4T3 S3 3 X Scorpionweed Phacelia minutissima Least Phacelia G3 S2 2 X
Potamogeton Waterthread G5 S1 4 X X X diversifolius Pondweed Psathyrotes annua Turtleback, Annual G5 S2 3 X X X X Brittlebrush Pyrrocoma linearis Thinleaf G4? S3 3 X X Goldenhead Pyrrocoma radiata Snake River G3 S3 3 X Goldenweed Sairocarpus kingii King's Snapdragon G4 S1 3 X Solidago spectabilis Basin Goldenrod G4 SH 4 X Stanleya confertiflora Malheur G1 S1 2 X X X Princesplume
Appendix E 97 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment
Global State BLM Species Name Common name ESA Status Rank1 Rank2 Type FRFO BOP BFO OFO
Teucrium canadense American G5 S2 4 X X X X var. occidentale Woodsage, Western Germander Texosporium sancti- Woven-Spore G3 S2 2 X X jacobi Lichen Trifolium douglasii Douglas Clover G2 S2 2 X Trifolium owyheense Owyhee Clover G2 S1 2 X Trifolium plumosum var. Plumed Clover G4 S2 3 X amplifolium * Indicates no ranking available 1 Global Ranks G1 = Critically Imperiled: At very high risk of extinction due to extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer populations), very steep declines, or other factors. G2 = Imperiled: At high risk of extinction due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors. G3 = Vulnerable: At moderate risk of extinction due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors. G4 = Apparently Secure: Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors. G5 = Secure: Common, widespread, and abundant. 2State Ranks S1 = Critically Imperiled: Critically imperiled in the nation or state/province because of extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer occurrences) or because of some factor(s) such as very steep declines making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the state/province. S2 = Imperiled: Imperiled in the nation or state/province because of rarity due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the nation or state/province. S3 = Vulnerable: Vulnerable in the nation or state/province due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation. S4 = Apparently Secure: Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors. S5 = Demonstrably Secure: Common, widespread, and abundant in the nation or state/province. SH = State Historic
Appendix E 98 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment APPENDIX F - MIGRATORY BIRD SPECIES OF CONSERVATION CONCERN IN THE GREAT BASIN
All species listed below are also designated Birds of Management Concern; a subset of the species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (see 50 CFR 10.13) which pose special management challenges because of a variety of factors (e.g., too few, too many, conflicts with human interests, societal demands). Some are also BLM special status species. The Migratory Bird Program places priority emphasis on these birds (USFWS Migratory Bird Program Strategic Plan 2004-2014).
Common Name Scientific Name BLM Statusa Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Type 2 Black-chinned Sparrow Spizella atrogularis N/A Black Rosy-Finch Leucosticte atrata N/A Black swift Cypseloides niger N/A Black Tern Chlidonias niger Type 2 Black-throated Sparrow Amphispiza bilineata Type 2 Brewer’s sparrow Spizella breweri Type 2 Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia Type 2 Calliope Hummingbird Selasphorus calliope N/A Cassin’s Finch Carpodacus cassinii Type 2 Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse Tympanuchus Type 2 phasianellus columbianus Eared Grebe Podiceps nigricollis N/A Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis Type 2 Flammulated owl Otus flammeolus Type 2 Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos Type 2 Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus Type 2 savannarum Greater Sage-grouse Centrocercus Type 2 urophasianus Green-tailed Towhee Pipilo chlorurus Type 2 Lewis woodpecker Melanerpes lewis Type 2 Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus Type 2 Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus Type 2 Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa N/A Mountain Quail Oreortyx gentilis Type 2
Appendix F 99 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment
Common Name Scientific Name BLM Statusa Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis Type 2 Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi Type 2 Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum N/A Pinyon Jay Gymnorhinus Type 2 cyanocephalus Sage Sparrow Amphispiza belli Type 2 Sage Thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus Type 2 Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus Type 2 Snowy Plover Charadrius alexandrinus N/A Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor N/A Trumpeter Swan Cygnus buccinators Type 2 Virginia’s warbler Vermivora virginae Type 2 White-headed Woodpecker Picoides albolarvatus Type 2 Williamson’s Sapsucker Sphyrapicus thyroideus N/A Willow Flycatcher Empidonax trailii Type 2 Yellow Rail Coturnicops N/A noveborucensis Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Type 1 aType 1: Federally listed Threatened or Endangered species, and designated Critical Habitat. Type 2: Idaho BLM Sensitive Species, including USFWS Proposed and Candidate species, ESA species delisted during the past five years, and ESA Experimental Non-essential populations.
