Historic, Archive Document
Do not assume content reflects current
scientific knowledge, policies, or practices.
a
eS
— uJ
al
= i
ras
ae
co
>
a |e
uy O
ja
QO.
=
LL
Noxious Weed
Management Projects
Bonners Ferry Ranger District
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARYE Ee een ., k CeE fceeiessivobes scconnacde S-1
CHAPTER 1 - PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION...........scssssssconssorsscsooers 1-1
EM TOOUCHON acerseecerteas cent eartartcetecre te cscs ss 1-1
PTODOSCC_ACHOM ater te en sccsie Tee a eels teleetye 1-1
Purpose and Need for Action.........cccccscesssessssecessssceeeneees 1-2 MAY |
Scope Of Proposed ACctivities...........cccccessssscesssvsesesssees 1-2 oe
Scope of Analysis: Connected, Cumulative, and Similar Actions:::::)4-6 \
Scope of Analysis: Alternatives..........cccccccsesssecsssseenees 1-6 wy) Q eles) \
SCODGLOMALIAIVSIS SIIMDACSiwanceete <7, aie a .eeeeaine 1-7 1 NU ¥j ~ \
Scope of Analysis: DeCiSIONS..............ceseresees eee 1-7 eet | “ \
Weed Management PhilOSOPHY.........::ssssscsssesessssesesssesssseeees 1-7, Yb 8G PR ’
ROUUL eR ACTIVI CS tee eats. teem tt csi 1-8 \ —
Cah A Posie PAB ese CE EN LN ones cuca cess ar seed Masawanse poees brncden 2-1
IMT OGU CHONG, tee wee een res eM ata ane centers 2-1
Alternauve Development PlOCCSS 2 ..c..o.cs.ccos0+-.+sssrenepeesenne 2-1
EES OS LSE Sv SS CIC AA a 2-1
Alternatives Considered in Detail... ceeesscessseeeennees 2-2
Methods and Practices Available Under Each Alternative............... 2-3
Alternatives Considered but Not Given Detailed Study................. 2-5
Treatment Methods Considered for Each Site... eeeeeseeeees 2-5
Rationale for the Selection of the Preferred Control Method(s)....... 2-5
NAOT OCHO esas cette te rtmmneee eeeetn cr ratcpes seca cnsanrs 2-9
Comparison of the Alternatives Considered in Detail.................. 2-9
ARE Raee Ar rca Le VIPS OINIVIEINi Do cryst secgargysteesece-vbectsgeasaaavs 3-1
PEO CU CUO Ie craaanc ne accetcren se cass uegesh cxcuspestspgrasmeeases 3-1
Alea DESCODUOMS eats: oy rata sesdaseescescuccisnsseess 3-1
Forest Plan Management Direction for These Sites... 3-2
Affected Resources on Proposed Treatment SiteS.......... cess 3-3
CHAPTER IV - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES... ccceeeeesseeeneeeteeeens 4-1
UNOCUICUOU ere tpuccccens ettcararerer tancatacecrbenansusssoankes 4-1
Environmental Impacts on Affected RESOUICES..........cceeeeees 4-1
PAGAN Sie tore it eacvendceesstans caves daneerorschciess 4-1
Fisheries and Surface Water Quality... eeeeeseeeees 4-1
Human Resources and Human Heallth..........ccsessseseeeeeeees 4-7
PRAIVOG ccscrsson sare fans roc cate-sa ces tecaenheanrenensipesantosei 4-9
gt sfet gers 1d) 9 Wage io pert s ea hy pen ee ee 4-10
SOUS ANG CSlOUNOW ALOT. scaccagscarescansepuesvtnbonranesensaess 4-10
Vegetative Community DIVETSItY.......csseeeseenes 4-11
Wildlife and Threatened and Endangered Species................. 4-13
Probable Environmental Effects That Cannot be Avoided........... 4-15
Possible Conflicts with the Plans and Policies
of Other JUriSCiClOns eel keira cesta tnsnnceare 4-16
The Relationship Between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term
PROCUCUVILY Aprcercrtties tee eesecccstunnace mene tetoant 4-16
Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources.......... 4-16
CHAPTER V - SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS. ............cesssccsseeesneeeens 5-1
CHARTER VIS sLiS hOrbPREPARERG ese: cn mate terete tees 6-1
REEERENCES CHED tex naetsucsccascseent essere REF-1
LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS TO WHOM COPIES OF THE RECORD
OF DECISIONHROD) HAVE BEENISEN ik: .ccrcccccrscertse.cooeereoenene LOA-1
ABPENDIGES wir meme ata ene arte eat sete eee
A - Area Map and Site Location Map............cccscsescceseeeeees A-1
B24 - TOXICIDV as ater erec tert meee ae re B-1
C - Procedures for Mixing, Loading, and Disposal of Pesticides....... C-1
D-=' Spill. Plan. Seger cect nner aocctonena tee ert es D-1
E = Biological ASSESSMONtSi.cdnrscte et eerie rteenn, E-1
F - Idaho Panhandle N.F. Proposed Integrated Weed Management Program. F-1
SUMMARY
PROPOSED ACTION
The Bonners Ferry Ranger District proposes to con-
trol noxious weeds in certain geographical ecosys-
tems on the district. Control alternatives include
non-chemical and chemical treatment methods un-
der an Integrated Pest Management program.
Currently 41 sites with noxious weeds have been
identified. Sites range in size from 0.24 acres to 33
acres and total 335.55 acres. This area represents
less than 0.08 percent of the four hundred ten thou-
sand acres of National Forest System lands admin-
istered by the Bonners Ferry Ranger District. It is
important to note that on many of these sites the
infestations of noxious weeds are still very scat-
tered, and not all of these acres would require treat-
ment. For example, the largest site is 13.8 miles of
road in the Smith, Cow, and Beaver Creek drainag-
es where infestations of primarily meadow hawk-
weed can be found along the road.
Thirty-eight of the forty-one sites are infested with
meadow hawkweed (Hieracium pratense) ) or com-
binations of meadow hawkweed and spotted knap-
weed (Centaurea maculosa). Two of the sites are
infested with Rush Skeleton Weed (Chrondrilla jun-
cea), found in but three sites in Boundary County.
One site, Roman Nose Lake #3, is infested with
common tansy (Tanacetum vulgare). Ten other sites
are infested with common tansy along with hawk-
weed, spotted knapweed, or thistles. Three sites are
infested with Dalmation toadflax (Linaria vulgaris).
Twenty-five of the 41 sites are located in the Selkirk
Ecosystem. Six sites are located in the Cabinet
Mountains Ecosystem and seven sites are located
in the Purcell Mountain ecosystem. Three sites are
identified in the valley outside the three mountain
ranges.
This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)
examines several alternatives for treating these
sites. These alternatives include a variety of meth-
ods including manual, cultural, and biological tech-
niques. One alternative combines these non-
chemical methods with herbicide applications. The
effects of a no-action alternative are also analyzed.
The preferred treatment varies by site and can in-
clude either chemical, biological, or manual treat-
ment or combinations of these treatments. A com-
plete listing of preferred methods is provided in
Table 2-1 (p. 2-6).
This analysis also assumes that new sites will be
discovered in key ecosystems and that these sites
are in land types analyzed in this document. These
new infestations are assumed to increase the total
infestation acreage by twenty percent. The impacts
analysis in Chapter 4 assumes that these sites are
treated chemically. All chemical applications are
made with ground based equipment.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR AC-
TION
Weed control is proposed in order to:
ih Protect the natural condition and biodiversity
of the Selkirk and Cabinet Mountain Ecosys-
tems by preventing the spread of aggressive,
non-native plant species that displace native
vegetation.
Prevent or limit the spread of noxious weeds
in key low elevation lakes in the Purcell
Mountain ecosystem. Lakes to be protected
are Brush Lake, Dawson Lake, Robinson
Lake, and Smith Lake. Campgrounds at
these lakes under Forest Service jurisdiction
and other campgrounds within this ecosys-
tem will be targeted for weed control action.
Comply with Federal and State Laws regulat-
ing management of noxious weeds.
Cooperate with other agencies and private
individuals, including adjacent landowners,
concerned with the management of noxious
weeds.
ALTERNATIVES:
Scoping
The public has been involved throughout the devel-
opment of the EIS. Public comment has helped de-
fine the issues and develop the range of alternatives
for accomplishing management goals and objec-
tives.
Public comment was solicited formally with a notice
published in the Federal Register that indicated our
intent to prepare an EIS. Several articles published
and news features in local newspapers solicited
public input on the weeds in the Forest issue.
ISSUES
Analysis of public and internal input resulted in the
following list of issues that guided the development
of the alternatives. Each issue is stated as a ques-
tion, often general in nature, and is followed by a
synopsis of the specific comments received from
the public. A brief discussion of how the issue is
addressed in the EIS follows the synopsis of public
comments,
1. What are the potential impacts of noxious
weeds on resources such as ecological commu-
nities and processes; threatened, endangered,
or sensitive plants and animals; soils; water qual-
ity; aesthetics; wildlife and fish; and recreational
opportunities?
Most commenters viewed noxious weeds as a po-
tential problem in the National Forests. Many have
seen the impacts of non-native plants on vast areas.
One commenter questioned our use of the terms
“native” and "noxious" species.
The Environmental Consequences section of this
EIS (Chapter 4) discusses the impacts of noxious
weeds on various resources.
2. What are the potential impacts of weed con-
trol methods on other forest resources as listed
in issue 1?
Although most commenters acknowledge the po-
tential threat of noxious weeds, some question
whether the use of herbicides in the Forest would be
appropriate. Some commenters were concerned
about the impact of herbicides on the biological
resources. Others advocated a full range of control
measures, including herbicide use, to reduce the
threat.
A full range of alternatives is developed in chapter
2, and the environmental, social, and economic
consequences of the alternatives are presented in
Chapter 4.
3. How would the weed management methods,
particularly herbicide application, affect human
health?
Some commenters were specifically concerned
about the impact of herbicide spraying on human
health and on traditional hunting and gathering ac-
tivities.
The potential impacts of herbicide application on
human health have been analyzed extensively.
Chapter 4 presents the results of this analysis.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN
DETAIL
BRIEF OVERVIEW
Four alternatives were developed to address the
issues raised by public and agency comment.
These alternatives represent the range of control
methods currently available for treatment of noxious
weeds. In addition to the No Action alternative, two
of the action alternatives involve only non-chemical
methods of control. The comparison of these atter-
natives with the alternative that includes chemical
use sharply defines the issue of possible human
health and environmental impacts of herbicide use.
The analysis of the No Action alternative addresses
the impacts of the unchecked expansion of noxious
weeds in the Forest.
The four alternatives are outlined below with a brief
discussion of the major issues relevant to these
alternatives. Each of these alternatives, except the
No Action alternative, involve a combination of treat-
ment methods.
ALTERNATIVE 1: No Action
This alternative would result in a change in the cur-
rent noxious weed control activities on the Bonners
Ferry Ranger District. Control activities would be
restricted to minimal amounts of manual control.
The comparison of this alternative with the active
control alternatives highlights the potential effects of
uncontrolled weeds on the forest environment. The
No Action alternative also provides a baseline for
analyzing the possible adverse impacts of the con-
trol alternatives.
ALTERNATIVE 2: Manual
Control
and Cultural
This alternative was developed in response to the
possible impacts of treatment methods, such as
chemical control, on non-target plants, and human
health. Under this alternative, treatments such as
hand pulling, clipping, and mowing would be imple-
mented to destroy or limit reproduction of the weed
species. Cost effectiveness and environmental/
human health trade-offs can be compared between
this alternative and other proposed alternatives.
ALTERNATIVE 3: Manual, Cultural and Bi-
ological Control
This alternative was developed in response to many
of the same issues that prompted the development
of Alternative 2. Under this alternative, treatments
previously mentioned under Alternative 2 would be
supplemented with the release of biological agents
such as parasites, predators and pathogens that
have shown some promise in reducing weed infes-
tations. This alternative allows us to examine the
possible impacts of introducing species that show
some promise in bringing exotic plant species into
better balance in these ecosystems. At the present
time relatively few biological control agents are
available that are effective against the weed species
of concern here. However, some agents have
shown promise in controlling Canada thistle. Cost
effectiveness and environmental trade-offs between
this alternative and other alternatives can be exam-
ined.
ALTERNATIVE 4: Manual, Cultural, Biologi-
cal and Chemical Control
Under this alternative a full range of treatments
would be considered for each site. Herbicide pre-
scriptions would be consistent with or more restric-
tive than product label requirements. If an herbicide
is used in the annual floodplain, the Forest Service
would only apply a herbicide formulation approved
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for
direct applications to water. In no case would the
Forest Service apply herbicide directly to water.
This alternative allows us to compare the cost and
effectiveness of the chemical use with the potential
environmental and health effects of this and other
methods.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
BUT NOT GIVEN DETAILED STUDY
Additional alternatives and methods were consid-
ered by not given detailed study. These include use
of the herbicide glyphosate (the active ingredient in
Round-up) and grazing. The reasons for not consid-
ering these alternatives in detail are provided in
Chapter 2.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
The 41 sites proposed for treatment are located in
either the Purcell, Cabinet, or Selkirk Mountain Eco-
systems on the Bonners Ferry Ranger Districts.
These ecosystems lie within portions of northern
Idaho, northwestern Montana, and/or southern Brit-
ish Columbia.
Most of the proposed projects sites are located ad-
jacent to forest roads. A couple sites are located
along trails that lead to relatively pristine portions of
the Selkirk Ecosystem.
Portions of two major river drainages (Kootenai Riv-
er and Moyie River) are located on the Bonners
Ferry Ranger District. The valleys of these two river
drainages are typical intermountain glaciated val-
leys which have been subject to extensive stream
action since glacial times. The valleys generally
range from .5 to 2 miles wide; however, narrow
steep canyons also occur on the lower end of the
Moyie River valley. Elevations on the valley floor
range from 1800 feet near the Canada/U.S. bound-
ary along the Kootenai River to 2633 feet where the
Moyie enters the United States from Canada. From
the valley floors, the mountains rise abruptly to ele-
vations over 7500 feet.
The climate of the area is primarily affected by mari-
time weather patterns that are occasionally modi-
fied by continental air masses. Weather varies con-
siderably with elevation, slope aspect, and season.
Annual precipitation ranges from 25 inches on the
valley floor to 80 inches or more in the higher eleva-
tions. Snow provides approximately 40 to 80 per-
cent of the total precipitation depending on the loca-
tion. Snow cover in open areas on the lower to mid
valley floors typically vanishes in March or April.
Snow accumulation is much greater in the higher
elevations and can linger into the summer months.
Soils in the valley floors and lower valley slopes
have developed from two types of parent materials:
materials deposited by glaciers (glacial tills) and
post-glacial alluvial deposits. Glacial materials are
often deposited as unstratified clayey and loamy
deposits. Water-deposited materials occur on the
stream terraces and alluvial fans of the valley bot-
toms. Soils on the higher terraces have developed
in stratified sand, gravel, and cobble. Soils on the
lower terraces have developed in stratified silts,
sands and gravels which are frequently deposited
and disturbed.
Soil development has also been affected by wind-
deposited, volcanic ash. Soils in relatively undis-
turbed areas on the valley floor often contain soil
profiles several inches in depth that have been sig-
nificantly affected by volcanic deposits that originat-
ed in Cascade Range eruptions such as Mount
Mazama.
The vegetation is a complex mosaic of different
aged stands of Pinus contorta (lodgepole pine),
Pseudotsuga menziesii (Douglas-fir), Pinus ponde-
rosa (Ponderosa pine), Larix occidentalis (Larch),
Picea (Spruce), Abjes lasiocarpa (sub-alpine fir),
Tsuga heterophylla (western hemlock), and Thuja
plicata (western redcedar).
Douglas-fir is believed to be the climax tree species
on most dry sites. Common shrubs include Arctost-
phylos uva-ursi (kinnikinnik), Berberis repens
(Creeping Oregon grape), Symphoricarpos albus
(Snowberry), Holodiscus discolor (ocean spray),
and Physocarpus malvacea, ninebark. More mesic
(moister) sites support an understory of Linnaea
borealis (twinflower), Oregon grape, kinnikinnick,
Cornus stolonifera (Red-osier dogwood), Shep-
herdia canadensis (Buffalo-berry), Agrostis
stoloniféra (Redtop), and Aster occidentalis (West-
ern aster). On moister sites larch is fairly extensive
on the lower to mid slopes.
Lodgepole pine is the most abundant conifer found
throughout the area in all but the higher elevations.
It occurs in all densities and age class distributions,
and is frequently in pure, even-aged stands.
Ponderosa pine is found to a limited extent on some
of the dry sites at low elevations. This species often
occurs in the open, park-like stands. Understories in
these stands are dominated by bluebunch wheat-
grass, rough fescue, and other bunchgrass spe-
cies. Scattered Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine are
also found on these sites and account for most of
the coniferous reproduction.
Spruce grows over a wide range of elevations on
sites with abundant soil moisture. Spruce is found
primarily in riparian areas and with sub-alpine fir on
mesic northerly slopes.
River bottom lands are well vegetated with conifers,
primarily lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir, larch, ponde-
rosa pine, and Engelmann spruce. Associated
hardwood tree species include birch, cottonwood,
and aspen with willow, alder, and other shrubs.
COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNA-
TIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL
Chapters 2 and 4 discuss the impacts of the alterna-
tives on the affected resources of the sites under
consideration. Potentially affected resources range
from the vegetation community to water quality, fih-
series and human heatth. A brief synopsis of central
findings is provided in this summary. The interested
reader is encouraged to read Chapter 4 for a more
complete disclosure.
Table S-1 summarizes the risk of spread of noxious
weeds under the various alternatives.
Table S-1--Relative risk of the spread of
noxious weeds.
Alternative 1: No
Action
Alternative 2: Manu-
al & Cultural
Alternative 3: Manu-
al, Cultural & Biolog-
ical
Highest risk of spread of
any of the alternatives.
Greatest risk that new
invading species would
find a place
establish populations
and spread.
Low risk if carried out at
least three times per
year on an annual basis.
Risk of vegetative spread
may be higher than with
herbicide control.
Low to moderate risk if
manual and Cultural
control is carried out at
least three times per
year on an annual basis.
Moderate risk of vegeta-
tive spread if climatic
conditions are not suit-
able for the biological
agents.
Table S-1--Relative risk of the spread of
noxious weeds. (continued)
Alternative 4: Manu- | Low risk assuming careful
al, Cultural, Biologi- | follow-up spray and
cal & Chemical assuming manual and
‘a, cultural control is carried
Out at least three times
per year in areas close
to water. Biological con-
trol may reduce the
competitiveness of Cana-
da thistle but there is
potential for continued
spread.
Table S-2 summarizes the environmental impacts of
the various alternatives.
Table S-2--Summary of environmental impacts of the alternatives
Alternative 1: No
action
Alternative 2: Manu-
al & Cultural
Alternative 3: Manu-
al, Cultural & Biolog-
ical
Alternative 4: Manu-
al, Cultural, Biologi-
cal & Chemical
IMPACT OF THE CONTROL ALTERNATIVES ON
HUMAN HEALTH
Impacts are related to the spread of noxious weeds.
Minimal impacts. Minor soil disturbance.
Low impact expected on native vegetation.
Visual impacts of site treatment has the potential to disrupt some users
experiences. Analysis does not indicate a risk of significant impacts on fish and
wildlife. Short term localized impacts on some broadleaf species.
The non-chemical alternatives would have little im-
pact on human health and safety. The manual and
mechanical alternatives could result in sprains, mi-
nor irritations, or injury from flying objects.
Current toxicology data supporting the registration
of these herbicides indicate that these compounds
provide low risk when used as directed. The issues
of carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, and generalized
health effects are addressed in Chapter 4. The risks
of long-term deferred effects such as cancer are
considered very slight and on the order of other
riskS Commonly encountered in everyday life (for
example, the cancer risks of transcontinental air
flight from increased exposure to cosmic radiation).
The exposures to chemicals from these projects
would be quite transient and minimal, even on a
Cumulative basis.
There will always remain some uncertainty regard-
ing the effects of herbicide exposure on human
health. Sources of uncertainty include the neces-
sary extrapolation of toxicology data from laboratory
animals to humans, the use of high-dose cancer
studies to predict rates of cancer from low doses,
and the difficulty of predicting human dose levels
under the conditions anticipated here. To compen-
sate for this uncertainty, risk was analyzed conser-
vatively which tends to overstate the risk. These
factors are reviewed in Chapter 4 and in the Risk
Analyses contained in the project file.
CHAPTER 1
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
INTRODUCTION
This chapter:
ts Describes what the Bonners Ferry Ranger
District proposes to do.
ei Explains why the proposed actions are need-
ed.
3. Locates the infested areas proposed for
treatments with further reference to a Ssepa- .
rate map document (Appendix A).
PROPOSED ACTION
The Bonners Ferry Ranger District proposes to con-
trol noxious weeds in certain geographical ecosys-
tems on the district. Control alternatives include
non-chemical and chemical treatment methods un-
der an Integrated Pest Management program.
In the past several years the Bonners Ferry Ranger
District has conducted extensive inventories of nox-
ious weeds on large portions of the ranger district.
District personnel have searched all suitable and
likely locations including travel corridors, camp-
sites, and vulnerable habitats. The district has also
been treating noxious weeds as directed in the Ida-
ho Panhandle National Forest Weed Pest Manage-
ment EIS. In addition to some chemical control of
noxious weeds, the District has also released bio-
logical control agents, completed roadside grass
seeding and fertilization, disseminated noxious
weed information to the public, and will, in 1996,
implement a noxious weed free hay policy.
Currently 41 sites with noxious weeds have been
identified. Sites range in size from 0.24 acres to 33
acres and total 335.55 acres. This area represents
less than 0.08 percent of the four hundred ten thou-
sand acres of National Forest System lands admin-
istered by the Bonners Ferry Ranger District. It is
important to note that on many of these sites the
infestations of noxious weeds are still very scat-
tered, and not all of these acres would require treat-
ment. For example, the largest site is 13.8 miles of
road in the Smith, Cow, and Beaver Creek drainag-
es where infestations of primarily meadow hawk-
weed can be found along the road.
