Final Environmental Impact Statement Noxious Weed Treatment Project Summary March 2003 Bitterroot National Forest The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Summary S - 1 SUMMARY INTRODUCTION Limit spread of weeds into and within wilderness areas. The Bitterroot National Forest (Forest) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Burn areas are at high risk for weed invasion due proposes to implement specific noxious weed to removal of overstory vegetation and litter, and treatments and prevention measures on as a result of fire suppression activities. Although approximately 35,445 acres of Forest land in weeds establish and spread rapidly on disturbed support of the Forest’s Integrated Weed sites, they can also invade native bunchgrass Management Plan and Forest Plan, U.S. Forest community inter-spaces in the absence of Service (USFS) policy, and Executive Order disturbance. Aerial observations, aerial 13112. The proposed weed treatment and photographs, and ground surveys were used to management project (Project) is located on the review burned areas for risk of noxious weed Forest, which is approximately 1.6 million acres in establishment. High risk areas include those Ravalli County, Montana. Proposed methods to where: control noxious weeds include a combination of ground and aerial application of herbicides; Tree canopy and most ground-level native mechanical, biological, and cultural weed plants were killed or severely injured; treatments; education; and prevention. The Project area is distributed across the Montana Burn severity was moderate or high; portion of the Forest and occurs only on National Forest System land. Noxious weeds were present in or adjacent to the burned area prior to the wildfires of 2000 (e.g., infested parklands and grasslands); PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR and ACTION Site is dry to moderately dry. The purpose and need for the Proposed Action is to prevent and reduce loss of native plant communities associated with spread of noxious SUMMARY OF PROPOSED weeds. Specifically, the purposes of this Project ACTION are to accomplish the following within proposed treatment areas: The intent of the Proposed Action (Alternative A) Prevent or discourage introduction and is to prevent and reduce loss of native plant establishment of newly invading weed communities associated with the spread of species on Forest land, particularly areas at noxious weeds. The Proposed Action includes high risk due to recent fires; treatment of approximately 35,445 acres in the following areas: Prevent or limit spread of established weeds into areas with few or no infestations on Approximately 29,503 acres of known Forest land, particularly areas at high risk due infestations at specific sites distributed across to recent fires; the Forest; and Restore native plant communities and Approximately 5,942 acres of High Risk improve forage on specific big game summer Burned Areas (if monitoring/surveys indicate and winter ranges; presence of invasive weeds). Treat weeds near the Forest boundary where This Project would also include pre- and post- adjacent landowners are interested in or are treatment monitoring and follow-up treatments. currently managing weeds; and, Specific treatment sites, size (acres), target species, and treatment method(s) are described Final EIS S - 2 Summary in further detail in Chapter 2. The Proposed Biological agents would be released on 20 Action is composed of several elements, which sites on the Forest including big game winter would individually or in combination address the ranges, burned areas at high risk, cross- various Purpose and Need components. These boundary cooperation treatment areas, and elements include: recreation sites. Introduction of biological agents would follow initial treatment with Ground and aerial application of herbicides herbicide. (as the primary method of treatment) on approximately 5,942 acres of previously Cultural treatments (seeding) would occur on forested areas at high risk for weed invasion disturbed areas such as road cuts and due to fires. This addresses the need to burned areas 1-2 years following treatment prevent or discourage introduction and with herbicides. Seeding is intended to re- establishment of newly invading weed establish native plant communities while species, and limit spread of existing decreasing the density of invasive weed infestations on previously forested areas at species. high risk due to recent fires. This would also address the need to restore native plant Education and prevention programs on the communities in infested areas on big game Forest would continue with addition of winter and summer ranges (if monitoring specific education and prevention strategies identifies new infestations). developed for this Project. Ground application of herbicides (as the Mechanical (mowing/hand-pulling) treatments primary treatment method) on Forest roads, would be intermittent due to roadside trails, and recreation areas where weeds obstacles such as rocks, logs, trees, and exist in relatively uninfested areas shrubs and would occur on level surfaces, (approximately 14,107 acres). This some shoulder areas, and turn-outs or addresses the need to prevent or limit parking areas. Mowing, topping, and hand- spread of existing infestations into relatively pulling would likely occur twice per year. uninfested areas both within and outside Established rhizomatous weeds may have to burned areas. This also addresses the need be mowed indefinitely since mowing would to prevent or discourage introduction and decrease seed production, but would not kill establishment of newly invading weed the plants. species. Spot treatment with ground-applied herbicides along trail corridors and trailheads would help to limit spread of ISSUES USED TO DEVELOP weeds into wilderness areas. ALTERNATIVES Aerial and ground application of herbicides The following issues were used to develop on big game winter and summer range alternatives to the Proposed Action: (approximately 10,007 acres) meets the purpose and need to restore native plant Potential effects of herbicides on human communities in these infested areas. health; In conjunction with winter range treatments, Potential effects of aerial application of six areas along the Forest boundary herbicides; (approximately 5,317 acres) would be treated to coincide with active weed management on Potential effects of the Proposed Action on land adjacent to the Forest. A combination of big game, other wildlife, native plant treatment methods would be employed to communities, sensitive plants, fish, water address the need to treat weed infestations quality, soil, and air quality; along the Forest boundary where adjacent landowners are interested in or are currently Potential effects of proposed treatments on managing weeds. wilderness values; Bitterroot Weed EIS Summary S - 3 Potential for ground disturbing activities to methods such as seeding. This alternative would further spread weeds on the Forest as a treat fewer acres than Alternatives A, B, or E due “connected action”; to the feasibility and cost of accomplishing labor intensive treatments. Amendment to the Forest Plan; and Cooperation and coordination with adjacent Potential effects of the Proposed Action on landowners treating weeds on private and State travel. land would also be key in this alternative. The majority of treatments occurring or proposed on PROJECT ALTERNATIVES adjacent private and State land include use of herbicides. Treatments on Forest land associated with this cross-boundary cooperation effort would ALTERNATIVE B be limited to treatment methods described in this alternative, which do not include use of Alternative B was developed in response to herbicides. potential impacts associated with aerial application of herbicides on non-target areas. Roadside treatments are proposed primarily for Alternative B would incorporate all components of arterials and collectors on the Forest. Mowing the Proposed Action (Alternative A) but would treatments would be intermittent due to roadside eliminate aerial application of herbicides. Areas obstacles such as rocks, logs, trees, and shrubs proposed for aerial application of herbicide would and would occur on level surfaces, some instead be treated by ground application methods shoulder areas and turn-outs or parking areas. where possible. This strategy would rely on Acreage associated with roadside treatments education, biological management, and ground under Alternative C is based on a mowing width applied herbicides to reduce and contain existing of 10-feet on either side of a road (20-feet total). invasive weeds and eradicate small, new, and Based on these criteria, approximately 25 percent isolated invasive weed populations. Areas with (785 acres/327miles) of Forest Roads