Appendix F 100 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment APPENDIX G – ARMPA CONFORMANCE REVIEW
Idaho Greater Sage-Grouse Implementation Plan Conformance Review (Field Office Version)
Project Point of Contact:Lonnie Huter Date: 17 May 2018 Project Name: Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Project Type: EA Location: Boise District Which Alternative is Being Evaluated: Alternative B – Proposed Action Area of Impact: entire district Conservation Area: Mountain Valleys, Desert, West Owyhee, and Southern Conservation Areas Habitat Designation: PHMA, IHMA, and GHMA Have any Adaptive Management Triggers been engaged: Is Project Within SFA: Yes Is Project Within a BSU: Yes Does the Proposed Project contribute towards the Disturbance Cap: No (If the Answer is yes please use the other Conformance form and submit it to the State Office) Percent Disturbance within BSU: Percent Disturbance within Project Area: Not Applicable Not Applicable Allocation Open Please identify the Management Decisions that authorize the proposed project or otherwise appear applicable: (This is focused on the management decisions that on a first read would generally apply to the project. However many of these on a closer read do not apply because of specific circumstances of the project. These are the MDs that would not apply and would require a brief rationale.)
Table 3. Applicable Management Decisions: Management Apply? Management Decision Text Conformance Statement. Decision Number MD VEG 1 Yes Implement habitat rehabilitation This project would apply restoration projects in areas that chemical and biological have potential to improve GRSG treatments to improve habitat. habitat using a full array of treatment activities as appropriate, including chemical, mechanical, and seeding arrangements. MD VEG 10 Yes Implement noxious weed and Herbicide application would invasive species control using follow all national guidance and integrated vegetation management plans. management actions per national guidance and local weed management plans for Cooperative Weed Management Areas in cooperation with State and Federal
Appendix G 101 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment Management Apply? Management Decision Text Conformance Statement. Decision Number agencies, affected counties, and adjoining private lands owners. MD VEG 11 Yes Conduct integrated weed Herbicide application would management actions for noxious reduce the negative impacts of and invasive weed populations that noxious weeds to sage-grouse are impacting or threatening habitat although it would be on a GRSG habitat quality using a minimal because this EA only variety of eradication and control covers small scale treatments. techniques including chemical, mechanical and other appropriate means. MD VEG 13 Yes Treat areas that contain cheatgrass Small scale herbicide treatments and other invasive or noxious would improve conditions for species to minimize competition desirable species. and favor establishment of desired species.
Table 4. Required Design Features that Seem Applicable: RDF Apply? RDF Text Conformance Statement. Number 42 yes Reduce annual grass densities and The EA includes a list of Design competition through herbicide, targeted Features to reduce impacts to grazing, tillage, prescribed fire, etc. GRSG and its habitat. (Appendix D, (Pyke 2011) page 77-79) 2 Yes No repeated or sustained behavioral No work would be completed disturbance (e.g., visual, noise over 10 within the time frames identified dbA at lek, etc.) to lekking birds from and the small scale treatments 6:00 pm to 9:00 am within 2 miles (3.2 would preclude sustained km) of leks during the lekking season. disturbance. 3 Yes Avoid mechanized anthropogenic Herbicide application does not disturbance, in nesting habitat during constitute a mechanized the nesting season when implementing: disturbance (see BOSH FEIS pg 9 1) fuels/vegetation/habitat restoration for explanation of mechanized management projects, 2) infrastructure disturbance). Further, the small construction or maintenance, 3) scale of the proposed treatments geophysical exploration activities; 4) would have little likelihood of organized motorized recreational events. impacting nesting sage-grouse. 51 Yes When conducting vegetation treatments Herbicide application would be in areas inhabited or potentially completed according to the inhabited by slickspot peppergrass guidance and direction from the (Lepidium papilliferum) follow the conservation agreement. conservation measures in the applicable conservation agreement between Idaho BLM and US Fish and Wildlife Service (most recent version dated September 2014). Is Mitigation Required: No (If the Answer is yes please use the other Conformance form and submit it to the State Office)
Appendix G 102 Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management Environmental Assessment RDF Apply? RDF Text Conformance Statement. Number Rationale or Brief Description of Mitigation: Not Applicable Is the Project in Conformance with the Sage-grouse ARMPA (Sept 2015): Yes Rationale: The control of noxious weeds and invasive plants would improve GRSG habitat and reduce identified threats to the species. The above referenced Management Directions and Required Design Features specifically allow for and direct the BLM in how to use herbicide and other vegetation treatments for the improvement of habitat and the control of noxious weeds and invasive plants. ------Reviewer(s):Seth Flanigan, Mike McGee, Date:5/21/2018 Ammon Wilhelm Additional Needs: None
Conclusion: Based on the above review, this proposal is in conformance with the 2015 ARMPA.
Appendix G 103