Thirty-eight of the forty-one sites are infested with
meadow hawkweed (Hieracium pratense) ) or com-
binations of meadow hawkweed and spotted knap-
weed (Centaurea maculosa). Two of the sites are
infested with Rush Skeleton Weed (Chrondrilla jun-
cea), found in but three sites in Boundary County.
One site, Roman Nose Lake #8, is infested with
common tansy (Tanacetum vulgare). Ten other sites
are infested with common tansy along with hawk-
weed, spotted knapweed, or thistles. Three sites are
infested with Dalmation toadflax (Linaria vulgaris).
Twenty-five of the 41 sites are located in the Selkirk
Ecosystem. Six sites are located in the Cabinet
Mountains Ecosystem and seven sites are located
in the Purcell Mountain ecosystem. Three sites are
identified in the valley outside the three mountain
ranges.
This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)
examines several alternatives for treating these
sites. These alternatives include a variety of meth-
ods including manual, cultural, and biological tech-
niques. One alternative combines these non-
chemical methods with herbicide applications. The
effects of a no-action alternative are also analyzed.
The preferred treatment varies by site and can in-
clude either chemical, biological, or manual treat-
ment or combinations of these treatments. A com-
plete listing of preferred methods is provided in
Table 2-1 (p. 2-6).
This analysis also assumes that new sites will be
discovered in key ecosystems and that these sites
are in land types analyzed in this document. These
new infestations are assumed to increase the total
infestation acreage by twenty percent. The impacts
analysis in Chapter 4 assumes that these sites are
treated chemically. Chemicals will be applied with
either backpack sprayers or
for pumper units mounted in the back of pickup
trucks. There are no aerial
applications proposed.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR AC-
TION
Weed control is proposed in order to:
1: Protect the natural condition and biodiversity
of the Selkirk and Cabinet Mountain Ecosys-
tems by preventing the spread of aggressive,
non-native plant species that displace native
vegetation.
a Prevent or limit the spread of noxious weeds
in key low elevation lakes in the Purcell
Mountain ecosystem. Lakes to be protected
are Brush Lake, Dawson Lake, Robinson
Lake, and Smith Lake. Campgrounds at
these lakes under Forest Service jurisdiction
and other campgrounds within this ecosys-
tem will be targeted for weed control action.
3. Comply with Federal and State Laws regulat-
ing management of noxious weeds.
4. Cooperate with other agencies and private
individuals, including adjacent landowners,
concerned with the management of noxious
weeds.
The designation of a plant species as a "noxious
weed," therefore a target of control efforts, involves
a series of value judgements. The evaluation pro-
cess is based in part on Federal and State Law. The
Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 defines a “*nox-
ious weed" as “a plant which is of foreign origin, is
new to, or is not widely prevalent in the United
States, and can directly or indirectly injure crops,
other useful plants, livestock or the fish and wildlife
resources of the United States or the public
health"(P.L. 93-629). The Idaho Noxious Weed Law
defines a "noxious weed" as any exotic plant spe-
cies established or that may be introduced in the
state which may render land unsuitable for agricul-
ture, forestry, livestock, wildlife, or other beneficial
uses and is further designated as either a state-wide
or county-wide noxious weed (Idaho Code 24 Chap-
ter 22).
Both the Federal and State laws define "noxious
weeds" primarily in terms of interference with the
commodity uses of land. The ability of spotted knap-
weed, common tansy, hawkweed, and other nox-
ious weeds to interfere with agricultural production
has been widely demonstrated. However, this defi-
nition is also relevant for National Forest areas as
these species interfere with the benefits of natural,
complete ecosystems.
The proposed treatment of 335 acres identified in
the proposed action does not reflect the enormity of
the noxious weed problem in Boundary County as
a whole. Spotted knapweed has been estimated to
infest about 50 thousand acres of land in Boundary
County, and hawkweed is estimated at 25,000 acres
in the County (Personal Communication, Rich De-
Carlo, Boundary County Weed Supervisor, 1995).
Once a site is infested by these weeds, the weed
species often becomes dominant and greatly re-
duces the native grass and forb community and the
grazing value of the land. Several researchers have
shown reductions in native species of up to 90 per-
cent on sites infested with leafy spurge or knap-
weed (Belcher and Wilson 1989; Tyser and Key
1988; Watson et al. 1989; Willard et al. 1988). In-
creasing concern has also been expressed about
the impacts of noxious weeds on wildlife, water
quality, natural diversity, and other non-commodity
resources (Willard et al. 1988; Lacey et al. 1989).
The Forest Service is also interested in increasing
cooperation with State and local efforts to control
noxious weeds. In Idaho, the Idaho Noxious Weed
Law (Idaho Code 22 Chapter 24) states that is un-
lawful for any individual to allow noxious weeds to
propagate or go to seed on their land unless they
are complying with an approved weed management
plan. This law directs the counties to develop weed
control districts to plan and implement weed control
efforts.
SCOPE OF THE PROPOSED AC-
TIVITIES
Treatment is proposed on 41 sites on the Bonners
Ferry Ranger District of the Idaho Panhandle Na-
tional Forests. Sites have been grouped into one of
3 "geographical ecosystems". These geographical
ecosystems are physically separated by either the
Kootenai River or the Purcell Trench. Each of the
-2
three is associated with a particular mountain
range, namely the Purcells, the Cabinets, or the
Selkirks. Site maps are provided in Appendix A, and
the areas are briefly described below.
In many of the following descriptions, a distinction is
made between the total area of an infested site and
the area within the perimeter of the infested site that
is occupied by weeds. On many sites the current
infestation is concentrated in spots on the sites.
Thus the treatment may be confined to a smaller
area than that reflected in the total site acreage.
Selkirk Mountain Ecosystem
Site #1a. Snow Creek Road #402.
T62N, R1W, Sec. 28-34; T62N, R2W, Sec 25,
34, 35; T61N, R1W, Sec 1-3. Spotted knap-
weed, meadow hawkweed, common tansy,
perimeter of the infestation encompasses
approximately 18 acres, while the major in-
festation is about 10 acres. This is a right-of-
way site along the main road in the Snow
Creek drainage.
Site #1b. Caribou Pass Road #1007 North
T62N, R2W, Sec. 34-36. Meadow and orange
hawkweed, perimeter of the infestation en-
compasses approximately 4.8 acres. Site is a
road right-of-way with sporadic populations
on both sides of road.
Site #1c. Caribou Pass Road #1007 South.
T61N, R2W, Sec. 1 and 2. Meadow hawk-
weed, perimeter of the infestation encom-
passes approximately 0.73 of an acre. Site
occurs along road right-of-way.
Site #1d. Snow Ridge Road 2624.
T62N, R1W, Sec. 34 Common tansy, mead-
ow hawkweed, perimeter of the infestation
encompasses approximately 7.3 acres, while
the majority of the infestation measures 2.3
acres. Site occurs along road right-of-way.
Site #1e Roman Nose Lake #3
T61N, R2W, Sec. 14. Common tansy, perime-
ter of the infestation encompasses approxi-
mately 0.24 acres. Site occurs within the Ro-
man Nose Lake #3 basin.
Site #2a, Cascade Creek Road #2411 and Lower
Myrtle Creek Road #633
T62N, RiW, Sec. 14, 22, and 23. Spotted
kKnapweed, perimeter encompassess ap-
proximately 7.3 acres. Site occurs along road
right-of-way. Myrtle Creek is the municipal
’ water source for Bonners Ferry.
Site #2b. Myrtle Creek Road #633
T62N, R1W, Sec. 18; T62N, R2W, Sec. 13, 14.
Spotted knapweed, perimeter of the infesta-
tion encompasses approximately 6.7 acres,
with the actual infestation consisting of
approximately 1.0 acre. Site occurs along
road right-of way. Myrtle Creek is municipal
water source for Bonners Ferry.
Site #2c. Upper Myrtle Creek Road #633 and Two
Mouth Lakes Trail.
T62N, R2W, Sec. 20. Meadow hawkweed,
perimeter of the infestation encompasses
approximately 0.48 acres. Site occurs along
road and trail right-of-way.
Site #3a. Ball Creek Road #432.
T63N, R1W, Sec. 22-24. Spotted knapweed,
meadow hawkweed, perimeter of the infesta-
tion encompasses approximately 6.3 acres
with a net infestation of one acre. Site occurs
along the road right-of way of the main road
in the Ball Creek drainage.
Site #3b. Upper Ball Creek Road #432 and Road
#2411
T63N, RiW, Sec. 19 and 20; T63N, R2W,
Sec. 24-26. Meadow hawkweed, common
tansy, perimeter encompasses 9.6 acres,
while net acres measure approximately 1.5
acres. Site occurs along road right-of-way.
Site #4. Trout Creek Road #2426.
T63N, R1IW, Sec. 7-11. Spotted knapweed,
meadow hawkweed, perimeter encompass-
es approximately 13.1 acres, net acres mea-
suring approximately 2 acres. Site occurs
along road right-of-way.
Site #5. Trout Creek Cattle Allotment.
T63N, RiW, Sec. 11. Meadow and orange
hawkweed, spotted knapweed, common tan-
sy, perimeter encompasses approximately 8
acres. Site occurs within Ball Creek cattle
allotment, an on and off allotment where
there are extensive efforts to control weeds
on the private grazing land.
Site #6. Parker Ridge Trail.
T64N, R1W, Sec. 8. Spotted knapweed,
hawkweed, perimeter encompasses approx-
imately 0.9 acres, while net acres measure
approximately 0.5 acres. Site occurs along
first 1.2 miles of trail right-of-way.
Site #7. Long Canyon Creek Trail.
T65N, R2W, Sec. 36. Canada thistle, com-
mon tansy, meadow and orange hawkweed,
perimeter encompasses approximately 0.5
acres. Site occurs at trailhead parking lot and
first 0.5 miles of trail right-of-way.
Site #8a. Lower Smith Creek Road #281.
T65N, R2W, Sec. 23, 27, 33, and 34. Spotted
knapweed, meadow hawkweed, common
tansy, perimeter encompasses approximate-
ly 9.6 acres, while net acres measure approx-
imately 2.5 acres. Site occurs along road
right-of-way.
Site #8b. Smith Creek Road #281, Beaver Creek
Road #2545, Cow Creek Road
Creek Road #655, Dead Cow Creek Road
#3303, Shorty Pass Road #282, Saddle
Pass Road #2454.
T64N, R3W, Sec. 1-11; T65N, R3W, Sec. 33.
Hawkweed, spotted knapweed, perimeter
encompasses approximately 33 acres, while
net acres measure 8 acres. Site occurs along
road right-of-ways.
Site #8c, Upper Smith Creek Road #281 and West
Fork Road #2464.
T63N, R3W, Sec. 3, 10, 11. Meadow hawk-
weed, perimeter encompasses approximate-
ly 17 acres, while net acres measure approxi-
mately 2 acres. Site occurs along road
right-of-way.
Site #8d. Cow Creek Cattle Allotment.
T64N, R3W, Sec. 5 and 6. Orange and mead-
ow hawkwee3g, thistle, perimeter encompass-
es approximately 6 acres. Site occurs within
cattle allotment. Cow Creek drainage was se-
verely burned over during the Trapper Creek
fire. Much of the drainage is open and vulner-
able to noxious weed invasion. The drainage
is noted for the presence of fens and sensi-
tive plants.
Site #9. Saddle Pass North Road #2455 and Silver
Creek Road 1007.
T65N, R3W, Sec. 9-11, 14, 15, 21, and 22.
‘Meadow hawkweed, perimeter encompass-
es approximately 17 acres, while the net
acreage measures approximately 4.5 acres.
Site occurs along road right-of-way.
Site #10 Saddle Pass Harvest units.
T65N, R3W, Sec. 10 and 15. Meadow hawk-
weed, perimeter encompasses approximate-
ly 20 acres, while the net acre measures ap-
proximately 2.25 acres. Site occurs in timber
harvest units near the U.S./Canadian border.
Site #11. Grass Creek Road #636.
T65N, R3W, Sec. 7 and 8; T65N, R4W, Sec.
12-14, 23, 26, 27, 34; T64N, R4W, Sec. 3 and
4. Meadow hawkweed, perimeter encom-
passes approximately 19.9 acres, while the
net acreage measures approximately 3
acres. Site occurs along road right-of-way on
the main road in Grass Creek. The Grass
Creek drainage is associated with the Grass
Creek cattle allotment. There are several sen-
sitive plant species in this drainage.
Site #12. Grass Creek Gravel Pit
T64N, R4W, Sec. 9. Meadow hawkweed, pe-
rimeter of the infestation encompasses ap-
proximately 2 acres. Site occurs within a
gravel pit and the population density of the
invader species is very concentrated.
Site #13. Bog Creek
T6SN, R4W, Sec. 9, 16, 17. Meadow hawk-
weed, perimeter of the infestation encom-
passes approximately 1.5 acres. A concen-
trated population occurs at the site.
Site #14. Boundary Creek Road #2450.
T65N, R2W, Sec. 17 and 18; T65N R3W, Sec.
13. Spotted knapweed, meadow hawkweed,
perimeter of the infestation encompasses
approximately 3.9 acres. Site occurs along
Boundary Creek Road.
Site #15. Lower and Upper Italian Roads and Har-
vest Units.
T65N, R2W, Sec. 15, 21, and 22. Meadow
hawkweed, perimeter of the infestation en-
compasses approximately 12.1 acres. Site
occurs within timber harvest units and along
access roads.
Purcell Trench - Valley Sites
Site #16. Stampede skeleton weed site.
T6ON, R1W, Sec. 12. Skeleton weed, dalma-
tion toadflax, meadow hawkweed, perimeter
of the infestation encompasses approximate-
ly 12 acres. Site is associated with BPA pow-
erline right-of-way and dry site meadows.
Site #17a. BPA powerline south.
T6ON, R1W, Sec. 14, heavy infestation of dal-
mation toadflax and spotted knapweed, pe-
rimeter of proposed treatment area encom-
passes approximately 2.4 acres. Site occurs
along BPA powerline and is used for motor-
cycle and ATV recreation. Treatment site is a
source of weeds to adjacent trails system.
Site #17b. Motor bike access.
T6ON, R1iW, Sec. 14, spotted knapweed, pe-
rimeter of the infestation encompasses ap-
proximately 2.4 acres. Site occurs along a
new access for motorbikes and ATV's.
Cabinet Mountain Ecosystem
Site #18. Katka, Roads #314, #2209, #2207,and
#2662
T62N, R2E, Sec. 36: T62N, RSE, Sec. 31;
FOWN@ROE, Sec, o,0, 6; 9,19, 15, 21, 2c, 20,
29, and 32. Spotted knapweed, hawkweed,
and tansy, perimeter of the infestation
encompasses approximately 24.7 acres. Site
occurs along road right-of-way.
Site #19. Boulder Creek Road #408.
T61N, RSE, Sec. 31 and 32, hawkweed and
common tansy, perimeter of the infestation
encompasses approximately 2.9 acres. Site
occurs along road right-of-way.
Site #20. Boulder Meadows.
T6ON, R3E, Sec. 20 and 21. Meadow hawk-
weed, perimeter of the infestation encom-
passes approximately 1.5 acres. Site occurs
within a meadow identified as unique grizzly
bear habitat.
Site #21. Black Mountain, Road #274.
T61N, R2E, Sec. 31; T60N, R2E, Sec. 5 and
6, meadow hawkweed and common tansy,
‘perimeter of the infestation encompasses
approximately 6.3 acres. Site occurs road
right-of-way.
Site #22. Twenty Mile Road #408 West.
T6ON, R1E, Sec. 1, 12; T60N, R2E, Sec 7.
Meadow hawkweed and common tansy, pe-
rimeter of the infestation encompasses ap-
proximately 2.4 acres. Site occurs along road
right-of-way.
Site #23. Cabin Creek Road
T61N, R2E, Sec. 8, 17, 18. Meadow hawk-
weed, knapweed, perimeter of the infestation
encompasses approximately 3.6 acres. Site
occurs along road right-of-way.
Purcell Mountain Ecosystem
Site #24. Meadow Creek Roads ##229, #211, and
Campground access road.
T62N, R2E, Sec. 8; T63N, R2E, Sec. 2, 11-15,
20, 24, & 32. Meadow hawkweed and spot-
ted knapweed, perimeter encompasses 17
acres, while net acres measure approximate-
ly 1.5 acres.
Site #25. Sinclair Lake Area.
T64N, R2E, Sec. 3 and 10. Meadow hawk-
weed and spotted knapweed, perimeter en-
compasses approximately 3.2 of an acre,
while net acres measure approximately 0.5 of
an acre. Site occurs adjacent to the Moyie
River and Sinclair Lake near a day use facility
and a proposed interpretive site.
Site #26. Brush Lake campground and day use
access roads.
T64N, R1E, Sec. 9, 15, 16, 21, and 22. Mead-
ow hawkweed and common tansy, perimeter
encompasses approximately 6.8 acres, net
acres are approximately 1 acre. Treatment
area is primarily along road right-of-way.
Site #27. Robinson Lake
T65N, R2E, Sec. 21. Meadow hawkweed,
and common tansy, perimeter encompasses
approximately 5.3 acres, while the net acres
measure approximately 0.5 of an acre. Site
occurs along access roads to the camp-
ground and the boat launch.
Site #28a. Copper Creek Campground Access
T65N, R2E, Sec. 14. Spotted knapweed, pe-
rimeter encompasses approximately 3.4
acres, while the net acre measures approxi-
mately 0.25 of an acre. Site occurs along the
Copper Creek road.
Site #28b. Copper Creek roads #2509 and #2511
T64N, R2E, Sec. 1 and 2; T65N, R2E, Sec. 24,
25, and 36; T65N, RSE, Sec. 30 and 31. Can-
ada thistle, spotted kanpweed, and meadow
hawkweed, perimeter encompasses approx-
imately 14.5 acres, while the net acres mea-
sure approximately 12 acres. Site occurs
along roads and in timber harvest units along
roads.
Site #29. Smith Lake and campground access.
T63N, R2E, Sec 30. Spotted knapweeed,
common tansy, perimeter encompasses ap-
proximately 1 acre, while net acres measure
approximately 0.05 acres. Site occurs
around the Smith Lake Campground.
SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS: CON-
NECTED, CUMULATIVE, AND SIM-
ILAR ACTIONS
In the preparation of an EIS, a recurring issue is the
extent or scope of the analysis required for a pro-
posal. Regulations contained in 40 CFR 1508.25
address the scope of the analysis and outline sever-
al elements to be considered in the analysis of the
proposed action.
These regulations recognize that separate activities
can combine and interact to increase impacts sig-
nificantly beyond the effects of individual actions.
For example, it is possible that the herbicide runoff
from one spray site would not harm aquatic organ-
isms; however, when combined with runoff from oth-
er sites the total impact could be significant. As
explained in 40 CFR 1508.25, these actions would
be cumulative, and their cumulative impacts must
be addressed. The possibility of cumulative impacts
to valuable resources, such as water, human health,
and wildlife is one reason these 41 sites are consid-
ered in a single EIS.
The regulations governing the scope of an EIS (40
CFR 1508.25) also refers to the combined analysis
of connected actions. For example, if a road were
being built to access a timber harvest, then the road
construction would be connected to the harvest.
Timber harvest would not be possible in the ab-
sence of the road construction, and the rationale for
road construction would be diminished in the ab-
sence of the timber harvest. Thus, the effects of
these connected actions would be analyzed togeth-
er.
The actions proposed here are part of a larger pro-
gram of noxious weed control on the Bonners Ferry
Ranger District. This program includes monitoring
and mapping of infestation sites, public education
efforts, cleaning of equipment in certain situations,
restoring disturbed areas that might otherwise facili-
tate the establishment of exotic species, and other
activities.
The negative environmental impacts of these other
program activities is small, and their primary effect
is to forestall the types of activities proposed in this
EIS. Therefore, discussion of these other control
activities is limited in this EIS, except when an alter-
native calls for greatly expanding the activity.
The regulations in 40 CFR 1508.25 provide for the
combined evaluation of similar actions that are rea-
sonably foreseeable, such as those that share a
common timing or geography. For example, it is
possible that new noxious weed establishments
may occur within the areas analyzed in this EIS.
Prior to conducting additional control projects, the
impacts of previous control projects will be consid-
ered.
SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS: AL-
TERNATIVES
In determining the scope of the analysis, the Forest
Service must consider three types of alternatives
(40 CFR 1508.25(b)): the no-action alternative, oth-
er reasonable courses of action, and mitigation
-6
measures not included in the proposed action.
Chapter 2 considers possible alternatives for con-
trolling weeds. Alternatives that have a reasonable
likelihood of at least partial success are discussed
in detail. A range of mitigation measures are also
discussed for the alternatives. The impacts of the
no-action alternative, as well as other alternatives,
are discussed in the following chapters.
SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS: IM-
PACTS
Regulations contained in 40 CFR 1508.25(c) require
that an EIS analyze three types of impacts: direct,
indirect, and cumulative. Cumulative effects are de-
scribed above in the discussion on cumulative ac- .
tions.
Direct effects are caused by the action and occur at
the same time and place as the proposed action.
For example, direct effects of herbicide application
could include impacts on some non-target native
plant species. Indirect effects caused by the action
occur later in time or are removed in place. For
instance, with the spread of noxious weeds, it might
be reasonable to predict a change in vegetative
composition with an eventual impact on native plant
diversity. These and other reasonably foreseeable
direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts are ana-
lyzed in Chapter 4.
SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS: DECI-
SIONS
Proposals of this nature within National Forest Sys-
tems involves two levels of decisions.
The first level is the development of a Forest Plan
that guides all resource management programs,
practices, uses, and protection measures. The Ida-
ho Panhandle National Forest Plan, the Forest Plan
Final EIS, and the Record of Decision which were all
published in 1987, consist of both forest-wide and
area-specific standards and guidelines that provide
for land uses under a given set of management
constraints. For example, the Forest Plan provides
the objective of noxious weed control based on inte-
grated pest management conducted in cooperation
with counties, other agencies, and private landown-
ers.
The second level occurs during the Forest Plan im-
plementation. This level involves the analysis and
implementation of management practices designed
to achieve the goals and objectives of the Forest
Plan.
