Cover photo by Kreig Rasmussen, Fishlake National Forest, 2005. The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader information and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture of any product or service. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720- 2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20250- 9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Contents Table C-4. Representative Ecoregions for Retardant Application. 236 Table D-1. Misapplication of Fire Retardant Data, 2008–2010. 240 Table E-1. National Screening Process for Federally Listed Species 244 Table E-2. National Screen for Forest Service Sensitive Species. 245 Table F-1. Federally Listed Aquatic Fish, Mollusk, and Crustacean Species Under the Jurisdiction of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, by Forest Service Region, Considered for this Consultation. 248 Table F-2. Determinations for Fish Species Under the Jurisdiction of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 256 Table F-3. Likelihood of Adverse Effects to Species and Critical Habitat Under the Jurisdiction of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by National Forest / Grassland. 259 Table F-4. Determinations for Aquatic Crustaceans and Mollusks under the Jurisdiction of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 268 Table F-5. Likelihood of Adverse Effects to Mollusks and Crustaceans Under the Jurisdiction of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by National Forest / Grassland. 271 Table F-6. Species and Critical Habitat Designations Under the Jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries Considered in This Consultation. 278 Table F-7. Species, Critical Habitat, and Essential Fish Habitat Determinations by Species Under the Jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries. 280 Table F-8. Northwest National Forests and Determinations of Effects. 282 Table F-9. Southwest National Forests and Determinations of Effects for Species Under the Jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries. 285 Table F-10. Southeast National Forests and Determinations of Effects for Species Under the Jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries. 286 Table G-1. Federally Listed Plant Species With the Potential to be Impacted by Aerial Fire Retardant. 291 Table G-2. Federally Listed Plant Species With no Potential to be Impacted by Aerial Fire Retardant (No Effect Determination for Alternatives 2 and 3). 296 Table G-3. Federally Listed Plant Species Protected by Avoidance Mapping Associated With RPA Adoption and Alternative 2 (20 Species and 14 Designated Critical Habitats, FWS 2008). 303 Table G-4. Impacts to Designated Critical Habitat for Plant Species Impacted From Aerially Applied Fire Retardant for Alternatives 2 and 3. 304 Table G-5. Federally Listed Plant Species Likely Adversely Affected From Aerially Applied Fire Retardant for Alternative 3. 307 Table G-6. Federally Listed Plant Species Not Likely Adversely Affected From Aerially Applied Fire Retardant for Alternative 3. 313 Table H-1. Soil Risk Rating Indicators and Levels 324 Table I-1. Definition of terms used in wildlife effects screening process. 329 Table I-2. List of USFWS ESA listed Threatened & Endangered Species that occur on or adjacent to NFS lands included in this Analysis with a May Affect Determination. Note: Region 10 not shown due to listed listed ESA species in this region are all No Effect in Table I-3. 339 Table I-3: List of USFWS ESA listed Threatened and Endangered Species that occur on or adjacent to NFS lands included in this Analysis with No Effect Determinations. 344 Fire Retardant FEIS Contents Table I-4 – Wildlife Forest Service Sensitive Species – Trending Toward Listing with use of aerial application of fire retardant. 348 Table I-5. Wildlife Avoidance Area Mapping: Threatened and Endangered Species. 358 Table I-6. Wildlife 362 Table P-1. Terrestrial Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species Aerial Fire Retardant Avoidance Areas within National Forest System Lands 444 Table P-2. National Forest System Lands Covered by Water Features Buffered by 300 Feet 448 Table Q-1. Draft EIS Commenters, Letter Numbers, and Associated PCs. 455 Table Q-2. Public Concern Statements Organized by Subject. 458 Table Q-3. Number of Coded (Substantive) Comments by Subject. 458 List of Figures Figure 1 Map of National Forest System lands. 23 Figure 2 National Federal large airtanker, MAFFS, SEAT, and helitanker bases, May 24 2004 53 Figure 3 Gallons of aerially applied fire retardant by Forest Service region, 2000–2010 57 Figure 4 Number of fire retardant drops by Forest Service region, 2000–2010 57 Figure 5 Comparison of percentage of fires versus percentage retardant drops by region 90 Figure 6 Fate of aerially applied fire retardant 109 Fire Retardant FEIS Contents Fire Retardant FEIS Abstract Abstract Nationwide Aerial Application of Fire Retardant Final Environmental Impact Statement Lead Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service Cooperating Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI), Bureau of Land Management Responsible Official: Thomas Tidwell, Chief, USDA Forest Service For Information Contact: Glen Stein, Fire and Aviation Management, USDA Forest Service, [email protected], (208) 869-5405 Abstract: The USDA Forest Service is proposing to continue the aerial application of fire retardant on National Forest System lands in response to the July 2010 direction from the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana requiring the Agency to issue a decision no later than December 31, 2011. This final environmental impact statement discloses the environmental and economic effects of the proposed action. The purpose of the proposed action is to address the need for the continued use of aerially applied fire retardant as a firefighting tool because it reduces fire intensities and rates of spread and increases the ability to safely fight wildland fires with ground-based forces. The Forest Service provides standards for use of fire retardant to balance the need to protect critical or sensitive resources with the need to use fire retardant as an effective firefighting tool to protect life and property from wildfire. Twenty-seven comments were received in response to the notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement. Fifty-three comments were received in response to the draft environmental impact statement. The Agency considered three alternatives in detail, including the proposed action, which were developed in response to the comments received and issues identified. Alternative 1 No Aerial Application of Fire Retardant) is the no-action alternative; Alternative 2 (Continued Aerial Application of Fire Retardant Under the 2000 Guidelines, Including the 2008 Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives) is the proposed action; and Alternative 3 (Continued Aerial Application of Fire Retardant, Using Aerial Application of Fire Retardant Direction and Adopting the 2008 Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives) is the preferred alternative. The final environmental impact statement describes the effects of each alternative with respect to the purpose and need and significant issues. The final environmental impact statement is available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/retardant. Under 40 CFR 1506.10(b)(2) this final environmental impact statement is available for consideration by theChief of the Forest Service for a minimum of 30 days before the Agency will record a decision. Fire Retardant FEIS 2 Summary Summary On July 27, 2010, the United States District Court for the District of Montana invalidated the Forest Service’s 2008 decision to continue using the 2000 Guidelines for Aerial Application of Retardants and Foams in Aquatic Environments and adopt the 2008 Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (Appendix A) identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries, holding that the 2000 Guidelines were developed in violation of the National Environmental Planning Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The district court vacated the 2008 decision, and remanded it to the USDA, FWS, and NOAA Fisheries for further proceedings (Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics vs. Forest Service, 726 F.Supp.2d 1195 (US District Court, Montana 2010) . On August 27, 2010, a notice of intent was published in the Federal Register announcing the intention of the Forest Service to prepare an EIS and initiate a 45-day scoping period. As a result of this notice, 27 comment letters were received by October 12, 2010. A notice of availability was posted in the Federal Register on May 13, 2011, for the draft EIS titled Nationwide Aerial Application of Fire Retardant Project, Proposing to Continue the Aerial Application of Fire Retardant on National Forest System Lands. This began the 45-day comment period, which ended on June 27, 2011. The Forest Service received