United States Forest National Forests in North Carolina 160 ZILLICOA ST STE A Department of Service Supervisor’s Office ASHEVILLE NC 28801-1082 Agriculture 828-257-4200 File Code: 1950-2 Date: February 24, 2009 Dear Interested Parties: The Decision Notice for the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests Non-Native Invasive Plant Environmental Assessment (EA) was signed on February 23, 2009. I have chosen to implement Alternative 3 of the EA. The selected alternative proposes up to 1,100 acres of non-native invasive plant treatment across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. Treatments will include an integrated combination of herbicide, manual, mechanical, and fire methods to treat identified infestations. A copy of the Decision Notice (DN) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is enclosed. The DN and FONSI discuss the decision in detail and rationale for reaching that decision. I am also enclosing a copy of the Environmental Assessment for this project. This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to 36 CFR 215.11. A written appeal, including attachments, must be postmarked or received within 45 days after the date this notice is published in The Asheville Citizens Times. The Appeal shall be sent to USDA, Forest Service, ATTN: Appeals Deciding Officer, 1720 Peachtree Rd, N.W., Suite 811N, Atlanta, Georgia 30309-9102. Appeals may be faxed to (540) 265-5145. Hand-delivered appeals must be received within normal business hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Appeals may also be mailed electronically in a common digital format to [email protected] Appeals must meet content requirements of 36 CFR 215.14. For further information on this decision, contact Gary Kauffman, Forest Botanist, at 828-257-4861. If no appeal is received, implementation of this decision may occur on, but not before, five business days from the close of the appeal filing period. If an appeal is received, implementation may not occur for 15 business days following the date of appeal disposition. (36 CFR 215.9). Thank you for your continued interest in management of the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. Sincerely, /s/ Marisue Hilliard MARISUE HILLIARD Forest Supervisor Enclosures Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper Decision Notice, Finding of No Significant Impact & Project-Specific, United States Non-Significant Forest Plan Department of Agriculture Amendment #23 Forest Service February 2009 Nantahala and Pisgah National Forest Non-Native Invasive Plant Control Nantahala National Forest: Graham, Swain, Jackson, Macon, Cherokee, and Clay Counties, North Carolina Pisgah National Forest: Haywood, Madison, Avery, Burke, Caldwell, McDowell, Buncombe, Henderson, Mitchell, Transylvania, and Yancey Counties, North Carolina Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests Non-Native Invasive Plant Control Decision Notice, Finding of No Significant Impact, & Non-Significant Forest Plan Amendment #23 Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests Non-Native Invasive Plant Control USDA Forest Service Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests, North Carolina Decision and Rationale for with a string trimmer, chainsaw, brush blade, the Decision or mower. = Use of a propane weed torch to spot-burn Decision targeted invasive plants. The weed torch Based upon my review of the alternatives, I have works not by starting a ground fire but by decided to select Alternative 3 of the Non- using the torch’s flame to burn the target Native Invasive Plant Environmental Assessment plant. The weed torch would only be used (EA) on the Nantahala and Pisgah National during times of low fire danger. Its use would Forests (NPNFs). The Selected Alternative primarily be within plant communities that includes: have a low potential to carry fire, such as Southern Appalachian bogs or rich cove = Annual treatment of up to 1,100 acres of forest communities. non-native invasive plants (NNIPs) using an = integrated combination of manual, Amendment to the Forest Plan (see Forest mechanical, cultural, and chemical control Plan Consistency below). treatment methods. Rationale = Use of herbicides to control NNIP One of the goals of the Nantahala and Pisgah infestations where manual or mechanical Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest means would be cost-prohibitive or result in Plan) is to maintain and enhance the diversity of excessive soil disturbance or other resource plant and animal communities of the Southern damage. All herbicides would be used Appalachians, favoring plant and animal according to manufacturer’s label direction communities that warrant special attention for rates, concentrations, exposure times, and (Forest Plan Amendment 5 p. III-1). Given the application methods. Herbicides would be current distribution of NNIP infestation sites on directly applied to the target plants (i.e., the the NPNFs, there is a need to implement a NNIP species) using spot treatment. comprehensive and integrated program of NNIP Techniques that could be used include control to protect the integrity of natural plant spraying foliage using a hand-held wand or communities. backpack