This EIS documents the analysis for a second level
decision concerning the control of noxious weeds
on Bonners Ferry Ranger District. The proposed
action is not a general management plan. If the
decisionmaker selects an action alternative, the ac-
tivities will be implemented as soon as possible, and
will most likely begin in late spring of 1996.
WEED MANAGEMENT PHILOSO-
PHY
As noted in the previous section on “scope of the
decisions", there are two levels of decisions involved
in planning activities on National Forest Systems
Lands. The first level is the Forest Plan, which pro-
vides direction and standards for all resource man-
agement. During this planning process, the Idaho
Panhandle National Forests decided to use IPM (In-
tegrated Pest Managment) principles in managing
various pests. This decision derives from the regula-
tions that implement the National Forest Manage-
ment Act of 1976 (86 CFR 219.27 (3)) and calls for
the use of IPM when dealing with forest pests. Be-
cause the decision to implement an IPM program
has already been made, it need not be revisited in
this document.
The second level of decision involves implementing
the directions provided from the first decision level.
In the present example, then, we must implement
projects consistent with a policy or program of Inte-
grated Pest Management. Implementation is made
more difficult because there is no standard defini-
tion of IPM (see, for example, several articles in the
Journal of Pesticide Reform, winter 1989 issue). The
Forest Service handbook on Forest Service Pest
Management (FSH 3409.11, 6/86) gives the follow-
ing definition of IPM:
A decisionmaking and action process incorporat-
ing biological, economic, and environmental
-7
evaluation of pest-host systems to manage pest
populations.
A variety of activities could be carried out under an
IPM program. Although some people consider IPM
to be an absolute alternative to pesticide applica-
tion, in reality, IPM provides a full range of manage-
ment alternatives. Many of these alternatives are
non-controversal and have minimal adverse envi-
ronmental impact. For example, inventory and mon-
itoring activities, public education, and pulling of
small weed infestations are all important phases in
pursuing an IPM program on the Idaho Panhandle
National Forests. The inventory results gathered on
the Bonners Ferry Ranger District have been shared
with the public during the scoping process. In addi-
tion, public education efforts are emphasized and
are currently being expanded. These parts of an
IPM program typically do not require extensive anal-
ysis in an environmental document such as this EIS.
As the Forest Service implements control projects
on specific sites, the agency must choose specific
treatment methods. Some of the treatments, such
as pesticide application, may have potential ad-
verse impacts that must be considered in the selec-
tion process. The analysis of potential adverse ef-
fects is provided in an environmental document
such as this EIS. NEPA regulations also require that
this EIS consider a full range of treatment alterna-
tives consistent with an IPM program.
An IPM program also requires that the Forest priori-
tize treatment activities. The overall Forest strategy
is to contain weeds in currently infested areas and
to prevent the spread of weeds to susceptible but
generally uninfested areas. The Forest also at-
tempts to eradicate small infestations in generally
uninfested areas. The Forest has had a weed man-
agement strategy in place since 1989 when the Fi-
anl ElS, Weed Pest Management, Idaho Panhandle
National Forests
was completed. This guiding strategy reference is
included in this document as Appendix F.
Currently the largest area on the Bonners Ferry
Ranger District as well as the Idaho Panhandle Na-
tional Forest that has limited populations of noxious
weeds is the Selkirk Mountain Ecosystem and por-
tions of the Cabinet Mountain Ecosystem. However,
within these ecosystems, there are a number of
open, grassy meadows and riparian and wetland
1
habitats that would provide excellent weed habitat
even with no site disturbance. The challenge of an
IPM program for noxious weeds is to keep these
areas weed free.
Under an IPM program, prevention strategies are
commonly recognized as the best way to avoid the
impacts of noxious weeds and the need for more
costly treatment at a later date. Prevention of weed
spread to these uninfested areas is an important
aspect of our ecosystem management. Prevention
measures could include the promotion of weed-free
forage by all back-country users. The Forest Service
will be requiring weed-free forage in other back-
country areas.
An emphasis on the use of weed-free forage is not
intended to ignore other sources for the spread of
weeds. Many drainages are accessed by Forest
Service and County roads, most open at least a
portion of the year, if not year round. Vehicles carry-
ing noxious weed seeds from infested areas to unin-
fested areas can and do contribute to the spread of
weeds.
FUTURE ACTIVITIES
As noted in the introductory sections of this chapter,
District personnel have conducted extensive recon-
naissance, monitoring, mapping, and other data
collection efforts to determine the extent of weed
infestation on the Bonners Ferry Ranger District.
Several conclusions can be reached from these ef-
forts.
The control of species such as hawkweed on the
Bonners Ferry Ranger District in the Selkirk and
Cabinet Mountain Ecosystems are reaching the
"now or never" stage. The extent of infestation of
meadow hawkweed on some of the other districts
on the Idaho Panhandle National Forests is a case
in point. When the size of infestation exceeds sever-
al hundred acres, eradication and even contro! be-
comes unfeasible because of logistic, financial, and
environmental constraints.
An aggressive control program can reduce the in-
festation of weeds in the Selkirk and Cabinet Moun-
tain Ecosystems. On successive years treatment
needs should be reduced as weeds are eradicated
or reduced on individual sites.
-8
In future years it is possible that new infestations of
weeds will be discovered. Many of these may be
small enough to control manually. However, others
may require more aggressive treatment. As a worst
case, this EIS assumes that the infestation acreage
and treatment increases by 20 percent over current
levels.
OD Ieper st ery), netth chbabiinteh maaan vrais ae ~ bs
‘| ‘3 :
{NSVG6o pues fay oS yO AesRe or: SO yTiaese ie
shea
ater Ove) oid Bab nae hat one
24) gi ogrty + AbreaGhy eame Snags nace 7M
16.4 Ae RRA AP OR Fe? The
ie bo -aity. (OM Ovi a. STORRS
“Uy, 4 serra oi, wahy Ww Mase Bvianives &¢@
Pot Nt eek Ol Meek Miri adveeo wie
» =orerens, kwwvors ft 1
tiny aK RS, TS keel. aod pulls
¢h wit Seiler ote! Popicte Tg ahr
4 he att wwe
> Mh iyyaee €4 We Sat, Pay e
nine! OT nae, Th criien pute 2 teen oe
2 2 lt. Rate: Deel fee o feet!
ues Su debi IO Shakin citopee, WEY
, GO es Ge, Bey AIA are
e = ¢% : ; vy -
j 3 oi Kw) THA be ot aie
yi To > ’ 64 a hee ae
. o.va re Hyrer Say oe es
wi Mehr ee A eC ¢ a op eats:
: e ™ i : i ‘Th !
a tive & o ae 7a 7 7%eG >
re , he it ion © Oy same
" 106 ik Sigh tae. ov
tit~;6 i “emues /. & e~erreens, Cm aes
: > ath : % ya ~ Sits evs tuyere
U Md ey 69.4 Se OP ae VP Gia me
a san sos SOE cea.
vie ae aoe dad ne Feeds pene’
- p> ies < Coprelt Fewest 10a =
; Hy penis © qu Hany wileviee atta mies
pi very Mig cstvre O, es ee ee,
A> ARO
Bice Sia athe. Fag Loven Caer 2
ere: 0 © em cre! ctegeiore ws Gyerner a
we \am- toes Shee agraer aed ve pana. Wheel.
a ee ed
: sok Sk Pere ae Eat ae
ited vee) weak. i
nae Qulerqnnes Vike i atientae Peewee
duaiieanin Pe oer 7
ie, :
ni P i :
FUTUARACTYITIES "2 fa
Matwants = toate
hes tf ,ee 2 hp OR
Nits rh rages. i
eve =
Unger Be as inn wn
binhitcody aber ii at Pos
impestis af “pattre yA ila
oe oa ae Awe whan
¢onl i (ae OT wr Veewias 4
wegOUT 22 Cae iede aay
ree gore Cee Ne
ararze b « 5 (ane ery aA!
“9 02 inpiae ie Sila ihe +) at
Eqn ‘os -
ee aA ital ig Of gaa ogee .
Mp ow pos ee ee ee a
‘De May, Aiea Sy white? © —~en
wrAvitg seep 1 PEF, at & se" 2 .
poy yn 2 pe a, * 1G YR aye, yu ere
pr wee eh papel endpaper a
if) fo Rate bey eoeetet
» ec 5 hemes Nass
eines, tag ee 5
. Pe, clare
ZV 6 AE Deo “ae
te)
Ws igre i+
Cornaes | pie
PO PROG,
CHAPTER Il
ALTERNATIVES
INTRODUCTION
This chapter:
ih. describes the internal scoping and the public
involvement process used to develop the al-
ternatives,
28 identifies the environmental issues and con-
cerns,
3. describes and compares the alternatives,
4. identifies monitoring proposals.
ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT
PROCESS
INTERNAL SCOPING AND PUBLIC IN-
VOLVEMENT
The public has been involved throughout the devel-
opment of the EIS. Public comment has helped de-
fine the issues and develop the range of alternatives
for accomplishing management goals and objec-
tives.
Public comment was solicited formally with a notice
published in the Federal Register that indicated our
intent to prepare an EIS. Several articles published
and news features in local newspapers solicited
public input on the weeds in the Forest issue. The
project file contains copies of these articles. In addi-
tion, meetings were held on a one-on-one basis with
interested individuals.
It is apparent that control of exotic species is an
important issue with many segments of the public.
The Forest Service is but one of many agencies and
organizations with an interest in controlling the im-
pacts of these species.
ISSUES
Analysis of public and internal input resulted in the
following list of issues that guided the development
of the alternatives. Each issue is stated as a ques-
tion, often general in nature, and is followed by a
synopsis of the specific comments received from
the public. A brief discussion of how the issue is
addressed in the EIS follows the synopsis of public
comments.
1. What are the potential impacts of noxious
weeds on resources such as ecological commu-
nities and processes; threatened, endangered,
or sensitive plants and animals; soils; water qual-
ity; aesthetics; wildlife and fish; and recreational
opportunities?
Most commenters viewed noxious weeds as a po-
tential problem in the National Forests. Many have
seen the impacts of non-native plants on vast areas.
. One commenter questioned our use of the terms
"native" and "noxious" species.
The Environmental Consequences section of this
EIS (Chapter 4) discusses the impacts of noxious
weeds on various resources.
2. What are the potential impacts of weed con-
trol methods on other forest resources as listed
in issue 1?
Although most commenters acknowledge the po-
tential threat of noxious weeds, some question
whether the use of herbicides in the Forest would be
appropriate. Some commenters were concerned
about the impact of herbicides on the biological
resources. Others advocated a full range of control
measures, including herbicide use, to reduce the
threat.
A full range of alternatives is developed in this chap-
ter, and the environmental, social, and economic
consequences of the alternatives are presented in
Chapter 4.
3. How would the weed management methods,
particularly herbicide application, affect human
health?
Some commenters were specifically concerned
about the impact of herbicide spraying on human
health and on traditional hunting and gathering ac-
tivities.
The potential impacts of herbicide application on
human health have been analyzed extensively.
Chapter 4 presents the results of this analysis.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN.
DETAIL
BRIEF OVERVIEW
Four alternatives were developed to address the
issues raised by public and agency comment.
These alternatives represent the range of control
methods currently available for treatment of noxious
weeds. In addition to the No Action alternative, two
of the action alternatives involve only non-chemical
methods of control. The comparison of these alter-
natives with the alternative that includes chemical
use sharply defines the issue of possible human
health and environmental impacts of herbicide use.
The analysis of the No Action alternative addresses
the impacts of the unchecked expansion of noxious
weeds in the Forest.
The four alternatives are outlined below with a brief
discussion of the major issues relevant to these
alternatives. Each of these alternatives, except the
No Action alternative, involve a combination of treat-
ment methods. These treatment methods are dis-
cussed in greater detail in the following sections.
MONITORING AND MITIGATION FEA-
TURES COMMON TO MORE THAN ONE
ACTIONALTERNATIVE
lf a decision is made to apply herbicides, all chemi-
cal applications would be conducted in accordance
2-2
with label instructions. In addition, no spray applica-
tions would be made when the wind speed exceeds
8 mph. All applications would be directed by an
applicator certified in accordance with U.S. EPA and
State of Idaho standards. All applications would be
made with ground based equipment including truck
mounted sprayers and backpack sprayers. Informa-
tion on spills, spill avoidance, and the handling of
pesticides (including herbicides) is contained in Ap-
pendices C and D. Compliance with these provi-
sions would ensure that pesticides are applied in
accordance with State of Idaho Best Management
Practices for pesticide use.
Post-spray vegetation monitoring would be con-
ducted on representative sites. Monitoring sites
would be selected prior to treatment, then reviewed
yearly.
ALTERNATIVE 1: No Action
This alternative would result in a change in the cur-
rent noxious weed control activities on the Bonners
Ferry Ranger District. Control activities would be
restricted to minimal amounts of manual control.
The comparison of this alternative with the active
control alternatives highlights the potential effects of
uncontrolled weeds on the forest environment. The
No Action alternative also provides a baseline for
analyzing the possible adverse impacts of the con-
trol alternatives.
ALTERNATIVE 2: Manual
Control
and Cultural
This alternative was developed in response to the
possible impacts of treatment methods, such as
chemical control, on non-target plants, and human
health. Under this alternative, treatments such as
hand pulling, clipping, and mowing would be imple-
mented to destroy or limit reproduction of the weed
species. Cost effectiveness and environmental/
human health trade-offs can be compared between
this alternative and other proposed alternatives.
ALTERNATIVE 3: Manual, Cultural and Bi-
ological Control
This alternative was developed in response to many
of the same issues that prompted the development
of Alternative 2. Under this alternative, treatments
previously mentioned under Alternative 2 would be
supplemented with the release of biological agents
such as parasites, predators and pathogens that
have shown some promise in reducing weed infes-
tations. This alternative allows us to examine the
possible impacts of introducing species that show
some promise in bringing exotic plant species into
better balance in these ecosystems. At the present
time relatively few biological control agents are
available that are effective against the weed species
of concern here. However, some agents have
shown promise in controlling Canada thistle. Cost
effectiveness and environmental trade-offs between
this alternative and other alternatives can be exam-
ined.
ALTERNATIVE 4: Manual, Cultural, Biologi-
cal and Chemical Control
Under this alternative a full range of treatments
would be considered for each site. Herbicide pre-
scriptions would be consistent with or more restric-
tive than product label requirements. If an herbicide |
is used in the annual floodplain, the Forest Service
would only apply a herbicide formulation approved
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for
direct applications to water. In no case would the
Forest Service apply herbicide directly to water.
Under.this alternative approximately 174 pounds of
2,4-D, 23 pounds of dicamba, 12 pounds of clopy-
ralid, and 46 pounds of picloram would be applied
to project areas identified for treatment with herbi-
cides.
This alternative allows us to compare the cost and
effectiveness of the chemical use with the potential
environmental and health effects of this and other
methods.
METHODS AND _ PRACTICES
AVAILABLE UNDER EACH ALTER-
NATIVE
The following section describes the control meth-
ods available under the alternatives reviewed in the
previous section.
Manual Control:
Manual control methods range from hand pulling
and grubbing with hand tools to clipping or cutting
the plants with scythes or other cutters. If sufficient
root mass is removed, the individual plant can be
destroyed. Cutting the plants will reduce reproduc-
tion of perennial plants and weaken its competitive
advantage by depleting carbohydrate reserves in
the root systems.
Cultural Control:
Cultural control generally involves manipulating a
site to increase the competitive advantage of desir-
able species and decrease the competitive advan-
tage of undesirable species. Manipulations could
involve transplanting native plants to shade out
weedy species or covering weed-seed contaminat-
ed soil with a layer of uncontaminated soil. Seeding
grass species and applying fertilizer on site where
ground cover is sparse could help to culturally con-
trol weeds.
Biological Control:
Biological control is the use of biotic agents to at-
tack undesirable plant species. Populations of na-
tive species are generally limited in part by herbivo-
rous and pathogenic organisms as well as by
competition for nutrients and moisture. Non-native
vegetation has had a dramatic impact in many parts
of the West because it has been introduced without
biological control agents present. The introduction
of these control agents is viewed by most experts as
the best long-term solution to the noxious weed
problem where there are large, widespread popula-
tions of a given species.
Currently, two biocontrol agents, Urophora affinis
and Urophora quadrifasciatus, are present in some
knapweed infestations on the district. In sufficient
concentrations these seedhead flies can reduce
seed production by 50 to 90 percent. However,
knapweed is such a prolific seed producer that
these organisms have had no effect on the density
of the infestations and little effect on its rate of
spread.
Several biological agents are currently being intro-
duced into the United States for the control of Cana-
da thistle. Ceutorhynchus litura is a stem mining
weevil which attacks the young Canada thistle
plants in early spring. The stem mining larvae inter-
nally attack the elongating stem in early summer. As
the larvae develop they begin to create numerous
exit holes near the root crown leaving the plant suc-
ceptible to a variety of plant pathogens. Under ideal
circumstances (soil, size of infestation, climate etc.)
population densities may be reduced up to 90 per-
cent depending on the number of weevils released
at the infestation (Rees, 1992).
Urophora cardui is a stem and shoot gall fly which
attacks Canada thistle. Adults deposit their eggs on
the axil of the stem in early summer. As the larvae
develop they burrow into the stem creating a walnut
size bowl or gall. The gall formation diverts the nor-
mal nutrient translocation away from the metobolic
and reproductive systems of the plant. As a result
flowers develop abnormally, and seed production is
reduced.
Climatic and habitat conditions are expected to play
a major role in the success of biological control
agents. The adaption of these biocontrol organisms
to the habitats currently infested by Canada thistle
remains an unknown.
Chrysolina quadrigemina is a defoliating beetle
which attacks St. Johnswort or goatweed. This defo-
liating beetle has successfully reduced the density
of this weed in locations where fall temperatures are
mild and the rainfall is abundant. There have been
introductions of this beetle annually on the Bonners
Ferry Ranger District since 1990. The beetle is thriv-
ing and is found at several locations on the district.
There is evidence of St. Jonnswort populations suf-
fering the effects of defoliation by this beetle.
It should be noted that biological control agents will
not completely eradicate a noxious weed infesta-
tion. Rather, a biological control strategy would al-
low the weed species to spread, though at lower
density, through all suitable habitats in the forest.
Chemical Control
Four herbicides, 2,4-D, dicamba, clopyralid, and pi-
cloram, were considered for application on various
sites. Three chemicals were approved for use in the
1989 IPNF Weed Pest Management EIS (2,4-D, gly-
phosate, and picloram). 2,4-D is a herbicide with
very little persistence in the environment. @,4-D has
several formulations, some of the common brand
names include, Weed-B-Gon, HiDep, and Solution.
The herbicide has low toxicity to aquatic species
and several formulations are approved for use in
water and near water. At application rates of 1 to 1.5
pounds per acre 2,4-D exhibits good control of
knapweed with repeat applications and moderate
control of goatweed, houndstongue, sulfur cinque-
foil, and Canada thistle.
Dicamba (the active ingredient in Banville) is a broa-
dleaf herbicide that is readily absorbed by leaves
and roots and is concentrated in the metabolically
active parts of the plants. Dicamba is effective
against a similar range of weed species as 2,4-D at
similar application rates. However, dicamba is
somewhat more persistent than the 2,4-D herbicide
and thus provides somewhat longer control of sus-
ceptible species.
Picloram (the active ingredient in Tordon) controls a
variety of broad-leaved weed species, including all
the weeds species of concern here. Picloram is gen-
erally applied at rates of one-quarter to one-half
pound per acre. However, picloram’s combination
of mobility and persistence have generated concern
over possible ground-water contamination. Possi-
ble environmental impacts are compared between
this method and the other chemical and non-
chemical control methods.
Clopyralid is a relatively new herbicide that is very
selective and is toxic to some members of only three
plant families: the composites, the legumes, and the
buckwheats. Clopyralid is the active ingredient in
Transline, and along with 2,4-D, is one of two active
ingredients in Curtail. At application rates of one-
quarter to one-half pound per acre, clopyralid is
very effective against knapweed, the hawkweeds,
and Canada thistle. However, it does not control any
of the other weed species of concern. Clopyralid is
more persistent than 2,4-D and dicamba, but less
persistent than picloram.
The selective nature of clopyralid make it an attrac-
tive alternative on sites with non-target species that
are sensitive to the other herbicides. Clopyralid has
soil-mobility characteristics comparable to piclo-
ram, so the possibility of ground-water impacts
must be addressed.
Control with a combination of chemical
and non-chemical control
Site conditions such as vegetation types, soil types,
and infestation levels vary significantly on some
sites under consideration in this EIS. Therefore a
combination of chemical and non-chemical meth-
ods may be selected for some sites. The selection
of a herbicide alternative for a site would not prevent
the application of manual methods either concur-
rently, or as a follow-up treatments, on remnant
weeds on a Site.
Control with mixtures of the herbicide Pi-
cloram and 2,4-D
Some control specialists treat several noxious weed
species with mixtures of 2,4-D and picloram. Use of
a mixture is done to reduce the quantity of the piclo-
ram to half of what is normally applied, thus reduc-
ing the amount of effects on non-target species.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
BUT NOT GIVEN DETAILED STUDY
Glyphosate Control
Glyphosate is a non-selective, broad-spectrum her-
bicide that is absorbed by leaves and translocated
throughout the plant. Glyphosate has little soil activ-
ity and its absorption by roots is minimal to non-
existent.
Due to its non-selectivity, it tends to eliminate both
desirable and undesirable vegetation. Even if desir-
able vegetation is reseeded, hawkweed and other
noxious weeds maintain their competitive advan-
tage. In general, noxious weeds are aggressive pio-
neer species that are well adapted to disturbance.
For example, knapweed seed can remain viable for
over 10 years in the soil, and this seedbank provides
a ready source for reinfestation.
Control with grazing
Grazing by sheep and goats provides another non-
chemical alternative of control that may be applica-
ble to large infestations of some noxious weed spe-
cies. However, given the small, scattered nature of
these infestation and their isolated locations, control
through grazing becomes quite unfeasible. Grazing
is relatively ineffective as a control technique on
small infestations. Many plants would be skipped in
these small or scattered infestations, thus requiring
some followup treatment. Grazing can be used ap-
propriately in areas with large infestations on
commodity-production lands where some econom-
ic return can be gained on land that would other-
wise be unproductive.
