Lolo National Forest Integrated Weed Management Project Record of Decision – Table of Contents I. Brief Description of My Decision....................................................................1 II. Overview of the Decision Area.......................................................................2 III. Project Background.........................................................................................2 IV. Purpose and Need for Action .......................................................................3 V. Public Involvement and Issue Identification..............................................5 VI. Alternatives Considered.................................................................................7 Alternatives Considered But Not Studied in Detail....................................................7 Alternatives Considered In Detail...............................................................................9 VII. Decision...........................................................................................................13 Scope of the Decision ...............................................................................................13 Decision ....................................................................................................................13 VIII. Rationale for the Decision.........................................................................14 Issues Needing Further Analysis and used to develop alternatives that were given further analysis..........................................................................................................18 IX. Findings Required by Law, Regulation, and Policy..............................23 1. National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA).............................................24 2. NEPA – Environmentally Preferred Alternative ..................................................24 3. National Forest Noxious Weed Management Policy (FSM 2080) .......................25 4. Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species, February 3, 1999...............................25 5. Clean Water Act and State Water Quality Standards ...........................................25 6. Clean Air Act ........................................................................................................25 7. Endangered Species Act (16 USC 1531 et. seq.)..................................................26 8. National Historic Preservation Act, American Indian Religious Freedom Act and Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act.........................................26 9. Government to Government Relations .................................................................26 10. Environmental Justice.........................................................................................27 11. Migratory Bird Treaty Act..................................................................................27 12. Administration of the Forest Transportation System..........................................27 X. Appeal Provisions and Implementation....................................................27 Appendices Appendix A - Weeds on the Lolo National Forest .............................................. Page 1 Appendix B - Project Area Maps by District .................................................Pages 2-6 Appendix C - Weed Treatment Decision Tree.................................................... Page 7 Appendix D - Monitoring Plan........................................................................ Page 8-9 Appendix E - Mitigation Measures..............................................................Page 10-12 Figure 1- Lolo National Forest Vicinity Map Record of Decision Lolo National Forest Integrated Weed Management Project United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Northern Region Lolo National Forest Missoula, Mineral, Sanders, Granite, Powell, Lewis and Clark, Flathead, Ravalli and Lake Counties, Montana I. Brief Description of My Decision After extensive analysis, deliberation and review and consideration of public comments, I have decided to implement Alternative 2 from the Lolo National Forest Integrated Weed Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), within the decision area defined below. This Record of Decision explains my decision and rationale for selecting this alternative for managing invasive and noxious weeds on the Lolo National Forest (LNF). I have decided to select Alternative 2 to more aggressively and effectively address the weed issue on the LNF and to enable us to more effectively prioritize where we conduct our weed management activities within the decision area. Under Alternative 2, 78,443 weed infested acres were analyzed. This decision allows treatment of a maximum of 15,000 of these 78,443 acres in any one year. Not all 15,000 acres / year will be treated with herbicides. They will be treated with the variety of weed management tools described below. Operationally, my decision will: • Add sheep and goat grazing to our existing integrated pest management • Allow us to better prioritize where we conduct our weed management activities in order to protect high value resources and control new and existing weed infestations when they are small and more easily controlled • Allow us to treat up to 15,000 acres a year with a combination of ground and aerially applied herbicides, goat and sheep grazing, biological control agents, mowing, pulling, seeding and fertilizing • Allow us to more promptly treat new weed species and new weed infestations that are discovered in weed free zones of the forest Aerial application of herbicides for weed control on the LNF is not a new program with this decision. We have conducted over 30 aerial herbicide spray projects since 1992. Our aerial spray program has a proven history and excellent safety record since we started in 1992. This decision allows treatment of up to 15,000 acres/year based on current funding. It is expected that 5,000 to 6,000 acres will be treated each year across the Forest. These treatments will be more effective because we will be able to react quicker and prioritize better. We will also continue our weed education and prevention efforts. The 78,443 acres of project areas in this decision represents the gross exterior area of all the sites that were identified as needing treatment. There is not 100 percent weed coverage in all the project areas. For example, on an infested area of two acres, only a half acre of ground might actually be occupied by scattered clumps of weeds. Actual, on-the-ground, treatment will be less than gross area because only weed infested areas within the gross project areas will be treated. Roads, trails and linear features, for example, will usually only be spot treated where weeds occur. Treatment sites range in size from a few plants to infestations with a gross exterior boundary of 16,380 acres. My decision will also allow for an adaptive and integrated weed management strategy to include treatment of new weed species, new weed patches, and use of new control methods. This is provided that the environmental impacts are within the scope of those disclosed for Alternative 2 in the FEIS. The impacts of the selected alternative are described in the FEIS for the LNF Integrated Weed Management Project. The selected alternative provides for the use of the most effective tools for controlling weeds while having the greatest resource benefit and minimal impact on the nontarget components of the environment. II. Overview of the Decision Area The decision area covers all lands analyzed for weed treatment in the FEIS within the entire approximately 2.1 million acre LNF (Figure 1). Counties included in the analysis area are all or parts of: Missoula, Mineral, Sanders, Granite, Powell, Lewis and Clark, and Flathead, and are all in Montana. The LNF shares boundaries with eight National Forests, as well as, state and private lands. III. Project Background Weeds pose an increasing threat to native ecosystems, croplands, other plant communities, and human health and are expanding their range throughout the West. While weeds have long been recognized as a problem for agriculture, the potential impact to other plant communities, including wildlands, is receiving greater attention. An estimated 2,000 invasive and noxious weed species are already established in the United States. Twenty one invasive and noxious weed species have been found on the LNF (See Appendix A). Another 10 noxious and invasive species are found nearby but are not yet established on the forest. All types of ecosystems are vulnerable to invasive plants. These weeds can alter ecosystem processes including productivity, decomposition, hydrology, and nutrient cycling. Weed invasion can lead to displacement of native plant species with impacts to both game and nongame animal species. Weeds spread from travel ways such as roads, trails, creeks, and rivers. Airborne dispersal occurs from wind and birds. Weed seeds and plant parts are moved along road and trail systems by vehicles, people, livestock, and wildlife allowing the establishment of weeds into areas previously not infested. As corridors, road, trails and river systems allow weeds to invade both disturbed and undisturbed areas. Through the influences of wind, waterways and wildlife, weeds have been able to occupy undisturbed habitats far removed from road or trail systems. Lolo National Forest Integrated Weed Management ROD Page 2 Acres infested with invasive and noxious weeds on the LNF are based on