sprayer, basal bark and stem I selected Alternative 3 because it accomplishes treatments using spraying or painting these objectives and meets the purpose and need (wiping) methods, cut surface treatments for action. (spraying or wiping), and woody stem injections. Other Alternatives Considered = Manual or mechanical methods to control small spot infestations. Examples of hand In addition to the Selected Alternative, I tools that might be used include shovels, considered two other alternatives in detail: saws, axes, loppers, hoes, or weed-wrenches. Alternative 1 – Proposed Action and Alternative Mechanical methods could include cutting 2 – No Action. A comparison of these Decision Notice and FONSI 2 Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests Non-Native Invasive Plant Control alternatives can be found in Section 2.4 of the project to cover more of the Nantahala National EA. Forest. Alternative 1 Finding of No Significant Impact Alternative 1 was similar to the selected alternative, except that it failed to After considering the environmental effects comprehensively address NNIPs on the described in the EA, I have determined that Nantahala National Forest and proposed up to these actions will not have a significant effect on 550 acres annually. The most consistent the quality of the human environment comment that was received on the proposed considering the context and intensity of impacts action was that it did not include treatment of (40 CFR 1508.27). Thus, an environmental NNIPs on the Nantahala National Forest. Many impact statement will not be prepared. I base my of the design features and treatment protocols finding on the following: from this alternative were carried forward in 1. The action will not violate Federal, State, and Alternative 3. local laws or requirements for the protection Alternative 2 – No Action of the environment. Applicable laws and regulations were considered in the EA. The Under Alternative 2, current management plans action with its project-specific Forest Plan would continue to guide management of the amendment is consistent with the Nantahala project area. This alternative was not selected and Pisgah National Forests Land and because it would not respond to the immediate Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) threat that NNIPs pose to our native forest (EA, Section 1.1.1 and 1.6). ecosystem. 2. The actions of this project are consistent In addition, populations of T&E and rare species with the Forest Plan because mitigation on the NPNFs are at risk of being locally measures for impacts have been fully applied extirpated by NNIPs if they are left untreated in in the planned actions. The project is feasible this alternative. and reasonable, and will result in applying Other Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from management practices that meet the Forest Detailed Study Plan overall direction of protecting the environment while producing goods and Section 2.5 of the EA addressed a non-herbicide services. alternative that was considered but eliminated from detailed study. Since this alternative was 3. There will be no significant effects on public not considered in detail in the EA, it was not health and safety (EA, Section 3.4.3). considered in the range of alternatives for my 4. The actions will not have any detrimental decision. effects on any unique characteristics of the area such as park lands, prime farmlands, Public Involvement wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas in the project area. The proposal was first listed in the Schedule of It may have positive effects in maintaining Proposed Actions on April 1, 2007. A scoping ecologically or culturally important areas in letter explaining the project proposal was mailed their current condition. (EA, Chapter 3). to 90 interested and affected parties on January 30, 2007. In addition, a legal notice for public 5. Based on public involvement and analyses, comment was published in the Asheville Citizen the effects on the quality of the human Times on February 2, 2007. Comments were environment are not likely to be highly received from ten individuals and organizations. controversial (EA, Chapter 3). Alternative 3 was developed in response to public comments that asked for expansion of the Decision Notice and FONSI 3 Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests Non-Native Invasive Plant Control 6. The actions do not involve highly uncertain, NNIPs are already within or immediately unique, or unknown environmental risks to adjacent to these habitats and individual PETS. the human environment. (EA, Chapter 3). We could not meet the objective of protecting these plants and habitats without treating NNIPs 7. The action is not likely to establish a inside of the 60-foot buffer. Amendment 23 precedent for future actions with significant would allow this. effects, because the project is site specific and effects are expected to remain localized and short-term (EA, Chapter 3). Determination That Project-Specific, Forest Plan Amendment #23 Is Not 8. The cumulative effects of the proposed actions have been analyzed and no significant Significant Under NFMA effects are anticipated (EA, Chapter 3).