Control of Other Exotic Species
The Forest Service acknowledges that other exotic
species exist within the Forest. Dominant species
include: Dactylis glomerata (Orchard grass),
Phleum pratense (Common timothy), Poa pratensis
(Kentucky bluegrass) and Trifolium spp. (Clover).
Many of these were intentionally introduced by
seeding activities for erosion control. These species
generally inhabit small areas. Under ideal circum-
stances these species would not be present in the
Forest. Fortunately, these species are relativiey
non-aggressive and grazing by wild ungulates and
domestic livestock has suppressed them. Eradica-
tion of these non-native species would require in-
tensive soil disturbance practices frequently seen in
farming Communities across the West. The Forest
Service will continue efforts to keep these species
from spreading. These efforts include, for example,
revegetating disturbed areas with appropriate na-
tive species to reduce the potential impact of non-
native species when feasible.
TREATMENT METHODS CONSID-
ERED FOR EACH SITE
Table 2-1 lists the alternatives considered for each
site. A number of sites were divided into two to four
sub-sites, labelled A, B, C and D. Sites were sub-
divided where characteristics such as variation in
treatment needs, type of infestation, soil type, or
other factors varied across the site and affected the
control prescription. Application of picloram and
clopyralid was not considered for sites or sub-sites
where label requirements for depth to ground-water
and soil type could not be met.
Biological control was considered only for Canada
thistle and St.John’s wart (goatweed), because of
the unavailability of effective biological control
agents for other weed species at this time. Burning
was only considered for sites that were surrounded
by water and where the native vegetation was suffi-
ciently sparse that it would not be burned when
treating the target species.
RATIONALE FOR THE SELECTION
OF THE PREFERRED CONTROL
METHOD(s)
In the preferred alternative, the Forest Service has
attempted to design the most effective program
possible within the environmental, economic, legis-
lative, and regulatory constraints governing the
management of National Forest lands. As indicated
in the introduction, a principal goal of the Forest
Service is to protect the biological integrity of the
Selkirk and Cabinet Mountain Ecosystems by con-
trolling aggressive non-native species. The Forest
Service is not interested in conducting projects that
only give the illusion of control. Furthermore if these
control projects and this overall program cannot be
demonstrated to protect biological integrity in these
——
| 1002 URBY) w39}e0459 speos ssa20e Buo)e ‘paand F ° :
| 100} Wey 439,e956 ree 99 3 speos Fecha a a : | : ne | . : ! Aare ae ea eat rg a
! Reh eee oe a er cus Ramen aie an | d | ~ | ~ | ~ | speos 3 59 aye uosuiqoy| 22 | OF
| 2001 ueYyy 4ajeas9| MOJ peos Bu0})e ‘paamdeuy ‘ . ie : | ; : : . : | : ! nee ae S !
4 ‘paamymeq[9e 2-¢/1w ¢-4| a | Z } ~ | -~ | - | spa ssasoy aye] s1eyour
| 1002 UeYY 4a}eaI9| 99 UL pue speos Buoye {)eJaaas| oe \ : ee at
| : : t : | 2t/w ‘ d | x | ~ | - | | 99 pue speos 49 mopeay| v2 | Ze
| 1002 UeY 4a}e249| Mo’ peos Buo]e ‘paamdeux ‘paamyMeq|oe 9° ¢/1w stl d : = ! se : ail
| 100£ UeY J9}e9I9| Mod peod 6uoje ‘paanymey ‘Asue; |e Soar o-1| x | “aa, RaeT ate
| 1,00E UeYyy yayeasg| Mod peos Buoye /Asue} ‘paamyney | 2e 5-9/1W 9°2| x | ; ! : | f : ; ! a ee rs ! in
| 1002 YeY sajeauD| otpesods ‘paamymey| 2e sk | ; eee ae
| ,00€ UY Ja}eaU6 Ay 1s0n| MOJ peos £)e4aaas|oe 6° 2/ tw 2°t| ; | : | J : | : | aa Anes 4 : 7%
| /00E UY} 4a}ea16 A}}SOW| Mow peos Buoje /)esaAas| eae 2"ot| ; ! ; ae este Vee ea age
: : : : : ‘ oe d | x | ~ |~I1- 1 2oee/eoze/rie spu exren| = at | of
| 100€ UeY Ja}eaI9| $}!e4} ax1quoyow Buoje fjesaaas| se 4°Z2/1w || d ; ! eae j $2 ee
| 100€ UeY) 4a}e949| peoy ssaoce Buoye /)e4aAas| 9e Sone | d | ~ BH ae ae ed
| 100€ UeYY Ja}eaI9] pasayjeos !xe}jpeo, ‘u03a}a45| 2e ae | d | ee oo a een ae
| 100€ UeY} 4a}eaI9| MOJ peos Buoje ‘paamymen| 2e 1°24 /1W Gc] Xx | } per whee ls tee ee a eee es
| 1002 UeYy) 4a}e9I9| Mou peos Bu0j,e ‘paamyney| re oc/iw 9-4] d | : ey BETS LCs ree aaa Be
| 1002 UeY 42}e05| Dipesods ‘paamymey| 2e = | d l - Pah a 0S92 Pa J Asepunog| ot | 92
| 100€ YEYX Ja}ea19| atpesods ‘paamyney | ae 2 | d | : Soh et pee age
| 1001 UeYy 4232936 A)]}sSoW| Mod peos Guoje ‘paamymen|e 6-61 /1W 2°g| d : Pe els | hs hee mee
| 100} YeYyy J4a}e049| S}1uN N4yy I1pesods ‘paamymey| 2e © | d | : Pe tae at eee ace
| 1002 YeY, Ja3eaI9| MOJ peos Buoje ‘paamymeq| oe Zp /iw Z| d | : Edt Oe eee ae
| /00E UeYI 4930246 A}}SOW| smopeaw UL ‘paamyneq| 2e g | x ; Boca st ee a ie ta ee ot
| 100£ UY, 42}e946 A}ySOW| sSmMopeawyMos peos Buo}e ‘paamymen| se pt /tw 2| d | : iene: "ere ke ae
| 1002 YeY 4a}ea4B6 A} ysSOW| Mod peos Buoje ‘paamymey|Ie ¢¢/iw act] d | L og Weta fae mee Bk: ee
| 100E Wey 49}€019| Mou peos BuO}e ‘paamdeuy ‘paamymey| oe sae »| d | ; eS at i dice eR a
| /00E UY J9}e9N9| WG” YS, BUO)e ‘Asuey ‘paamyneH| oe = | ee | ; Ril a cee sat ce we e
| /00£ YEYY Ja}eaIN|W Z2°| S| BUoje ‘!paandeuyx *paamymey | 2e 6° | d | ; ie at 8 et ae ee a
| :001 ULYyItA| sasejd ul snouljyuod ‘paamymey| 9e g | Xx | ret Heed alas 4 ete aad
| /00E YeYY 4932949] Mou Pros Buo}e ‘!paandeux ‘paamyney|oe,-¢4/ tw 9°S| d | : ee ee a ‘ey peat
| 1002 UeYy 4a}ea46 A}ysSoW| MOJ peot 6uo0)e ‘Asue, ‘paamymey| 2e Pie »| = | ; eee He eae es ae
| 1002 UeY 493e919| Mos peos BUO]e ‘!paandeuy ‘paomyney| oe E“g/im 9°2| d | : eee Le eat creat eo asa arti Lc
| 100E UeY, 493e246 AjysSoW| MOJ peos Gu0je !paamymey| Ie “pe 21 d | E ae ae coe Uae
| 100¢ UY) 4a}ea46 A} ysSOW| MO! peou Buoje ‘Asuey ‘paamymey| re pager g°2] xX | , 1, eae Lage Oe eae aoe tame
| /00E UeY Ja}eaI9| Mos peos Buoje ‘paandeuy] 2e jun ¢| d | : es le rae ee gaits greed 2
| /00E UEY) 49Je9I9|peos JeaU YoJed })eWs !AsUe} UOUMOD| Je he ee 2 | ; eon teee eee ee ee
| 100 UeYX 4aIed19| MO’ Peo’ !AsUe} UOMWOD ‘pasMymeH| de aoe ¢| Xx | ; ‘Sc be. a Pe ae
| 1 OOF UeYY 43}e919| Mod peos 6u0je ‘paamymey| Ie age a d | i oe |g eg Sige s em ete ts
| ,00£ UeYY Ja}eI919| Mod peos Buoje ‘paomymey| Ie are 2| d | 4 ns wee ees ag ey eel
| /00E UY 49}e346 Aj}ySoW|Mou peou ‘paamdeuy ‘Asuey ‘paanymey | se2"gi /u s-z| X ; | : | : . : ! oe a oa f | :
! eae ' e Ve ca , d | ~ : ~ . - ! 209 Puy JQ Mous| ey | 1
Le Ses | payeas} satoods poay |sasse/o6ea)twla-9/2 pue 121d] doja/questg|a-9‘2]o1g|uew| ays + aut :
A ee ak pa oe = 1 —- oe eee Lt ; =o5 ES
| 26eqg
SaLIS gla
2-6
aia a> Sia a a 7 asl T oy al Sa el ae ee ae ieee eee ee ce
| : | a | = | - | = et | = ie bs
| : | ‘ | : | | [sore eee = BP eas {| 45
| Zs | $3nd4e9)9 UL pue speos buoje| a | ~ | ~ | ce | tices t. | 9
| ,00£ UY} Ja}eaU9| poomymey ‘paandeuy’s ‘ayastyi-g| 2e cyt /tw 9| d | = [wed | a Peek! Me0ceespy ai yaar) taddoj| — qg2_| 24
|}-—-_—_-- Bee ee ee SS ee eee
| 49}3eM OF AVIWIXOIY | pajyeasy saisods paay |sasse/a6ea) Wl a-9'2 pue 19td|do}9/questq]a-4‘z]org|uew| ais JON ayis|
ens. ee ee ee eee eee eS ees ee eee | eee omy ete Bea ae | Ee ise ey ee |
2 abe S311S aa
2-7
ecosystems, the FS does not intend to undertake
them or to continue them once undertaken.
When presenting the preferred alternative it is ap-
propriate to explain the rationale used in selecting
the preferred methods for treatment sites. Any se-
lection involves a series of tradeoffs. We will attempt
to explain how we made these tradeoff’s in design-
ing the preferred alternative.
It is clear that our program of controlling non-native
species in the Selkirk and Cabinet Mountain eco-
systems has been successful to date. Where the
existing program has targeted control, the district
has worked aggressively to limit the spread of nox-
ious weeds, The 1989 EIS targeted areas in the
Selkirks to a greater extent than other areas on the
district. When compared to the Selkirk Mountain
ecosystem, the population of noxious weeds in the
Purcell Ecosystem is at least 100 fold greater. There
are three other reasons why the Selkirk ecosystem —
has far fewer noxious weeds as compared to the
Purcell Mountain ecosystem. One is that the Selkirk
Crest probably acts as a barrier to wind born seeds,
thus drastically limiting an invasion to the eastside
of the Selkirks even though the prevailing winds in
the area are from the southwest. A lack of roads
connecting east to west is also a consideration.
Secondly, funding was limited, and the district
placed a higher priority on treating weeds invading
the Selkirks. Thirdly, there are several adjacent
landowners on the west side of the Selkirks that
have large farms and have effective weed control
programs on there own land.
The difficult decision now facing the Forest Service
is the direction to take the noxious weed program.
Although 4 alternatives are examined in this EIS in
order to elaborate the decision space, there seem to
be, in reality, only two basic choices. The first is to
call off the effort to control these exotic species.
Included in this first option are alternatives that are
tantamount to calling off the effort because we can-
not expect the budget to implement fully the alterna-
tive (i.e., manual control) to contain the spread of
weeds. The second option is to implement an ag-
gressive control effort including the use of herbi-
cides not identified in the 1989 EIS.
The following sections of this Chapter and Chapter
4 discuss in greater detail the environmental conse-
quences of a no action alternative and an aggres-
sive control program relying in part on chemicals.
The impacts of intermediate control alternatives are
also discussed.
2-8
In the remainder of this section the selection of par-
ticular methods as part of a more aggressive pro-
gram is discussed.
The preferred alternative, Alternative 4, includes the
herbicide picloram. This herbicide is very effective
against most of the weeds currently infesting this
area. However, several concerns are frequently
raised with picloram. It is relatively persistent in the
environment; it can affect a number of non-target
species; and it can move from the site of application
in some soil types.
Moderate persistence is not in itself an undesirable
property when combatting noxious weeds. All of the
weed species of concern produce seeds which can
remain viable for many years in the soil. Thus non-
persistent herbicides must be reapplied very fre-
quently in order to control the regular emergence of
weed seedlings from the soil seed bank. Frequent
reapplication of herbicides has the disadvantage of
increasing human exposure as well as increasing
off-site drift. Although these factors can be con-
trolled they must be considered in our decision.
In order to minimize impacts to non-target species
and the possibility of migration through the soil, the
application of picloram is limited to sites with resis-
tant native species and soils that prevent leaching.
The amount of picloram applied can be reduced in
half with the addition of 2,4-D, thereby reducing
effects to non-target species. Clopyralid can be
used where control of knapweed or hawkweed is
desired while protecting sensitive non-target spe-
cies. However, clopyralid is not effective against
most other weed species and requires more fre-
quent application to control knapweed and hawk-
weed. It also has similar soil mobility to picloram.
On sites with soils more prone to leaching, less
persistent chemicals such as 2,4-D or dicamba can
be used. Some formulations of 2,4-D have been
approved by the U.S. EPA for application to the
edge and even over water. Only 2,4-D would be
applied in the annual flood plain (after water levels
have receded). The rapid degradation of this com-
pound (2 to 4 weeks) would ensure that no chemical
is available in the following spring runoff.
Dicamba would be used in other areas beyond the
annual flood plain where picloram and clopyralid
cannot be used because of label restrictions and
concerns about soil mobility. Dicamba is more per-
sistent than 2,4-D and has the advantage of greater
effectiveness against some species.
The goal of this program is to erradicate or control
most of the noxious weed species from these eco-
systems. A possible exception is Canada thistle.
Canada thistle is established in many locations and
is a difficult plant to control because of its rhizoma-
tous root system and prolific seed production. The
preferred alternative is based on a two-pronged ap-
proach to this weed. We would attempt to eliminate
many of the small infestations while containing the
larger infestations with biological control agents
and perimeter applications of herbicide. In this man-
ner we hope to keep this weed confined while deter-
mining the effectiveness of biological control.
MONITORING
Sampling methods enable the ready collection and
computer storage of a variety of data on a particular .
site. Variables that can be recorded include the
plant species, the percent of total vegetation, fre-
quency of the species, and biomass of individual
species.
Post-spray vegetation monitoring would be con-
ducted on representative sites. Monitoring sites
would be selected prior to treatment, then reviewed
yearly. The effectiveness of treatment and its impact
on non-target species would be monitored.
COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNA-
TIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL
This section presents a comparison of alternatives
by issue. This section also presents an estimate of
the costs of the alternatives.
ISSUE 1: IMPACT OF NOXIOUS WEEDS ON RE-
SOURCES
As documented in Chapter 4, noxious weeds can
significantly impact the species diversity on infested
sites. On heavily infested sites, aggressive species
can comprise as much as 90 percent of the plant
biomass. In addition, the elimination of some native
species has been documented on such sites.
Knapweed, tansy, hawkweed, Canada thistle and
the remaining species of concern could have dev-
astating impacts on riparian zones, grassland and
open forest habitat, critical components in these
re,
ecosystems. Once established on a site, particularly
a sunny, dry site, knapweed quickly becomes domi-
nant even in the absence of disturbance. As native
species decrease, the forage available for various
wildlife species is reduced. There has been little
research to document decreases in wildlife popula-
tions with increasing noxious weed infestations.
Such research is very difficult to conduct. Some
wildlife species such as deer and elk can also shift
grazing patterns, at least to a limited extent. It is
certainly the case that use by big game animals has
increased dramatically on some sites where nox-
ious weeds have been treated (Thompson 1990).
The impact of noxious weeds on other resources
under the various alternatives is directly related to
the effectiveness of the alternatives in controlling
the spread of the weed. The control effectiveness of
the alternatives is reviewed briefly below.
The No Action alternative would allow noxious
weeds to increase unchecked on these sites. It is
very likely that the weeds would spread to new sites
in the forest, as has already occurred on thousands
of infested acres within the Purcell Mountain eco-
system. Knapweed is relatively brittle, which allows
seedheads to break off and cling to folded rafts,
manty packs, backpack frames, boot laces, animal
hair, etc. Some weed species also spread vegeta-
tively. Portions of roots and or mature seeds could
eventually spread to the edge of unstable stream
banks and be carried downstream to start new in-
festations. Under this alternative, the impacts of
noxious weeds on other resources would increase
as the size and number of infestations increased.
Alternative 2 relies solely on manual and cultural
control. If conducted 2 or more times per year on
each site, a diligent program of manual and cultural
contro! could prevent seed production of weeds.
However, some weed species could not be eradi-
cated because of their extensive root system which
allows continual resprouting. This control regimen
would have to be repeated annually for an indefinite
period.
With intensive manual and cultural control, the im-
pacts of noxious weeds noted above, could be
largely avoided. However, the difficulty of carrying
out such an intensive control program should not be
underestimated. Sufficient resources must be com-
mitted to carry out the program annually. If the site
were left untreated for a year or two, noxious weeds
could quickly reassert dominance. The chance of
spread to new sites would again increase.
Alternative 3 combines biological control with man-
ual and cultural control methods. Under this alterna-
tive biological control would replace manual control
on most Canada thistle sites. Biological control
could reduce the competitiveness of Canada thistle
in these ecosystems. Biological agents Ceutorhyn-
chus litura (Stem mining weevil) and Urophora car-
dui (gall fly) can reduce population density of Cana-
da thistle up to 90 percent under ideal
circumstances (Rees 1992). Biological control will
not compeletely eradicate Canada thistle infesta-
tions. It is also not known whether these biological
agents will establish under the climatic conditions of
North Idaho.
Alternative 4 combines all available control meth-
ods. Application of the herbicides 2,4-D, dicamba,
clopyralid, and picloram would be combined with
manual, Cultural and biological control. This alterna-
tive can effectively prevent the spread of exotic
weeds and the resulting impacts discussed under
the No Action alternative. Low persistent herbicides
such as 2,4-D and dicamba may require repeated
treatments in following years until the infestation
sizes and densities are reduced. Since most of the
moderately persistent herbicides would remain in
the upper 4 to 6 inches of soil, some resprouting of
plants could occur from deep roots, particularly in
areas that are missed or lightly sprayed. Sites with
mature weeds likely harbor large numbers of seeds
that remain viable for many years. Followup treat-
ment may be necessary as new seedlings emerge.
A major difference among the herbicides would be
the frequency of respray. 2,4-D and dicamba are
herbicides with low persistence, and annual respray
would likely necessary to control newly emerging
plants. In addition, higher rates must be used than
with the other two chemicals (one pound versus
one-quarter to one-half pound per acre). Picloram
could remain effective for 1 or 2 years against knap-
weed. A small amount of follow-up spraying might
be necessary to control skips in the treatment. This
would typically involve less than 20 percent of the
original treatment area.
Clopyralid is more persistent than 2,4-D and dicam-
ba but less persistent than picloram. Two years of
knapweed control could be possible with clopyralid,
but it is likely that annual respraying would be re-
quired over a larger area than with picloram.
Table 2-2 summarizes the risk of spread of noxious
weeds under the various alternatives.
Table 2-2--Relative risk of the spread of noxious weeds.
Alternative 1: No
Action
Highest risk of spread of any of the alternatives.
Greatest risk that new invading species would find a place
establish populations and spread.
Alternative 2: Manu-
al & Cultural
Alternative 3: Manu-
al, Cultural & Biolog-
Low risk if carried out at least three times per year on an annual basis. Risk of
vegetative spread may be higher than with herbicide control.
Low to moderate risk if manual and cultural control is carried out at least three
times per year on an annual basis. Moderate risk of vegetative spread if climatic
ical conditions are not suitable for the biological agents.
Alternative 4: Manu-
al, Cultural, Biologi-
cal & Chemical
for continued spread.
ISSUE 2: IMPACT OF THE CONTROL ALTERNA-
TIVES ON THE ENVIRONMENT
The impact of increasing weed infestation on other
resources is elimination of some species from given
sites and reduction in species diversity. The No Ac-
tion alternative would have no other environmental
impacts.
Alternative 2, the Manual and Cultural Alternative
would have little physical impact on other resourc-
es, Ground disturbance would be quite localized.
The two biological agents proposed for the control
of Canada thistle have undergone extensive host
specificity testing. Urophora cardui (gall fly) is very
host specific toward Canada thistle. However, two
other non-native thistles, Cirsium vulgare (Bull this-
tle) and Carduus acanthodes (Plumeless thistle)
showed incidental ovipositing during host-
specificity tests. Ceutorhyncus litura (Stem mining
weevil) has a broader host range and can attack
several native and non-native members of the Cirs/-
um (thistle) genus. No sensitive Cirsium species
have been identified on the Bonners Ferry Ranger
District.
2-11
Low risk assuming careful follow-up spray and assuming manual and cultural
control is carried out at least three times per year in areas close to water. Biological
control may reduce the competitiveness of Canada thistle but there is potential
Chapter 4 reviews in detail the possible impacts of
herbicide applications on various resources includ-
ing non-target plant species, soil and water, fish and
wildlife species. Generally, the direct impacts would
be minimal because of the low toxicity of these com-
pounds and the limited extent of the spraying. The
greatest impacts would be to non-target plant spe-
cies. A few native forbs plants would be eliminated
from areas that are directly sprayed. However, these
species could readily recolonize from unsprayed
areas. Most native forbs and grasses would tolerate
the proposed treatments. There are no threatened,
endangered, or sensitive plant species on these
sites. (Sensitive plant species are those deemed by
the Forest Service to be rare, at least locally. See
Chapter 4 for further description.)
For some people, herbicide use would represent an
undesirable human intrusion in an area that is to be
protected from human impacts. For others, howev-
er, the human-caused introduction of these aggres-
sive non-native species requires a speedy, effective
response to protect native ecosystems and other
forest resources.
Table 2-3 summarizes the environmental impacts of
the various alternatives.
Table 2-3--Summary of environmental impacts of the alternatives
Alternative 1: No
action
Alternative 2: Manu-
al & Cultural
Alternative 3: Manu-
al, Cultural & Biolog-
ical
Alternative 4: Manu-
al, Cultural, Biologi-
cal & Chemical
ISSUE 3: IMPACT OF THE CONTROL ALTERNA-
TIVES ON HUMAN HEALTH
The non-chemical alternatives would have little im-
pact on human health and safety. The manual and
mechanical alternatives could result in sprains, mi-
nor irritations, or injury from flying objects.
Current toxicology data supporting the registration
of these herbicides indicate that these compounds
provide low risk when used as directed. The issues
of carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, and generalized
health effects are addressed in Chapter 4. The risks
of long-term deferred effects such as cancer are
considered very slight and on the order of other
riskS COMmonly encountered in everyday life (for
example, the cancer risks of transcontinental air
flight from increased exposure to cosmic radiation).
The exposures to chemicals from these projects
would be quite transient and minimal, even on a
Cumulative basis.
There will always remain some uncertainty regard-
ing the effects of herbicide exposure on human
health. Sources of uncertainty include the neces-
Impacts are related to the spread of noxious weeds.
Minimal impacts. Minor soil disturbance.
Low impact expected on native vegetation.
Visual impacts of site treatment has the potential to disrupt some users
experiences. Analysis does not indicate a risk of significant impacts on fish and
wildlife. Short term localized impacts on some broadleaf species.
Sary extrapolation of toxicology data from laboratory
animals to humans, the use of high-dose cancer
Studies to predict rates of cancer from low doses,
and the difficulty of predicting human dose levels
under the conditions anticipated here. To compen-
sate for this uncertainty, risk was analyzed conser-
vatively which tends to overstate the risk. These
factors are reviewed in Chapter 4 and in the Risk
Analyses contained in the project file.
COST OF ALTERNATIVES
Table 2-4 displays the estimated on-site cost of im-
plementing each alternative for one year. Monitor-
ing of site conditions and other activities that are
provided under all alternatives including the No Ac-
tion alternative would cost about $2,000 per year.
Following the table is a discussion of the assump-
tions used to develop these costs. No attempt was
made to develop the costs of failure to control nox-
ious weeds or to quantify the beneficial effect of
control on biodiversity. These benefits and the cost
of impacts on biodiversity are very difficult to quanti-
fy on an economic basis.
Table 2-4.--The estimated 1-year on-site costs of the alternatives
The following assumptions were used in determin-
ing costs:
1) All costs are for implementing each alternative on_
all sites for 1 year.
Manual control cost estimates assume implementa-
tion of the program at least two times during the
active growing season.
2) Labor costs for implementation procedures re-
flect (GS-5) wages totaling $75.00/day and (GS-4)
wages at $70.00/day.
3) Stock costs, subsistence and fringe benefits av-
erage approximately 85% of the total wage cost to
implement the alternative/site.
Fvmiomcows |__| seas | _wonom | sax
faocgencows [fe | mmo | seem
fencer |e fe [> | memo
feaices |e | amas [ een | ere
4) A worker can pull and/or clip and bag approxi-
mately one-tenth acre per day depending on the
weed infestation level and site conditions. All manu-
al and cultural treatment cost estimates display the
total cost of twice a year action.
5) Chemical cost estimates assume the following
materials cost: 2,4-D, $11.25/gal.; picloram,
$90/gal.; dicamba, $90/gal.; clopyralid, $217/gal.
6) Chemical application costs for the remote sites
average approximately $287/acre. This cost per
acre figure includes chemical, wages, and travel
costs.
7) A worker applying herbicides with a backpack
sprayer can cover 3 to 5 acres per day depending
on the circumstances.
‘gape
‘ ‘ af ; * . rr’ &) i" ey af hw
é; NE. UE PD OS eee et apie Ar Oat meh Dias |
‘ ahurecmenilee Dey ae ae im . Lau ‘giles 0 ie~ gote d is ote me cin. q a gimp
wieciewrA | : Lev ~ | ° 9? @teetona
: -- ile’ ad - ae - ~~ - ‘ + . ——, , “pa
pa erat 2 ww a ee but One) aiid)
mone wt ieee toi) i 7 _—_ Sei wyecin i fe i ae —- + a se Seog w@
y - * i . :
i Foie eo a ogi Mga peel ee ate pa ee
Ae eee abt. @! mw ed hay og enh Ne <9 mop e ee nw ‘ a 2 oon heed semana
j y ~ i ~
I
2 we." ‘ y = pA = 4 ; i , & ly A be & > » i _ hy ie a ry 4 — home om aoe — s) ; i
bends iad a il A. p>} ees ae ee a odes ee ee re gn egy tomer oy: Pe Spee =
ai - i, iu 4 faa et Sietireded tel ay =e) pact
rls. r i ee ‘ : i, i t ss he hen Me: eae. 7 Re
rN ine Yate ie, ow hs wih A,” Fig, Hoh oh eid a Oe cutter e
- roe Tee) Ve M {33 - KS. US ieee! : oe 7]
> Lh afl, tet 3) ¥ x pense ye ’
oe i a Wi. Ae His ~. Ke } fat ‘ - ie ;
PTE SC. Oe ge wee ot em gear (eek? 2 RT ae Qs ras Los ep, p) —
ar
ery wWitay te keshee, bat Aa Fah ata 8 7
Ditto awit whee céteriins cara @ 5S OO ate ee PCE ke 1 Ae + cine ee an
SIS ’ Ws rie! is Mer tes Wa | BAe) agtt c foot, wid empet? AS 7 wars r ae: i
Lge, re ay a us 1 hk ag? ort “8G ey st oo 7 i Aa =) i a ane pyrreker roe vy g
aihiiiedh | en A eteyt ls i. ;
¥ rm “ls - a -@rt- ms ra “le o OP SS ee 5 . ‘ = -
ste at 288025 ’ a ed ¢ + aro Tene ae ED 2
TH eo tt ia Se Ge ° 4 ST Ay <P a Loe nk na 7 7
, } xi we arte ak | rey Ee Pa) & » : :
OM ET, Aegyts Joie &e ORR wel Se fat ie
: i ed “ a ‘ws , oar Ge = Wines > seated ;
& - y & 4 - ~ : ¢ i ye 4
' aad ~
ey F i»
Pes + 7h Orhcrie lt pee pian ois 2 ie "ABA o ahh BAR: mp ae — ee ae
anew SB wg eee, SS, tag MNO Bae 2 jer yan ie as : & li Wp as ?
; o). Ae, OR Rye Sey Re Ne pas aaase oh :
: a, 3 : ey | ) oe a= 7 ¢ J oy)
7 iy a
° 4
a
CHAPTER III
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
INTRODUCTION
This chapter:
ap provides a brief overview of the project
areas,
2. connects this document to the goals, ob-
jectives, and standards outlined in the
Idaho Panhandle Forest Plan for the
Management Areas in which these sites
are located,
Ey, describes the site characteristics of the
areas proposed for treatment,
4. describes the site-specific condition of
the resources and attributes that might
be affected by the proposed actions.
AREA DESCRIPTIONS
The Selkirk Mountain, Purcell Mountain, and
Cabinet Mountain Ecosystems are located in
mountainous terrain in northern Idaho. The pro-
posed Environmental Impact Statement covers
410,000 acres that comprise the Bonners Ferry
Ranger District of the Idaho Panhandle National
Forest. This area is in Boundary County, the
northern most county in Idaho. The largest por-
tion of this area is bordered on the west by the
crest of the Selkirk range and on the east by the
Kootenai National Forest and northwest Mon-
tana. The southern boundary is the county line
separating Bonner and Boundary Counties. The
Northern boundary is the international border
separating Canada and the United States. See
Appendix
A to review area map.
Portions of two major river drainages (Kootenai
River and Moyie River) are located on the Bon-
ners Ferry Ranger District. The valleys of these
two river drainages are typical intermountain gla-
ciated valleys which have been subject to exten-
sive stream action since glacial times. The valleys
generally range from .5 to 2 miles wide; however,
narrow steep canyons also occur on the lower
end of the Moyie River valley. Elevations on the
valley floor range from 1800 feet near the
Canada/U.S.boundary along the Kootenai River
to 2633 feet where the Moyie enters the United
States from Canada. From the valley floors, the
mountains rise abruptly to elevations over 7500
feet.
The climate of the area is primarily affected by
maritime weather patterns that are occasionally
modified by continental air masses. Weather var-
ies considerably with elevation, slope aspect,
and season. Annual precipitation ranges from 25
inches on the valley floor to 80 inches or more in
the higher elevations. Snow provides approxi-
mately 40 to 80 percent of the total precipitation
depending on the location. Snow cover in open
areas on the lower to mid valley floors typically
vanishes in March or April. Snow accumulation is
much greater in the higher elevations and can
linger into the summer months.
Soils in the valley floors and lower valley slopes
have developed from two types of parent materi-
als: materials deposited by glaciers (glacial tills)
and post-glacial alluvial deposits. Glacial materi-
als are often deposited as unstratified clayey and
loamy deposits. Water-deposited materials occur
on the stream terraces and alluvial fans of the
valley bottoms. Soils on the higher terraces have
developed in stratified sand, gravel, and cobble.
Soils on the lower terraces have developed in
Stratified silts, sands and gravels which are fre-
quently deposited and disturbed.
Soil development has also been affected by
wind-deposited, volcanic ash. Soils in relatively
undisturbed areas on the valley floor often con-
tain soil profiles several inches in depth that have
been significantly affected by volcanic deposits
that originated in Cascade Range eruptions such
as Mount Mazama.
The vegetation is a complex mosaic of different
aged stands of Pinus contorta (lodgepole pine),
Pseudotsuga menziesii (Douglas-fir), Pinus pon-
Gerosa (Ponderosa pine), Larix occidentalis
(Larch), Picea (Spruce), Abies lasiocarpa (sub-
alpine fir), Tsuga heterophylla (western hem-
lock), and Thuja plicata (western redcedar).
Douglas-fir is believed to be the climax tree spe-
cies On most dry sites. Common shrubs include
Arctostphylos uva-ursi (kinnikinnik), Berberis
repens (Creeping Oregon grape), Symphoricar-
pos albus (Snowberry), Holodiscus discolor
(ocean spray), and Physocarpus malvacea,
ninebark. More mesic (moister) sites support an
understory of Linnaea borealis (twinflower), Ore-
gon grape, kinnikinnick, Cornus sto/onifera (Red-
osier dogwood), Shepherdia canadensis
(Buffalo-berry), Agrostis stolonifera (Redtop),
and Aster occidentalis (Western aster). On
moister sites larch is fairly extensive on the lower
to mid slopes.
Lodgepole pine is the most abundant conifer
found throughout the area in all but the higher
elevations. It occurs in all densities and age class
distributions, and is frequently in pure, even-
aged stands.
Ponderosa pine is found to a limited extent on
some of the dry sites at low elevations. This spe-
cies often occurs in the open, park-like stands.
Understories in these stands are dominated by
bluebunch wheatgrass, rough fescue, and other
bunchgrass species. Scattered Douglas-fir and
lodgepole pine are also found on these sites and
account for most of the coniferous reproduction.
Spruce grows over a wide range of elevations on
sites with abundant soil moisture. Spruce is
found primarily in riparian areas and with sub-
alpine fir on mesic northerly slopes.
River bottom lands are well vegetated with coni-
fers, primarily lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir, larch,
ponderosa pine, and Engelmann spruce. Associ-
ated hardwood tree species include birch,
cottonwood, and aspen with willow, alder, and
other shrubs.
FOREST PLAN MANAGEMENT
DIRECTION FOR THESE SITES
As explained in Chapter 1920 of the Forest Serv-
ice Manual, planning for units of the National For-
est System involves two levels of decisions. The
first is the development of a Forest Plan that pro-
vides direction for all resource management pro-
grams, practices, uses, and protection mea-
sures. The second level of planning involves the
analysis and implementation of management
practices designed to achieve the goals and ob-
jectives of the Forest Plan. The second level re-
quires site-specific analysis to meet National En-
vironmental Protection Act (NEPA) requirements
for decision making.
This EIS presents the results of the site-specific
analysis required for the second level of decision.
Thus it is appropriate to review the Forest Plan
direction for the Forest in general, and for the
specific Management Areas in which these sites
are located, in order to show the connection be-
tween the decisions made in the Forest Plan and
the decisions proposed in this EIS.
A Forest objective for the first planning period is
to inventory, map, and complete an activity
schedule for significant weed plant communities,
which include Centarea maculosa (Spotted knap-
weed), Hypericum perforatum (St. Johnswort or
Goatweed), Cirsium arvense (Canada thistle),
Linaria dalmatica (Dalmation toadflax), Tanace-
tum vulgare (Common tansy), Hieracium auranti-
acum orange hawkweed, Hieracium pratense,
meadow hawkweed, Euphorbia esula, leafy
spurge, Cynoglossum officinale hound’s-tongue,
Chonarilla juncea, rush skeleton weed, and Lyth-
rum salicaria purple loosestrife. The Bonners Fer-
ry Ranger District has completed inventories for
the Selkirk and Cabinet Ecosytems and most of
the Purcell Mountain Ecosystem.
The Idaho Panhandle Forest Plan requires the
development of management direction for nox-
ious weeds. The goals and standards for the pro-
tection of other resources such as soil and water
also have implications for weed-control projects.
These standards will be reviewed below in our
discussion of the resources potentially affected
by these control activities.
Project sites occur in a variety of land manage-
ment allocations. Land management allocations
affected include Management Areas (MA’s) 1, 2,
3, 4, 7, 9, 10, and 17. A brief statement of the
golas for each of these management areas is as
follows:
MA 1 - Provide for long-term growth and pro-
duction of commercially valuale wood prod-
ucts on those lands that are suitable for tim-
ber production.
MA 2 - Manage identified grizzly bear habitat
to support the Forest’s share of a recovered
grizzly bear population while providing the
production of commercially valuable wood
products.
MA 8 - Provide sufficient winter forage areas
to support existing and projected big game
opulatio while providing for the production of
commercially valuable wood products.
MA 4 - Provide winter forage to support exist-
ing and projected big game populations
through scheduled timber harvest and per-
manent forage areas.
MA 7 - Manage identified caribou habitat to
support the Forest’s share of a recovered
caribou population, while providing for the
prodction of commercially valuable wood
products.
MA 9 - Manage to maintain and protect exist-
ing improvements and resource productive
potential within minimum investments.
MA 10 - Provide the opportunity for a semi-
primitive recreation experience. The area will
be managed in its present condition, with no
new roads.
MA 17 - Manage for developed recreation
opportunities in a roaded natural and rural
recreation setting.
The standards for all these allocations include
the use of integrated pest management for pro-
tection against pests.
3-3
AFFECTED RESOURCES ON
PROPOSED TREATMENT SITES
AIR QUALITY
All projects of the Idaho Panhandle National For-
ests (IPNF) must comply with procedural require-
ments of the Clean Air Act (US EPA, 1971) and
State Implementation and Smoke Management
Plans. The United States Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA) has adopted national primary
and secondary ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) under the authority of Section 109 of
the Clean Air Act. These standards include ac-
ceptable levels of pollutants and particulate mat-
ter. The Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) requirements of this Act limit the increase
of pollutants such as these from point sources
that could impact Class 1 areas. The Cabinet
Wilderness, approximately 20 miles to the south-
east of the Bonners Ferry Ranger District, is the
closest Class 1 airshed.
The air quality in the IPNF is generally good to
excellent throughout a majority of the year. Sea-
sonal variation in weather patterns and human
activities contribute to variation in the air quality.
Smoke from agricultural field burning, wood
burning stoves, prescribed burning and wildfires
contribute to seasonal deterioration of the air
quality. Dust from agricultural lands and motor
vehicle traffic on gravel and dirt roads can cause
reduced air quality and visibility, especially when
there are high winds.
The project area lies within the state of Idaho's
North Idaho smoke management zone. The IPNF
is part of the Northern Region of the Forest Serv-
ice. This region has signed a Memorandum of
Agreement with the State of Montana, and is a
member of the Montana State Airshed Group.
This group monitors air quality in the state of
Montana, their concern is primarily smoke and
particulates from forest residue burning. Prevail-
ing winds in the project area are southwest. Activ-
ities in this portion of Idaho predominately affect
air quality in Montana airsheds.
FISHERIES
Species Present
Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus)
The bull trout is considered a Category C1 spe-
cies under the Endangered Species Act (1973).
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decided on
June 8, 1994 that the bull char is warranted but
precluded from listing. On February 6, 1995 the
USFWS changed the bull char status to warrant-
ed. This means significant threats exist to the
continued existence of the species and the USF-
WS is in the process of drafting regulations. The
Forest Service recognizes bull trout as a sensitive
species in Region 1.
Bull trout are found in cold water streams, rivers,
and lakes (U.S.D.A. 1989). Bull trout spawn in late
summer through fall (August to November), often
in areas of ground water infiltration. Fry hatch at
the end of January and emerge in early spring
(April). Juveniles remain near the stream bottom
or in low velocity habitat (pools and pocketwater)
for the first two years of their life. Unembedded
substrate and dispersed woody debris are com-
monly used forms of cover. Most juveniles mi-
grate at the beginning of the third growing sea-
son into larger lakes or rivers. Bull char usually
mature at age 5 to 6. Adult migration begins in
early spring (March or April) and may extend
through the entire summer. Most fish are in
spawning streams by August. Some adults will
spawn more than once during their lifetime, but
they may not spawn each year (Pratt 1992).
Bull trout are present in several of the drainages
proposed for spraying. Fluvial bull trout from the
Kootenai River have been found at the mouth of
Snow and Caribou Creeks (Paragamian 1994).
Bull trout have also been located in Myrtle, Trout,
Boundary, Grass, Parker, and Long Canyon
Creeks. It is not known whether these fish are
from resident or fluvial populations. The status of
bull trout in the Kootenai River, below the
Kootenai falls, is thought to be at a high risk of
extinction (personal communication, Dave
Cross, IPNF Fisheries
3-4
Biologist, 1995)
Westslope Cutthroat Trout (Oncorynchus clarki
lewisi)
Westslope cutthroat trout are listed as a Catego-
ry species, as of November 15, 1994, under the
Endangered Species Act, (1973). This means
that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service indicates
that proposing to list as endangered or threat-
ened is possibly appropriate, but for which con-
clusive data on the biological vulnerability and
threats are not currently available to support the
proposed rules. Westslope cutthroat are also
recognized by the Forest Service as a sensitive
species in Region 1.
Westslope cutthroat trout occur in clear, cool
streams usually with water temperatures less
than 17 degrees celsius. Cutthroat habitat con-
tains rocky, silt-free riffles, for spawning and slow,
deep pools with well vegetated stream banks for
feeding and resting (U.S.D.A. 1989). They tend to
occupy headwater areas especially when other
salmonid species are present in the same stream
(Hickman and Raleigh 1982). Cutthroat trout usu-
ally reach sexual maturity at age 3 to 4. They
spawn in the spring, usually in April or May. Fry
and juveniles occur in stream sections that are
shallow with slow velocity flows. As fish grow larg-
er and mature, they seek out deep water habitat
types such as pools and deep runs (Hickman
and Raleigh 1982; Baltz et al. 1991). During win-
ter, cutthroat trout typically seek deeper water
associated with large woody debris (Moore and
Gregory 1988). Strong populations of this spe-
cies exist in only 36% of its original range in Idaho
(Rieman and Apperman, 1989).
Westslope cutthroat trout are present in most
drainages of the Kootenai and Moyie River.
Westslope cutthroat have not been found in
McGinty, Gable, Twentymile, Cow, or Katka
Creeks, drainages where spraying is proposed.
The status of populations in remaining water-
sheds proposed for spraying is unknown. In
drainages where introduced rainbow and brook
trout occur, long term viability of westslope cut-
throat may be in question (personal communica-
tions Dave Cross, IPNF Fisheries Biologist, 1995).
In many cases this may not be due to solely
introduced species. Instead, cumulative effects
from fishing pressure, introduced species, and a
depressed cutthroat population from managed
disturbances have all played a part to tip the
balance against cutthroat.
Redband Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss gibbsi)
Redband trout are listed as a C2 species under
the Endangered Species Act (1973) and are rec-
ognized as a sensitive species in Region 1.
Redband Trout are a strain of rainbow trout that
are native to the Kootenai River Basin. The main-
stem Kootenai retains a hybrid mixture of
redband/rainbow/cutthroat, but barriered tribu-
taries may have headwater redband populations
(U.S.D.A. 1994). Field evidence indicates that in-
terior redband and westslope cutthroat generally
coexisted below Kootenai Falls before exotic spe-
cies were introduced. For the most part the two
species were segregated spatially, but in sympa-
tric situations they were able to maintain a high
degree of genetic integrity. It is only where the
coastal rainbows were introduced that we see
hybrid swarms of rainbow-redband-cutthroat
where few if any individuals are genetically pure.
The stocking of coastal rainbows (as early as
1914) has complicated the redband picture, as
did the release of eastern brook trout, yellow-
stone cutthroat, and a host of other species
(U.S.D.A. 1994). Redbands are generally found
to be virtually extirpated through hybridization
with introduced rainbows. In essence, in those
places where someone has bothered to look for
redbands, it looks like there are very few clues left
to interpret about their status.
Preliminary results from genetic surveys con-
ducted in 1994, located redband trout in only
three of the nine streams surveyed. Saddle and
Grass Creeks were found to contain genetically
pure populations, while Boundary Creek has a
97% pure population (personal communication,
Doug Perkinson, Kootenai National Forest Fish-
eries Biologist, 1995).
White Sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus)
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service has
listed the Kootenai River population of White
Sturgeon as endangered under the Endangered
3-5
Species Act
59:171:45989-46001).
(Federal Register
White sturgeon are anadromous in most of the
larger rivers in which they occur but are landlock
in the middle and upper Columbia River system.
The Kootenai River population range includes
lake and river habitats between the outflow of
Kootenay Lake and Kootenai Falls upstream in
Montana. Most fish have been found only in the
Kootenai River, but a few have been located in
larger tributary streams (Graham 1981). In 1989,
a State of Montana enforcement officer cited an
angler for taking of a sturgeon in the Yaak River
(U.S.D.A. 1993). However, few have been sighted
in other tributary streams .
Spawning period for white sturgeon occurs in
May and June. Spawning probably occurs over
rock or bedrock substrate in swift currents near
rapids, when water temperatures are between
8.9 and 16.7 degrees celsius (Graham 1981). It is
believed that that most spawning in the Kootenai
River occurs in the canyon section between Bon-
ners Ferry and Kootenai Falls. Sturgeons have
not been identified in any of the tributary streams
proposed for spraying.
Other Species
In addition to the above mentioned species, trib-
utaries and lakes of the Moyie and Kootenai River
support sculpins (Cottus), slimy sculpins (Cottus
cognatus), redside shiner (Richardsonius baltea-
tus), mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni),
kokanee salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka), rainbow
trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), peamouth (My-
locheilus caurinus), northern squawfish (Pty-
chocheilus oregonensis), pumpkinseed (Lepo-
mis gibbosus), largemouth bass (Micropterus
salmoides), yellow perch (Perca flavescens),
crappie (Pomoxis), and brook trout (Salvelinus
fontinalis).
HUMAN RESOURCES and HUMAN HEALTH
The impacts of the control alternatives are ana-
lyzed for two groups of people, the workers in-
volved in the control activity and the general pub-
lic who might be on or near these sites. Chapter
4 discusses risk to human health.
RANGE
Grazing areas are identified as transitory range-
land within the Cow Creek, Grass Creek and low-
er Trout Creek drainages. Transitional range-
lands are those lands whose open character is
maintained by fire, flooding, pest outbreaks, or
other disturbances. These sites could eventually
revert to forest cover if natural disturbances are
controlled. Both wild ungulates and domestic
livestock frequently forage throughout these iso-
lated areas.
RECREATION
The sites under consideration are located prima-
rily along Forest roads and trails where dispersed
recreation such as driving for pleasure, hiking,
hunting, or traveling to an outdoor forest activity —
would occur.
A few sites are associated with campgrounds
including Robinson Lake, Copper Creek, Brush
Lake, Smith Lake, and Meadow Creek Camp-
grounds. These sites vary in the amount of devel-
oped recreational use from low to high. These
sites were identified for treatment due to current
limited noxious weed populations which if con-
trolled may prevent invasion into riparian zones.
SOILS AND VEGETATION TYPES
Soils are an important part of the analysis primari-
ly because of the interaction of soil characteris-
tics and herbicides. Three soil characteristics of
particular importance are the percent organic
matter of the soil, the available water holdilng
capacity of the soil, and the permeability of the
soil. These three characteristics plus the chemi-
cal properties of the herbicide determine the
availability of the herbicide for uptake by plants
and its tendency to move through the soil.
When incorporated into the soil, part of the herbi-
cide dissolves in the soil water and part adsorbs
onto soil particles, primarily organic matter and
fine particles. The amount of herbicide adsorbed
onto soil particles depends on the characteristics
of the chemical and on the amount of organic
matter and fine material in the soil. Any herbicide
that remains in soil water is available for uptake
by plant roots. However, if the water moves off-
3-6
o
site or out of the rooting zone it takes some of the
dissolved herbicide with it.
As proposed in this EIS, the majority of the herbi-
cide will be applied to the road prism. Soils within
the road prism are generally devoid of organic
matter, have low water holding capacity and gen-
erally restricted permeability rates. Herbicides
applied to roads have a high risk of being carried
off-site either dissolved in water or adsorbed onto
soil particles. If these transported herbicides end
up being directed off the road and onto the un-
disturbed forest floor, then, a very good soil situa-
tion exists for retaining the herbicide in the sur-
face soils. If the transported herbicide is directed
into ditches and streams, little to no filtration will
take place.
Most undisturbed soils in North Idaho have a
surface litter layer which ranges from 2 to 5 inch-
es thick. The lower part of this litter layer is highly
decomposed and would have a high capability of
adsorbing herbicide. Below the the organic litter
layer is volcanic ash which occurs as the surface
layer of mineral soil. This ash layer ranges from 7
to 16 inches in thickness. The top part of the ash
is enriched in organic matter and the entire ash
layer has a very high water holding capacity and
herbicide-nutrient holding capacity.
The risk of herbicide moving through undis-
turbed forest soils into the ground water is low in
most places. An exception is in the lower Purcell
trench, where areas of wind blown glacial sands
have formed sand dunes with little or no volcanic
ash deposition on top of them. On these sites the
soils are not conducive to retaining herbicides
within the surface soils. Little organic matter oc-
curs, the water holding capacity is very low and
the permeability is very rapid. These soil charac-
teristics will provide easier movement of herbi-
cides through the soil, but ground water is proba-
bly quite deep in these areas.
There are two basic categories of vegetation
types associated with the projects areas: Ripari-
an areas and upland areas. There are only a
couple of sites occupying riparian areas. These
sites occur along the lower reach of Trout Creek
and one of the lower reaches of Grass Creek. The
floodplains associated with these riparian sites
are nearly level to gently sloping. High water ta-
bles are common near stream channels. As one
moves away from the stream channels the
chance of encountering a high water table dimin-
ishes.
Upland areas are where most of the sites are
located. Upland areas do not have the hydrologic
regimes and resulting moisture to support the
vegetation associated with riparian areas.
While most of the proposed treatment sites are
located in upland areas, the locations of these
sites are commonly along roads or trails often
leading to riparian areas. The Selkirk and Cabinet
Mountain ecosystems contain several species of
sensitive plants. Sensitive plant species are
those species whose population viability is deter-
mined to be a concern due to evidence of a sig-
nificant Current or predicted downward trend in
population or habitat. The vast majority of these
species habituate riparian zones. A list of species
present on the Bonners Ferry District as well as
the ecosystems they are found
in and drainage population size is part of the
project file.
Vegetation surveys have been done for all sites.
On these sites, there are no threatened or endan-
gered plant species as listed under the Endan-
gered Species Act. In addition, there are no
sensitive plant species on these sites.
Within the Selkirk Mountain ecosystem, there are
fens*, a type of wetland habitat. These are bog-
like low-gradient areas where peat soils are
formed. These sites are often dominated by
sedges and sphagnum mosses. There are 5 sen-
sitive plant species that grow primarily in these
fens. Two of the noxious weeds species, meadow
and yellow hawkweed, would find this habitat
suitable for colonization.
* Fen A non-acidic peat forming wetland that
receives nutrients from sources other than pre-
cipitation, usually through ground water move-
ment. Most fens have standing water dominated
by emergent vegetation, open peatland with
sedges and short shrubs, or raised peat domi-
nated by shrubs and trees.
3-7
WILDLIFE
Several threatened and endangered animal spe-
cies may occur or have suitable habitat in the
project areas. These are the grizzly bear (threat-
ened), the woodland caribou, the northern Rocky
Mountain wolf (gray wolf), and the bald eagle (all
three listed as endangered). Further information
on these species can be found in the Biological
Evaluation.
Treatment areas include the recovery zones for
the Selkirk Mountain and Cabinet/Yaak Grizzly
Bear Ecosystems. The woodland caribou recov-
ery zone is also included in some treatment areas
in higher elevations of the Selkirk Mountains. Al-
though the recovery zone for gray wolves is fur-
ther south in central Idaho, the Idaho Panhandle
is a transition area and is used by wolves travel-
ling from Canada to the south. The entire district
is within the generalized recovery zone for bald
eagles, but habitat only occurs within treatment
areas in the Robinson Lake vicinity and the vicini-
ty of the Kootenai River along the Katka Road.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has developed
recovery plans for all four species. Copies of
these recovery plans are available at the Idaho
Panhandle National Forest’s Supervisor's Office.
There are numerous species of wildlife designat-
ed as sensitive by the Region 1 Regional Forest-
er. Those known to be present, or whose habitat
occurs near treatment areas, are the eleven spe-
cies listed for the Bonners Ferry Ranger District.
These are: Coeur d'Alene salamander, common
loon, harlequin duck, boreal owl, flammulated
owl, black-backed woodpecker, lynx, fisher, wol-
verine, Townsend's big-eared bat, northern bog
lemming. Of these, two species are not known to
occur on the district, and have marginal habitat.
These are common loon and Townsend's big-
eared bat.
Further information on these species is present-
ed in the Biological Evaluation.
The Bonners Ferry Ranger District has four spe-
cies which are used as management indicator
species. These are pileated woodpecker, gos-
hawk, pine marten and white-tailed deer. These
species vary in abundance from uncommon
(goshawk) to abundant (white-tailed deer).
Pileated woodpecker, goshawk and pine marten
prefer older timbered stands, and white-tailed
deer prefer a mixture of timbered stands with
some openings.
Other faunal groups of concern include a diverse
group commonly referred to as neotropical mi-
grant birds. These birds typically are small song-
birds that migrate from northern breeding
grounds to the neotropics for the winter, but as a
management group also include resident birds
such as chickadees. Many of these birds are in-
sectivorous, but some are granivorous. Their
habitat requirements vary from virtually rocky
slopes (rock wrens), to meadows and lower seral
stages (chipping sparrows), to densely timbered
old growth stands (winter wren). Around 150 spe- .
cies occur within the great elevational distances
of the treatment areas.
WATER QUALITY
Both the Kootenai and Moyie Rivers flow through
the Bonners Ferry Ranger District. The headwa-
ters for both rivers are in Canada, the Kootenai
River also flows through the State of Montana.
Beyond the confluence of the Moyie and
Kootenai Rivers, The Kootenai flows west and
north back into Canada. The Idaho Department
of Health and Welfare Rules and Regulations,
Title 1, chapter 2, "Water Quality Standards and
Waste Water Treatment Requirements" identify
the beneficial uses for these rivers. The beneficial
uses include: Domestic water supply, Agricultur-
al water supply, Cold water biota, Salmonid
spawning, Primary and Secondary contact recre-
ation. Both rivers have been identified as a Spe-
cial Resource Waters.
There are several municipal watersheds within
the District. Myrtle Creek is the municipal water-
shed for the community of Bonners Ferry. Twen-
tymile and Brown Creeks are the water sources
for the Naples Area. Mission Creek is the water-
shed for the Mount Hall Area. Caribou Creek is
the watershed for the Deep Creek Area.
Myrtle Creek and the Moyie River are both stream
segments of concern. Site specific BMP’s have
3-8
been developed but do not deal with herbicide
application. The primary concern for Myrtle
Creek is oil contamination from spills. There are
no Outstanding Resource Waters on the Bonners
Ferry Ranger District.
The Water Quality Antidegradation Policy (IDAPA
16.01.2051) states that the existing instream wa-
ter uses and the level of water quality necessary
to protect the existing uses shall be maintained
and protected. The Idaho Forest Practices Act,
Title 38, Chapter 13, Idaho Code, Rule 6 lists Best
Management Practices applicable to the use of
chemicals. BMP’s applied to these proposed
projects are discussed in Chapter 4 and the sec-
tion on Mitigation Measures.
IDAPA 16.01.2250 adopts the National Toxic Rule
water quality standards for acceptable levels of
toxic substances.
Wetlands, Floodplains, and Riparian Areas.
There are no proposed activities within wetlands.
As mentioned in a preceeding section "Soils and
Vegetation", proposed activities are designed to
keep the noxious weed species from invading
wetlands in the Selkirk and Cabinet Mountain
ecosystems and some of the wetlands in the Pur-
cell Mountain ecosystem. Activities are proposed
in two floodplain/riparian areas.
GRASS CREEK
Approximately 0.25 acre of meadow hawk-
weed has been identified in a riparian area in
Grass Creek. The site is between the creek
and road #636, approximately 1/4 mile from
Boundary Creek. The riparian vegetation
consists of cedar, spruce and hemlock trees
with understory shrubs. The population of
hawkweed is spotty and could be effectively
treated with 2,4-D.
The majority of Grass Creek is characterized
as having a low gradient, fairly straight chan-
nel pattern. It flows through a narrow, gently
sloping, U-shaped glacial valley. The Use
Designation for Grass Creek is Primary Con-
tact Recreation (IDAPA, 1992). The Forest
Service also recognizes Cold Water Biota
and Salmonid Spawning as uses for Grass
Creek. Grass Creek is a Class | Stream per
definitions of the Idaho Forest Practices Act.
Grass Creek has been identified as an impor-
tant fisheries stream in the Forest Plan (IPNF,
1987). The majority of the length of Grass
Creek is MA 16.
TROUT CREEK
Meadow hawkweed populations are located
adjacent to Trout Creek along road #417. In
this area, the creek has been channelized
and rip rap has been placed against the
south bank. The channel bottom consists of
cobble and smaller boulders. An island of
deposited cobble sized material is located in
the middle of the creek. Vegetation on the
island consists of alder and cedar. Meadow
hawkweed has also infesting the island. The
conifer vegetation on the island is approxi-
mately 10 years of age, indicating that the
island has been stable for several years. Ri-
parian vegetation is mostly absent from the
banks of the stream. Vegetation consists of
grass (quack grass with some timothy) and
occasional clumps of alder. There is a grove
of dense cedar trees between the road and
grassy area, no hawkweed was observed
within the densely timbered area.
4
et rh (boty! See a Genie = i 2 Oe Me eae <The be ney Me LD
sche \wased Wane Tint ie epee: unin ey Win gare ROT Mine SNS aes sal ee rae ve eobe
7 = Sere i<
gst Ay Sige &” + JPRS wey ™ 454 V4 et) ‘ i Pe. eee ee a t 4
l? e e t ° 7. 4 PY + \ oc 3 7 _ an ae © . ive r] an
brotcx teller: @ ar Fi eRe tsp ae See ae #- ia ae
) oy —y Of anu ao Aa
“pie ba ¢ ey a ay : 1 wa uw avi oA j bach ow
‘ “eg WES 9 ids ie wi eer, Ae a ie ; - As
‘ r <i i ws Poe re 4
een y
PK ein rie il 7” oe rays 5 Lab ties : te At 7 7h weet’ es “
Wes lt Th) De Se Lid al. Thar ficken hal Sey Se Se oa
we Cem pf Howes in TNT EE De R oe L Gm tote BD GTS Fe Pais We aad .
uAERy Mah m is leah ee & ALM e Pe) a ror jue? rene). belt “wr andl NERY "Ps
A Se ne ee et ee a ae 1? Orne Sr uate 2a eed PEG ken gy
tee sere ‘* ®) eat wast . re ey > ididladstainde ot pescibnen ps4 Mi
gqtany ¢ iS > ou ode a eo Re : he iy ae ye 2 vy canraaiiaes - as
ee * ; ‘ pant “Sao 2 Asia velne ephhd, tT paey) -"%
b ? ‘ ‘ en -
4
7
r
r
-
4
;
i Se ob eee
a7
do? digits el Benign ai eaenae sc
: ~— FY aen -— Lgyfl. ee | WaRes See< ©
* 1" Fee ole ars 2 2 Gy 05 8
2 Sith oe : @ tooou vegan "ees nad?
: | i | eo Soe Sit Campoet Mest sn
- wy SNe ee in AE BOR He $F
> 'atp? ans 4 ge Peete 9 ore
a ee ht al on tant a5
\ : View ; oe : mieten a ;
ita : a yr oe 8 ree | a
it OR |
. : edn AAs ht -
pal oe Sees ae pat
pede 3 nea
wy ee
CHAPTER IV
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
INTRODUCTION
This chapter evaluates the potential environmental
consequences of each of the alternatives on each
site. This evaluation considers the following:
- direct effects
- indirect effects
- cumulative effects
- probable environmental effects that cannot
be avoided
- possible conflicts with the plans and policies
of other jurisdictions
- the relationship between short-term use and
long-term productivity
- the irreversible and irretrievable commitment
-of resources
Potential environmental consequences are evaluat-
ed for each of the affected resources described in
Chapter 3. Definitions of the different types of effects
are listed below.
1. Direct effects are caused by the action
and occur at the same time or place.
2. Indirect effects are caused by the action
and are later in time or farther removed in
distance but still reasonably foreseeable.
3. Cumulative effects are the impacts which
result from the action when added to other
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
future actions regardless of which agency or
person undertakes such actions. For exam-
ple, the potential for cumulative impacts on
water quality from several herbicide projects
in a given watershed is addressed in the sec-
tion entitled Fisheries and Surface Water
Quality.
4-1
ORGANIZATION OF THIS
CHAPTER
The discussion of the environmental impacts of the
various alternatives is intended to be site-specific
without being tediously repetitive. For each re-
source presented in Chapter 3, environmental im-
pacts are discussed for the various site alternatives.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ON
AFFECTED RESOURCES
AIR QUALITY
The no-action alternative and the non-chemical
control alternatives would have no impacts on air
quality if implemented on any of the sites.
Alternatives that involve spraying of herbicides
would have a short-term, localized impact on air
quality because ofthe drift of spray particles. Gener-
ally the greatest part of this drift would settle out
within 25 feet of the site, although small amounts
could carry greater distances (USDA Forest Serv-
ice, 1993). The smell of chemicals such as 2,4-D
may also persist at a spray site for several days
following spraying.
FISHERIES and SURFACE WATER QUALITY
The discussion of impacts of the alternatives on
surface water quality has been combined with the
section on fisheries because of the relationship be-
tween topics. The discussion of groundwater quality
is provided in the section on soils.
INDICATORS
The following analysis will focus on the effects to
water quality, the toxic characteristic of each herbi-
cide, and the concentration of herbicide to which
aquatic biota are exposed.
EFFECTS SPECIFIC TO ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: No Action
Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects
As discussed in greater detail in the section on Veg-
etative Community Diversity, without treatment it be-
comes increasingly likely that noxious weeds will
become more widely established across the Bon-
ners Ferry Ranger District. An indirect effect of nox-
ious weed invasion could be increased water runoff
and sediment yield from infested sites. Lacey et al.
(1989) have shown an almost three-fold increase in
sediment yield from knapweed sites compared to a
non-infested bunch grass site. Runoff increased by
about 50 percent from the knapweed site.
At the present time, most infested sites are along
road clearings. Noxious weeds are probably having
little effect on sediment yield in comparison to other
road related activities (road use, maintenance, etc.).
Impacts from future spread of the weeds would de-
pend on the slope, soil characteristics, precipitation
patterns, and distance to water from the infested
sites. However, even under the worst-case noxious
weed infestation scenario, it is unlikely that increase
in sediment yield to streams would be sufficient to
affect fisheries or water quality.
Alternative 2: Manual and Cultural Control
Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects
Manual treatment would result in localized soil dis-
turbance. An increase in sediment to streams from
the manual treatment along road cuts and fills and
within the two riparian areas is possible, but the
increase would likely be undetectable for several
reasons. First, disturbed areas would be replanted
with grass seed after treatment reducing erosion as
roots became established . Second, not all sedi-
ment reaching ditchlines would be transported di-
rectly to streams. Many ditchlines are intercepted by
4-2
relief culverts, which drain onto the forest floor. Fi-
nally, soil disturbance would be minimal and local-
ized in comparison to the entire watershed.
Cultural treatments (seeding, transplanting, and fer-
tilizing) would not effect fisheries. Fertilizers would
be applied according to Forest Service and manu-
facture guidelines. Runoff nutrient concentrations
therefore would not be large enough to enrich
streams. Seeding and transplanting would involve
limited soil disturbance. There are no cumulative
effects with this alternative.
Alternative 3: Manual, Cultural, and Biological
Control
Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects
Effects from manual and cultural treatments are sim-
ilar to those displayed in alternative 2. Release of
biocontrol. agents would have no direct effect on
fisheries or surface water quality. The biocontrol
agents would not compete with aquatic insect spe-
cies since their food base is very specific, nor would
they provide more than an incidental food source for
fish. There are no cumulative effects with this alter-
native.
Alternative 4: Manual, Cultural, Biological, and
Chemical Control
Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects
Effects from manual, cultural, and biological treat-
ments are similar to those displayed in alternatives
2 and 3.
The herbicides proposed for use on these site are
all characterized by relatively low aquatic toxicity.
The 96-hour LC,, for the four herbicides is provided
in Table 4-1. The 96-hour LC, refers to the concen-
tration that is lethal to 50 percent of the fish exposed
at that level for 96 hours. The lower the LC,, the
more toxic the compound.
Table 4-1.Toxic levels of herbicides to fish
96 hour LC50 LC50 divided NOEL
(milligram/liter) by 10 (milligram/liter)
a ah
iim eae oo
Notes: 2,4-D, dicamba, and picloram values are taken from Mayer and Ellersieck 1986 and Woodward
1976 and 1979. Clopyralid value is from Dow Chemical Company 1986.
2,4-D acid is the parent compound which is formulated in a variety of forms, including the amine which
would be used under the 2,4-D alternative.
Herbicide
(test species)
Clopyralid
(rainbow trout)
2,4-D acid
(cutthroat trout)
2,4-D amine
(rainbow trout)
Dicamba
(rainbow trout
Although the LC., is frequently used as a toxicity site. On a runoff-dominated site, rainfall is more like-
standard, fifty percent fish mortality is generally not ly to produce overland flow. These two classes of
acceptable. Because we often do not have long- sites are differentiated on the basis of vegetative
term test results that provide safe concentrations or cover, soil type, degree of disturbance and compac-
no-observed-effect levels (NOEL), the U.S. EPA has tion, and slope. The majority of the proposed treat-
recommended that the 96-hour LC,, be divided by ment sites are runoff-dominated (road cuts and
10 to set a standard for concentrations to protect fills), except for Saddle Creek, where the majority of
aquatic species (U.S. EPA 1986). Table 4-1 provides the proposed treatment sites are previously har-
these concentrations, which are used as a bench- vested stands adjacent to roads. Roads enhance
mark to judge the significance of possible impacts. runoff by concentrating flows on compacted road
It is interesting to note that the NOEL for picloram surfaces and ditches, intersecting groundwater flow
developed from long-term laboratory studies corre- from cut slopes, and using coarse material with low
sponds fairly closely to the LC,, divided by 10 (see organic matter to create the fill slope. Since the
Table 4-1). Saddle Creek sites are undisturbed forest soils, they
were determined to be infittration-dominated.
The second part of the risk analysis for aquatic spe-
cies involves determining the possible herbicide Based on a review of scientific studies of picloram
concentration in streams. Field studies of pesticide runoff to streams (Rice 1990), it is estimated that a
spray operations have shown that pesticide input to maximum of 10 percent of the herbicide applied on
streams ranged from non-detectible to 6 percent of a runoff-dominated site and 1 percent on an infiltra-
the amount applied (as reviewed in Monnig 1988). tion dominated site could be lost to the stream ina
six hour period. Because of its relatively long envi-
In order to predict the potential water quality im- ronmental persistence and relatively low soil ad-
pacts of herbicide applications on the sites under sorption (high mobility), picloram represents the
consideration, it is important to distinguish between worst case of the herbicides analyzed here.
infiltration-dominated sites and runoff-dominated
sites. In all but the most severe conditions, rainfall On this basis, the worst-case concentrations of her-
percolates into the soil on an infittration-dominated bicide can be calculated for drainages in the vicinity
4-3
of the proposed treatment sites. Each seasons en-
tire herbicide application was calculated per drain-
age as if weeds were sprayed continuously along
each road in a matter of a few days instead of over
a period of 1 to 2 months. It was assumed that a
severe thunderstorm could wash 10 percent of the
active ingredient into the stream on_ runoff-
dominated sites and 1 percent on infiltration domi-
nated sites over a six hour period. The average
cubic feet per second (cfs) water yield for the month
of July was used to calculate the liters of water
produced during an average 6 hour time period.
Herbicide application is conducted mid-May
through early August, stream flow for the month of
July was used as a worse case since the July flow
is much lower than the June flow. Five year average
water yield was used to calculate the yields for Boul-
der, Smith and Boundary Creeks, this information
was obtained from stream guages. The yield per
acre of drainage from these drainages was used to
calculate an estimated cfs water flow for the remain-
ing drainages. See Table 4-3 for results..
With this methodology, Meadow Creek showed the
highest concentration of Picloram at 0.0287 mg/L
(Table 4-3). Grass Creek showed the highest con-
centration of 2,4-D at 0.0690 milligrams per liter (a
mg/L is equivalent to a part per million). These re-
sults are well below the estimated NOEL. With the
average july CFS water yield of these drainages, this
analysis shows that 100 percent of the application
amount scheduled for each drainage could be
washed into the creek over a period of 6 hours and
the concentration would still be less than NOEL.
Again it should be emphasized that these calcula-
tions represent a worst case scenario and the prob-
ability that these concentrations would be reached
is very low, It is unlikely that any herbicide would be
detected in stream water as a result of these spray
operations because of the low level of herbicide use
spread over a period of 2 months or more compared
to the water yield in these drainages over the same
period of time.
A report by Scott et al. (1976), of the Fish and Wild-
life Service, concluded that a concentration of 0.6
ppm picloram decreased cutthroat fry growth by
25%. No adverse effects were observed when con-
centrations were below 0.3 ppm. Woodward (1979)
concluded that picloram increased the mortality of
fry in concentration above 1.3 ppm and reduced
their growth in concentrations above 0.61 ppm
4-4
when exposure exceeded 20 days. Worst case sce-
nario concentrations calculated in Table 4-3 are well
below these documented effect levels or the 0.35
mg/L concentration listed in Table 4-1.
Concentrations for clopyralid, dicamba, and 2,4-D
that could enter streams under a worst case scenar-
io are also low, see Table 4-3. The highest concen-
tration of clopyralid, dicamba, and 2,4-D is .0209
mg/L, .0155 mg/L, and .3478 mg/L respectively.
These are far below the LC., divided by 10 value
reported in Table 4-1.
When herbicides are applied, there is often concern
that they will bioconcentrate in organisms through
uptake and retention by tissue or gills. For this to
occur, retention of a pollutant must exhibit a high
resistance to breakdown or excretion by an organ-
ism to allow a sufficient uptake period for an elevat-
ed concentration. A high concentration must also
be applied for an extended period of time. Bidlack
(1980) studied channel catfish exposed up to 28
days to picloram at 1 ppm (mg/L). Analysis showed
that picloram did not bioconcentrate. Each herbi-
cide proposed has worst case scenario concentra-
tions below 1 mg/L and would not be applied over
an extended period. Therefore, there is a low risk of
bioconcentrating.
Concern is sometimes expressed over the possible
cumulative or synergistic effects of mixtures of
chemicals on sensitive resources. Synergism is a
special type of interaction where combined effect of
a certain herbicide with other chemicals in the envi-
ronment is greater than the effect of any one chemi-
cal alone. This issue is discussed in greater detail in
the section on Human Health Impacts. As noted
there, EPA currently supports an additive model in
predicting such interactions. Even with the assump-
tion that the chemicals are present simultaneously,
their additive concentrations are still well below the
NOEL thresholds. Furthermore, where more than
one herbicide is applied, the dosage would be re-
duced (personal communication, Bob Klarich).
From the small doses expected from this project,
synergistic effects are not expected.
Herbicides can also indirectly influence fish popula-
tions by affecting the populations of other organ-
isms upon which fish are dependent. Table 4-2 pro-
vides toxicity data for other aquatic organisms (eg.
macro-invertebrates).
As indicated in Table 4-2, these herbicides are gen- Wildlife Service and the U.S. EPA as indicators of a
erally less toxic to lower orders of aquatic organisms
than to fish species. Although the species listed in ; ae
Table 4-2 are not the only aquatic organisms found case concentrations of the herbicides in water are
in these waters, they are used by the U.S. Fish and well below levels that would affect these organisms.
wide range of aquatic organisms. Again, the worst-
Table 4-2.Toxic levels of herbicides to aquatic organisms other than fish
Clopyralid Daphnids (Daphnia sp.) 48 hr LC50 is 225 mg/L
Clopyralid Ram’s horn snail (Helisoma No mortality after 48 hours in a solution
trivolvis) containing 1 mg/L
Clopyralid Green Algae (Se/enastrum 96 hr LC50 is 61 mg/L
capricornutum)
48 hr LC50 is greater than 100 mg/L
Dicamba Daphnia magna 96 hr LC50 is greater than 100 mg/L
Picloram Scuds (Gammarus fasciatus)
Picloram Scuds (Gammarus pseudolimnae- | 96 hr LC50 is 16.5 mg/L
us)
Picloram Stonefly (Pteronarcys californica) | 96 hr LC5O is 4.8 mg/L
Values provided on this table are taken from Mayer and Ellersieck 1986 (2,4-D, dicamba, and picloram)
and Dow Chemical Company 1986 and undated (clopyralid).
on a specific site is not affecting a specific aquatic
It must be recognized that Forest Service spraying resource does not exonerate all possible applica-
is minimal compared to the overall use of herbi- tions of these herbicides. The U.S. EPA has the
cides. A demonstration that Forest Service spraying overall responsibility for determining the possible
4-5
aquatic and other environmental impacts of these
herbicides under their registered use patterns. If
unacceptable impacts are suspected, the EPA must
require additional testing and monitoring under the
pesticide registration process. During the registra-
tion or reregistration of these compounds, the EPA
did not identify impacts to aquatic organisms as a
major concern. In fact, the EPA continues to allow
the application of some formulations of 2,4-D direct-
ly to water. The major surface water concern identi-
fied for picloram is the possible contamination of
irrigation water and effects downstream on sensitive
crops.
Municipal Watersheds
Spraying is proposed in two municipal watersheds
above the water system diversion points. These
streams are Caribou Creek and Myrtle Creek. The
National Toxic Rule has set water quality standards
for acceptable levels of compounds in surface wa-
ter. The acceptable level of 2,4-D for domestic water
supplies is 93 micrograms per liter (ug/L). The ac-
ceptable level of 2,4-D for waters that support or-
ganisms for human consumption is 790 ug/L.
The results of the worst case scenario discussed
above were converted to ug/L. Under the worst case
scenario, the concentration of 2,4-D for Caribou
Creek was 5.1 ug/L and the concentration of 2,4-D
for Myrtle Creek was 17 ug/L. Both figures are well
below the acceptable level established by the Na-
tional Toxic Rule. Again it should be emphasized
that these calculations represent a worst case sce-
nario and the probability that these concentrations
would be reached is very low.
Table 4-3 Herbicide Concentrations mg/L (ug/L) Worst Case Scenario
Boulder Creek 0.0068
Snow Creek 0.0108
Meadow Creek
Grass Creek
Saddle Creek
N - Herbicide not planned for
use in this drainage.
a CC CC
Best Management Practices
Rule 6 of the Rules and Regulations Pertaining to
the Idaho Forest Practices Act Title 38, Chapter 13,
Idaho Code pertain to the use of chemicals. The
purpose of these rules is to regulate handling, stor-
age and application of chemicals in such a way that
the public health and aquatic and terrestrial habitats
will not be endangered by contamination of streams
or other bodies of water. The rules have generally
been adopted by the Forest Service as standard
operational procedures.
There is one exception. One rule requires that at
least 25 feet be left untreated on each side of all
Class | steams, flowing Class Il streams and areas
of open water. As discussed in Chapter Ill, there are
two locations where treatment of meadow hawk-
weed is proposed within this zone, Trout Creek and
Grass Creek. For these cases, a Request for Forest
Practice Variance will be filed with the Idaho State
Department of Lands. The request will be to use
forms of the herbicide 2,4-D that have been certified
for use over water within this zone. The herbicide
would not be sprayed directly on water but would be
spot sprayed by hand directly on hawkweed plants
up to the edge of the water.
In summary, the direct, indirect, and cumulative
water-quality impacts of these projects would be
minimal. Under reasonable assumptions, it can be
concluded that no herbicides would be detected in
surface water at the part-per-billion detection limit, if
a decision were made to apply herbicides. Effects
on aquatic organisms under normal-use scenarios
should not be detectable.
The impacts could be more serious in the event of
a spill of herbicides directly into a small stream. It is
not possible to predict the concentration or duration
of contamination in advance. However, a spill could
result in localized fish mortality, especially to young
fingerlings, or mortality to the early developmental
stages of other aquatic organisms. BMP direction
will be followed in the case of a spill. Also see spill
plan in Appendices.
HUMAN RESOURCES and HUMAN HEALTH
No-Action Alternative
The spread of noxious weeds within the National
Forest is likely to have little impact on human health
4-7
and safety. There are deleterious health impacts on
humans. Certain noxious weeds are on County and
State noxious weed lists due to there impacts to
human health. Human reaction to certain weeds
ranges from inducement of allergic reaction to
death (as is the case of poison hemlock). Even
though there is potential for such impacts, occur-
ances have been few to date.
Some people have a strong emotional response to
the prospect of noxious weeds in the National For-
est. The possibility of increased spread would likely
affect their enjoyment of the forest resources.
Manual Treatment
The impacts to human health and safety from manu-
al treatment are likely to be minor. Possible effects
include a variety of sprains, cuts, and skin irritation
to the individuals performing the work. It is likely that
there would be a high turnover in the workforce
doing manual treatment.
Cultural Treatment
The burning of individual knapweed plants presents
little risk to human health or safety. There is the
chance of minor burns to workers.
Biological Treatment
The release of biological control agents for Canada
thistle poses no threat to human health or safety.
Treatment with Herbicides
There is a wide variety of opinions within the general
population on the value and safety of pesticides,
including the herbicides proposed here. Many peo-
ple, particularly in rural and agricultural settings,
view pesticides as a necessary part of business
and, if used properly, a relatively safe tool. Increas-
ingly, however, the risks of pesticide use are being
questioned.
The Northern Region of the Forest Service (Region
1) has analyzed the risk of the use of clopyralid,
2,4-D, dicamba, and picloram to control noxious
weeds. This analysis is presented in two docu-
ments: Risk Assessment for Herbicide Use in Forest
Service Regions 1,2,3,4, and 10 and on Bonneville
Power Administration Sites and Human Health Risk
Assessment fot Herbicide Application to Control
Noxious Weeds and Poisonous Plants in the North-
ern Region. This is highly recommended reading for
pesticide users and those analyzing projects such
as those dicuseed in this document. These docu-
ments are incorporated into this EIS by reference
and are included as part of the project file. The
salient findings of these Risk Assessment are pre-
sented below.
The analysis of the human health risk from pesticide
use follows the same basic format as outlined under
the section on fisheries. The toxicity information is
reviewed for the herbicides of interest in order to
determine the levels of these chemicals that would
be injurious to human health. Exposures and doses
that might occur as a result of these projects are
then estimated for workers and members of the
general public. In the final step, the toxic effect lev-
els established in the first step are compared to
dose levels to determine the possibility of health
impacts.
A considerable body of test data on laboratory ani-
mals is available for these herbicides. Most of these
tests have been conducted as a requirement for
EPA registration of these compounds for use in the
U.S. It should be noted that none of these com-
pounds have completed all tests required for final
registration. Current Federal regulations allow for
conditional registration pending the completion of
all tests and the discovery of no unreasonable ad-
verse affects in the interim. This allowance for con-
tinued use before all testing is completed concerns
some members of the public and has led to charges
that “untested” pesticides are allowed on the mar-
ket.
All the pesticides analyzed here have been subject-
ed to long-term feeding studies that test for general
systemic effects such as kidney and liver damage.
In addition, tests of the effects on reproductive sys-
tems, mutagenicity (birth defects), and carcinoge-
nicity (cancer) have been — conducted.
No-observed-effect levels (NOEL) are available for
most types of tests. A NOEL is the highest dose in
a particular test that did not result in adverse health
impacts to the test organism.
Extrapolating a NOEL from an animal study to hu-
mans, however, is an uncertain process. The
U.S.EPA compensates for this uncertainty by divid-
ing NOELs from animal tests by a safety factor (typi-
4-8
cally 100) when deciding how much pesticide will be
allowed on various foods. This adjusted dose level
is referred to as the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI)
and is presumed by the EPA to be a dose that is
safe even if received every day for a lifetime.
The ADI is a convenient comparison point for deter-
mining the significance of doses that people might
receive from these weed-control projects. All doses
to members of the general public would be below
the ADI for the herbicides of concern. A concern
raised occasionally is that persons gather wild
foods and could gather foods directly sprayed with
herbicide. This would be virtually impossible at any
of the spray sites. The only wild foods commonly
used are a few huckleberries. Spraying would typi-
Cally occur about three weeks to two months before
the fruit ripened, and plants that were unintentional-
ly sprayed would not develop fruit.
Worker doses for picloram, dicamba, and clopyralid
are likely to be below the ADI if reasonable safety
precautions are used. The worker doses of 2,4-D
could exceed the ADI, but the risks would be very
small because the spraying would take only a few
weeks per year and the ADI assumes a lifetime of
doses.
There is the possibility of idiosyncratic responses
such as hypersensitivity on the part of a small per-
centage of the population. These persons are gen-
erally aware of their sensitivities since they are typi-
Cally triggered by a variety of natural and synthetic
compounds. Such persons would not be permitted
to work on the spray crews.
The issue of delayed effects of low levels of chemi-
cal exposure is raised by some people. Principal
among these effects is cancer. All of these herbi-
cides have undergone testing for cancer. Clopyralid
and dicamba tests have shown no evidence of can-
Cer initiation or promotion. The evidence for 2,4-D
and picloram has been more widely debated. Cur-
rent evidence is mixed, and these compounds
seem at most weakly carcinogenic. Appendix B
contains a letter from Dr. John Graham of the Har-
vard University School of Public Health that summa-
rizes the current evidence on 2,4-D. As noted in the
letter, the weight of evidence that 2,4-D is a carcino-
gen is not strong, and even if it is ultimately shown
to be an animal carcinogen, it is unlikely to be a very
potent one.
Nonetheless, the Risk Assessments cited above as-
sume that the two herbicides are carcinogens.
These analyses also assume that any dose of a
carcinogen could cause cancer and that the proba-
bility of cancer increases with increasing dose. Esti-
mations of the probability of developing cancer from
exposure to these compounds are based on a con-
servative extrapolation from cancer rates in animals
subjected to the chemical over a lifetime. The pro-
jected cancer rates are highest for workers since
their doses are highest. Even here the risks seem
relatively low compared to other commonly encoun-
tered risks. For example, one round-trip transconti-
nental air trip carries with it an increased risk of
cancer from cosmic rays on the order of 1 in a
million. A similar increased risk of cancer accumu-
lates from living in Denver for 1.5 months compared
to living at sea level, again because of cosmic rays.
Smoking 2 cigarettes increases the risk of cancer by
1 in a million, as does eating 6 pounds of peanut
butter (due to aflatoxin exposure). Cancer probabili-
ties of workers would increase by about 1 ina million
after spraying 2,4-D for 137 days or spraying piclo-
ram for about 11,000 days. Since the average Amer-
ican has about a1 in 4 chance of developing cancer
in his or her lifetime, the cumulative impact from
spraying at the rates proposed would not be signifi-
cant.
Concerns are occasionally raised about the cumu-
lative and synergistic interactions of the pesticides
and other chemicals in the environment. Synergism
is a special type of interaction in which the cumula-
tive impact of two or more chemicals is greater than
the impact predicted by adding their individual ef-
fects. The Risk Assessments referenced above ad-
dress the possibility of a variety of such interactions.
These include the interaction of the active
ingredients in a pesticide formulation with its inert
ingredients; the interactions of these chemicals with
other chemicals in the environment; and the cumu-
lative impacts of spraying proposed here and other
herbicide spraying the public might be exposed to.
The basic conclusions are as follows: We cannot
absolutely guarantee the absence of a synergistic
interaction between the pesticides examined here
and other chemicals to which workers or the public
might be exposed. It is possible, for example, that
exposure to benzene, a known carcinogen that
comprises 1 to 5 percent of automobile fuel and 2.5
percent of automobile exhaust, followed by expo-
sure to any of these herbicides could result in unex-
4-9
pected biochemical interactions. Testing the virtual-
ly infinite number of chemical combinations would
be impossible.
There are anumber of reasons to expect that syner-
gistic or other unusual cumulative interactions
would be very rare. Ames (1983) pointed out that
many naturally occurring chemicals in the food peo-
ple eat are teratogenic, mutagenic, and carcinogen-
ic, and they are consumed at doses 10,000 times
higher than man-made herbicides. Therefore, the
low, short-lived doses that would result from spray-
ing these herbicides are very small compared to
many other chemicals in the environment. For these
relatively small doses, a synergistic effect is not real-
istically expected (Crouch et al. 1983). The EPA
came to a similar conclusion in a discussion entitled
Guidelines for the Health Risk Assessment of Chemi-
cals (Federal Register September 24, 1986). They
suggest in their discussion of interactions (synergis-
tic or antagonistic effects) that "there seems to be
consensus that for public health concerns regard-
ing Causative (toxic) agents, the additive model is
more appropriate (than any multiplicative model).*
In summary, although ironclad guarantees cannot
be given, we would reasonably expect that the hu-
man health impacts from herbicide applications on
these sites would be insignificantly small.
RANGE
No-Action Alternative
The increasing spread of noxious weeds would lead
to a reduction of available forage for both livestock
and wildlife.
Manual and Cultural Treatment
Assuming that these treatments could prevent the
spread of noxious weeds, there would be no impact
from this alternative on range resources. dif, as ex-
pected, funds are not adequate to implement this
alternative, weeds would continue to spread, and
the impacts would be similar to the no-action alter-
native.
Cultural Treatment
Impacts could be similar to the manual alternative if
weeds continued to spread.
Biological Control
Assuming that biological control of Canada thistle
did diminish the competitive advantage of this spe-
cies, there should be no impact from this alternative
on range resources. If the method is ineffective,
then other alternatives would have to be consid-
ered.
Treatment with Herbicides
The use of herbicides could greatly reduce the
probability of the spread of weeds. As noted in the
Risk Assessments cited in the section on Human
Health, feeding studies with cattle have shown low
toxicity for these compounds. Toxicity levels are well
above those levels that would be encountered by
packstock eating treated grass. Feeding studies are
not available for horses, but common observation of ©
horses grazing in treated areas indicates no effect
from these herbicides.
RECREATION
No Action Alternative
The spread of noxious weeds could negatively im-
pact the recreational use and enjoyment of the Cab-
inet, Purcell, and Selkirk Mountain Ecosystems. For
many people the presence of noxious weeds is evi-
dence of negative human impact and negligence in
stewardship of natural resources..
Manual and Cultural Treatment
lf these treatments were vigorously implemented to
prevent the spread of weeds, they would prevent
the negative impacts of exotic species on recre-
ational opportunities.
A complete program of manual and cultural treat-
ment, would require the labor of about 170 individu-
als over an 88 day period. A workforce of this size
would significantly affect wilderness solitude of rec-
reationists. The magnitude of this program would
significantly affect the condition of trails, campsites,
range, and other physical and biological resources.
Biological Treatment
The release of biological control agents would have
no direct impacts on recreational opportunities. If
4-10
the method is successful in reducing the impact of
Canada thistle, then it could have some positive
indirect effect on recreational opportunities.
Herbicide Treatment
Treatment with herbicides could greatly decrease
the likelihood of the spread of non-native vegetation
to the Selkirk and Cabinet Mountain Ecosystems on
the Bonners Ferry Ranger District thus minimizing
the weeds’ impact on recreation. However, the treat-
ment itself could affect recreational users, particu-
larly during the short period of time during which
treatment would occur on these sites.
The visual impact of spraying would be quite tempo-
rary and on most sites would only last a few hours
or less.
Once the spraying was completed, the evidence of
spraying would not be obvious. The sprayed weeds
would begin to yellow and wither, but the process
would not look much different from the natural wilt-
ing of plants that are going dormant.
SOILS and GROUNDWATER QUALITY
Non-chemical Alternatives
As noted in the section on fisheries, there is some
evidence that erosion rates are higher on
knapweed-infested ground than on native grass-
land sites.
The non-chemical alternatives would have no signif-
icant impact on groundwater quality.
Treatment with Herbicides
The soil characteristics of a site are an important
consideration in the decision to use herbicides. As
noted in the section on soils in Chapter 3, three
characteristics are particularly relevant: the percent
organic matter of the soil, the available water capac-
ity of the soil, and the permeability of the soil.
When incorporated into the soil, part of the herbi-
cide dissolves in the soil moisture and part adsorbs
onto soil particles, primarily organic matter and fine
particles. The amount of herbicide adsorbed onto
soil particles depends on the characteristics of the
chemical and on the amount of organic matter and
fine material in the soil. Any herbicide that remains
in soil water is available for uptake by plant roots.
However, if the water moves off-site or out of the
rooting zone it takes some of the dissolved herbi-
cide with it. The distance of travel and the concen-
tration of the herbicide determine whether this her-
bicide movement is a problem.
All the herbicides analyzed here have some soil
activity, that is, they dissolve to some extent in water
and can be adsorbed fairly readily from soil mois-
ture by susceptible plants. These herbicides can
move with water as it moves through soil.
Although these herbicides are all water soluble and
soil active to some extent, they vary significantly in
persistence in the environment. As we discussed in
Chapter 2, persistence is not necessarily anegative .
characteristic when combatting noxious weeds,
provided the mobility of the chemical is controlled.
These species all produce many seeds that remain
viable in the soil for long periods and many species
have rhizomes not directly contacted by the spray.
Long-term control control requires either multiple
applications of low-persistence chemicals or less
frequent applications of more persistent chemicals.
The critical element to consider is whether a more
persistent chemical such as picloram can be held
on the site to do the job it is intended to do.
Since these chemicals can move with water, we
must consider the permeablilty and water-holding
capacity of the soil on a site. These properties deter-
mine how much water moves through the soil into
groundwater or surface water after rainfall. If the soil
retains a large quantity of water in its upper horizons
for later use by plants, the water and partially dis-
solved herbicide will have little opportunity to move.
In contrast, if a soil is highly permeable and has little
water-holding capacity, moisture passes through
the soil rapidly and carries some of the herbicide
with it.
In many areas of northern Idaho and western Mon-
tana, soils retain almost all precipitation within the
upper 2 feet of soil. Research on a prairie site in
Missoula County found no picloram below 20 inch-
es soil depth (Watson et al 1989). The minimum
detection limit in this study was 10 parts per billion.
On a forested site with coarser soils and precipita-
tion rates more comparable to sites analyzed here,
4-11
eo
this study found picloram levels ranging from 205 to
366 parts per billion in the upper 5 inches of soil
after an application of 1 pound of picloram per acre.
A maximum concentration of 24 parts per billion was
detected at soil depths between 30 and 40 inches.
No picloram was measured in shallow groundwater
wells with a detection limit of 0.5 parts per billion.
Studies on picloram soil concentrations have in-
cluded comparisons of picloram, 2,4-D, and clopy-
ralid. Results reported by Rice and his coresearch-
ers (1992) confirm that 2,4-D and clopyralid are less
persistent than picloram. Clopyralid was not detect-
ed at any time below 10 inches soil depth and, after
30 days, 2,4-D was not detected below 2 inches soil
depth. Picloram was detected in the 10 to 20 inch
soil strata within 30 days of spraying, but was not
detected below 10 inches soil depth one or two
years after spraying. Detection limit in this study was
about 10 parts per billion.
Dicamba was not directly investigated in these stud-
ies, but its persistence and mobility properties are in
the range of 2,4-D and clopyralid (see review in
USDA 1984).
VEGETATIVE COMMUNITY DIVERSITY
No-Action Alternative
Under this alternative the knapweed, Canada
thistle,shawkweed, dalmation toadflax, skeleton
weed, goatweed, and other noxious weed infesta-
tions would be allowed to expand without interfer-
ence. It is likely that new infestations would occur as
animals and humans move seeds or plant parts to
new locations.
As these noxious weeds spread, the negative im-
pact on the diversity of native vegetation would be-
come more apparent. Several researchers have al-
so demonstrated that the number of native species,
not just their total biomass, decreases on sites
infested by noxious weeds. Belcher and Wilson
(1989) found 7 to 11 species outside leafy spurge
infestations but only 4 species where leafy spurge
was most abundant. Tyser and Key (1988) reported
significant reduction in species richness and diver-
sity in knapweed infested fescue grasslands sur-
veyed in Glacier National Park.
Manual and Cultural Treatment
With sufficient commitment of dedicated labor it is
possible to eliminate some noxious weed species
such as knapweed, houndstongue, and goatweed
from a site with manual and cultural treatments.
These plants can be killed if enough of the tap root
and lateral roots are removed. However, these
plants are prolific seed producers, and seed re-
serves in the soil can remain viable for more than ten
years. The disturbed ground around pulled plants
provides a very good seedbed for the germination
of seeds. Thus hand pulling would have to continue
over many years to be effective.
Native species could be effectively restored on
these sites with a diligent program of manual and
Cultural control of these species. In addition, control
of these species on these sites would eliminate their
spread to other areas.
Canada thistle is one exception. This species has
an extensive root system and sends out new shoots
from numerous buds on lateral roots. Three or more
pulling sessions per year may reduce the competi-
tive advantage of the Canada thistle. However, Can-
ada thistle could not be eliminated from these sites
with manual or cultural treatment. The infestation
could continue to fill in through vegetative reproduc-
tion in spite of a rigorous hand pulling program. The
composition of native species would continue to be
affected, although some recovery could be antici-
pated. If conscientiously applied, manual treatment
could also greatly reduce or eliminate seed produc-
tion. The greatest risk with manual and cultural
treatment of Canada thistle is that the infestations
would continue to spread vegetatively.
Biological Control
The impacts of the introduction of biocontrol agents
on Canada thistle are difficult to predict. Although
Urophora cardui and Ceutorhynchus litura are re-
ported to reduce Canada thistle densities on some
sites by as much as 80 to 90 percent(Rees 1992), it
is not certain that these insect species will adapt to
the climatic and site conditions in these areas. In
some cases noxious weed species have adapted to
conditions outside the habitat range of potential bio-
control agents.
lf these insect species do adapt to site conditions in
north Idaho, they could reduce the density of these
4-12
infestations of Canada thistle. Canada thistle would
likely continue to spread slowly through suitable
habitats; however, its competitiveness against na-
tive species would be greatly reduced. If the insect
species did not establish on these sites within a
reasonable timeframe or did not flourish once es-
tablished, other alternatives, including the no-action
alternative would have to be considered.
Before introducing new biocontrol agents into this
country the agent’s host-specificity must be tested.
These biocontrol agents are tested against a wide
variety of plant species under "eat-or-starve" condi-
tions to ensure that their attack is confined to a
narrow range of plant species and preferably only
the weed of concern. Both of these insects were
tested for host-specificity. U.cardui showed a very
narrow range of attack. When tested against seven-
teen closely related members of the composite, the
insect laided eggs virtually only on Canada thistle
(Peschken and Harris 1975). The only other inci-
dents of egg laying were 1 of 21 females that ovipos-
ited on a bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare) and 1 of 21
females that oviposited on a plumeless thistle (Car-
duus acanthoides). Both of these thistle species are
also non-native.
Ceutorhynchus litura has a somewhat broader host
range than U. cardui. It will attack a wider variety of
plant species of Cirsium, Silybum, and Carduus
(Zwolfer and Harris 1965). There exist several native
species in Montana that belong to the Cirsium ge-
nus. As this insect species spreads, it could affect
the populations of these species in some areas, but
it is unlikely to cause their extinction. At the present
time there are no sensitive Cirsium species on the
Bonners Ferry Ranger District.
Biological control agents will not erradicate a target
or non-target plant species. Rather, under ideal cir-
cumstances the control agents will reach a dynamic
equilibrium with the plant species.
Control with the Herbicide Picloram
Herbicides such as picloram and 2,4-D are often
perceived as greatly reducing the diversity of plant
species on a spray site. For example, picloram is
thought to create a grass monoculture at the ex-
pense of broadleaf species. This generality is some-
what overstated.
Two studies have been conducted in western Mon-
tana to measure the impact of herbicide application
on native species. Willard et al. (1988) measured the
impact of picloram on native grasses and broadleaf
species. With the control of noxious weeds, the
grass species generally showed marked increases.
Likewise some broadleaf species such as arnica
and yarrow were greatly reduced (see Appendix E
for scientific names). Generally, members of the
asteraceae (composite family), fabaceae (legume),
polygonaceae (buckwheat), and apiaceae (parsley
family) were affected by picloram. In contrast, mem-
bers of the brassicaceae (mustard family), liliaceae
(lily family), and scrophulariaceae (figwort family)
were less affected by the spray.
In a more extensive study, Rice et a/ (1992) com-
pared the impacts of the herbicides 2,4-D, picloram, -
and clopyralid to the impact of knapweed invasion
on species number and diversity. The knapweed
sites were in the initial stages of infestation, thus the
diversity on these sites had not suffered as noted in
the studies cited above by Tyser and Key (1988).
Although the untreated knapweed plots in Rice’s
study started with slightly higher numbers of spe-
cies and diversity (by luck of random draw), within
two years after spray the species number and diver-
sity were virtually identical on all plots. Initially the
impact to species was greater on sites sprayed with
picloram than on sites sprayed with clopyralid.
Clopyralid affects members of only three plant fami-
lies, the composites, the legumes, and the buck-
wheats. Thus this herbicide can be sprayed near
tree, shrub, and forb species that might otherwise
be affected by picloram.
Aside from the on-site impacts to vegetation that
might occur from herbicide application, these treat-
ments have the benefit of protecting sites that are
currently uninfested by reducing the sources of fur-
ther infestation. As discussed in the section on the
impacts of the no-action alternative the spread of
these aggressive exotic species could significantly
impact the vegetative diversity on sensitive sites in
the Selkirk and Cabinet Mountain Ecosystems. Al-
though herbicide application could have small and
transitory impacts on the vegetation on treated
sites, it would prevent much more serious, long-
term effects on many thousands of susceptible
acres in these Ecosystems.
4-13
Cumulative Impacts on the Vegetative Diversity
As discussed under the no-action alternative, the
failure to control noxious weeds on these sites
tends to increase the probability that noxious weeds
will spread to new sites. Likewise, the probability of
weed spread would increase across sites on which
weeds are only partially controlled, for example,
through manual treatment. The probability of further
spread is compounded as weeds spread to new
sites. This compounding of probabilities occurs be-
cause the new sites contribute to the probability of
spread. Thus, in the same way that money in a bank
increases more rapidly through compounding of in-
terest, weed populations can increase rapidly
through compounded spread. This, in large part,
accounts for the explosive increase in certain weed
populations in northern Idaho.
By contrast, the impacts of alternatives such as her-
bicide spraying on vegetative biodiversity tend to be
much more easily confined to the site of application.
Although herbicides could affect some plant spe-
cies on the site of application, by preventing the
spread of weeds their overall impact would be posi-
tive. Impacts on vegetative diversity would be purely
additive across the relatively few acres that are
sprayed.
WILDLIFE AND THREATENED AND ENDANGERED
SPECIES
No-Action Alternative
The no-action alternative would have no direct im-
pact in the short term on either threatened and en-
dangered species or on wildlife species in general.
The spread of noxious weeds could affect the
habitat for many wildlife species, however, in the
long term as more native habitat is replaced or re-
duced by noxious weeds. The listed species most
affected by this would be herbivorous, such as griz-
zly bear, and wolves who depend on prey that are
herbivorous. Of particular concern is the impact on
grazing animals such as deer and elk.
As noted in the previous section on vegetative com-
munity diversity, noxious weeds can effectively sup-
plant native vegetation on infested sites. Although
there are reports of deer and elk eating knapweed
(Willard et al 1988), it is definitely not a preferred
forage. A Forest Service assessment of spotted
knapweed infestation on winter range in the Lolo
Nationa Forest predicted a loss of 220 elk annually
by 1998. This would reduce the ability of the area to
support gray wolves as well, and if infestation were
to become extreme could affect their populations.
Grizzly bears could have a reduction in succulent
vegetative forage if sites were overrun by noxious
weeds. Grizzly bears are not limited by forage quali-
ty or quantity in either ecosystem, so the effect
would probably not be a significant factor in recov-
ery of this species in the forseeable future. Bears are
forage opportunists, and would probably be able to
Survive well even with a severe infestation.
Woodland caribou and bald eagle would not be
affected by the spread of noxious weeds. Caribou
are ungulates, but their diet is very different from elk
and deer, and would be unlikely to be directly or
indirectly affected.
Sensitive wildlife that depend on habitat features
that are not immediately affected by noxious weed
contamination would not be likely to be directly af-
fected. Such species as black-backed woodpecker,
flammulated owl and boreal owl depend more on
snags than on ground vegetation. Species associ-
ated with water such as common loon, CdA sala-
mander and harlequin duck would not be affected
because of the precautions noted for water quality;
they are not dependent on the vegetation affected
by noxious weed spread. Northern bog lemmings,
which are associated with bogs but also occur in old
growth moist forests, would be unlikely to be directly
affected for the same reasons.
Carnivores such as wolverine, fisher and lynx could
be indirectly affected by noxious weed spread in
much the same way as wolf is, ie, the herbivore prey
they depend on could be reduced in number and
kind by noxious weed spread. Of these species,
fisher would be least affected because they are
most dependent on older forests with dead and
down material rather than an herbivorous understo-
ry.
Townsend's big-eared bat is apparently limited by
lack of suitable habitat in our area, ie suitable caves
or mine adits. No alternative would have any direct,
indirect, or cumulative effect on this situation.
Management indicator species would be affected in
the same types of ways as the above species.
4-14
White-tailed deer would be most directly affected by
the no action alternative of allowing the spread of
noxious weeds, because its vegetative forage base
would be altered. Pileated woodpecker and pine
marten would be least affected by the spread of
noxious weeds because their habitat is primarily
large timbered stands that are not favored by any
noxious weed under consideration at this time. Gos-
hawks are predators of a number of animal species,
some of which are herbivores and could be ad-
versely affected by the spread of noxious weeds.
Other groups of fauna such as neotropical migrant
birds would be affected differently depending on
their habitat needs. In general, the herbivorous or
granivorous species would be most affected by the
spread of noxious weeds in the same way as the
other species above. Least affected species would
be those dependent on large timber or water-
related habitats, or whose habitat did not overlap
those sites prone to infestation by weeds.
Overall, to all the above species, the greatest effect
of no action would be the change in biodiversity
from native plant species upon which the native
fauna depends. This is a serious concern that prob-
ably would affect some species in a much more
impactive way than others, and not in necessarily
predictable ways. The cumulative effects to all these
species from the loss of biodiversity from noxious
weeds; fragmentation from roading, timber harvest-
ing and rural development; fire suppression; in-
creased direct human presence from recreation
and other forest activities; and other human influ-
ences, generally will make it favorable for those spe-
cies which are generalists to survive at the expense
of specialists. Most of the “emphasis” species listed
above are specialists, and noxious weed infestation
is thus a part of the cumulative effects which would
make it less easy for those species to thrive.
Other Non-chemical Alternatives
The other non-chemical alternatives would have no
direct affect on wildlife. If these alternatives allowed
the continued spread of noxious weeds, they could
have the indirect effects outlined above for the no-
action alternative.
Treatment with Herbicides
Direct effects to wildlife from the application of these
herbicides on these sites should be negligible
based on the discussion below. None of the herbi-
cides proposed here bioaccumulate in wildlife in
concentrations greater than their general environ-
mental concentrations. By contrast, concentrations
of some organochlorine pesticides such as DDT in
some wildlife species could be as much as 100,000
times higher than the concentrations in the general
environment because these chemicals bioaccumu-
late.
Inferences of possible effect can be made by com-
paring the exposure levels wildlife would experience
with the concentrations that elicit toxic responses in
wildlife. As discussed in the Risk Assessments refer-
enced above in the section on Human Health, im-
mediately following an application of 1 pound of
herbicide per acre the herbicide concentration on
grasses and small forbs would be about 125 parts
per million. Within 90 days the concentration of pi-
cloram on vegetation would be about 25 parts per
million (Watson et al. 1989). The concentrations of
2,4-D, dicamba, and clopyralid would likely be less
because of their faster breakdown rates.
The avian toxicity of these herbicides is extremely
low (USDA Forest Service 1984 in Spotted Bear
Ranger District, Project File). The picloram LC,, for
mallard ducks and quail is in excess of 10,000 parts
per million (highest dose tested.) Comparable val-
ues for clopyralid are 4,640 ppm (highest dose test-
ed), for dicamba in excess of 10,000 ppm (highest
dose tested), and for 2,4-D amine in excess of 5,000
ppm. Feeding studies involving rodents also indi-
cate similar values for these herbicides. These val-
ues all indicate very low toxicity.
Feeding studies on grazing animals also confirm the
low toxicity of these herbicides. Deer that were fed
foliage treated with 2,4-D at up to 4 times the rate
proposed here showed no ill effects (Campbell et al.
1981). Cattle fed picloram-treated hay with concen-
trations 20 times and greater than those expected
on the proposed sites suffered no lethal effects
(Monnig 1988). Heifers fed dicamba at 20,000 ppm
in feed showed no ill effects (Edson and Sanderson
1965). Clopyralid feeding studies with grazing ani-
mals are not available but would likely be similar to
picloram, which is a close chemical analogue.
Comparisons of the expected environmental con-
centrations with the toxicity levels of these herbi-
cides indicates that effects on birds, rodents, and
grazing animals are not expected. In addition, the
4-15
scientific evidence reviewed in the Human Health
Risk Assessment indicates that these herbicides
are quickly excreted by exposed animals. Thus, ef-
fects on predators such as wolves or on raptors
such as eagles or falcons are not reasonably ex-
pected. Because these herbicides do not bioaccu-
mulate, the cumulative impacts of spraying sites
inside and outside the National Forest would be
insignificant.
Direct effects to species not affected by habitat loss
from weeds are negligible based on the rationale
above.
Indirect effects to wildlife from chemical treatment
would be primarily from disturbance from the spray
and Survey crews. This effect would be most notice-
able on grizzly bears, wolverine and goshawk. Ad-
ministrative use guidelines for any motorized use
behind gates would be implemented, so the effects
of disturbance would be controlled to acceptable
levels with regard to grizzly bears. Disturbance to
the other species would be no greater than that of
other forest level activities.
Cumulative effects of herbicide treatment may be
considered as above.
PROBABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT
CANNOT BE AVOIDED
The application of herbicides brings with it the likeli-
hood of some environmental impacts that cannot be
avoided. These have been discussed above and
would primarily involve non-target plants. Although
mitigation measures would probably prevent envi-
ronmentally significant concentrations of herbicide
from reaching surface water or groundwater, it is
possible that minute amounts of herbicide will mi-
grate from the site. Under reasonably foreseeable
circumstances this would not have a significant en-
vironmental impact.
The adoption of the no-action alternative or any of
the non-chemical alternatives would not immediate-
ly result in unavoidable environmental impacts.
However, it is clear that alternatives which allow the
continued spread of noxious weeds would eventu-
ally result in unavoidable environmental effects. Al-
though the infestations are containable now and
could theoretically be eliminated at any time in the
future, after infestations reach a “critical mass" they
are uncontrollable in any practical sense. This situa-
tion is well illustrated by the knapweed infestations
in many areas of northern Idaho. At the "point of no
return," the adverse environmental impacts outlined
above for the no-action alternative would be un-
avoidable.
POSSIBLE CONFLICTS WITH THE PLANS AND
POLICIES OF OTHER JURISDICTIONS
The Idaho Noxious Weed Law directs the county
control authority to make all reasonable efforts to
develop and implement a noxious weed program.
The lack of weed control under the no-action alter-
native would conflict with State and county weed
control plans and policies. The other alternatives
would indicate that the Forest Service is serious
about doing something about the “weed problem."
None of the alternatives would conflict with State
and Federal water or air quality regulations or with
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recovery plans for
threatened and endangered species. Appendix F
contains a biological assessment of the possible
impacts of the preferred alternatives on threatened
and endangered species.
4-16
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM US-
ES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
None of the alternatives would involve the short term
use of commodity-type resources. Some might ar-
gue, however, that the impact of herbicide spraying
on non-target plant species constitutes a short-term
use of the resource.
As discussed above, the more effective an alterna-
tive is at controlling the spread of noxious weeds,
the better that alternative is at protecting the natural
resources of this area despite the possible short-
term impacts on the environment.
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMIT-
MENT OF RESOURCES
All of the alternatives that involve active control mea-
sures would involve an irretrievable commitment of
labor, fossil fuels, and economic resources. The no-
action alternative would not involve such commit-
ments, but it could result in the unavoidable deterio-
ration of the natural condition of the area. The
no-action alternative would likely irretrievably
change the existing plant community diversity.
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS
INTRODUCTION
This chapter includes:
1) abrief description of issues and of public partici-
pation prior to and following publication of the
DEIS,
2) a brief description of public comments on the
DEIS,
3) | asummary of the public comments and agency
responses, and
4) photocopies of the letters and summaries of all
Calls from all commentors to the DEIS and agen-
cy responses to each.
ISSUES AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Public comment was formally solicited with a notice
published in the Federal Register that indicated that
the Bonners Ferry Ranger District's intent to prepare
an EIS on noxious weed management. News releases
were published in several local papers and presented
as radio announcements to solicit public input on
weed management.
Analysis of public and internal input resulted in a list of
three issues that guided the development of the alter-
natives. These issues are:
1. What are the potential impacts of noxious
weeds on resources such as the ecological com-
munity and processes; threatened, endangered,
sensitive plants and animals; soils; water quality;
aesthetics; wildlife and fish; and recreational
opportunities?
2. What are the potential impacts of weed control
methods on other forest resources as listed in
issue 1?
3. How would the weed management methods,
particularly herbicide application, affect human
health?
PUBLIC RESPONSE TO THE DEIS
The DEIS was released in June of 1995. Copies were
distributed to any group or individual who had ex-
pressed an interest in noxious weed control and to
other potentially interested parties. Copies of the DEIS
were available for review at several Forest Service offic-
es. Local newspapers and the radio stations in Bound-
ary and Bonner Counties provided news coverage of
the DEIS. The Bonners Ferry Ranger District received
comments from 8 individuals, organizations, or gov-
ernment agencies.
Most respondents supported an active program to
control noxious weeds. Most of them supported the
preferred alternative identified in the Draft EIS. In a
number of comment letters a general support was of-
fered for the Forest Service noxious weed control pro-
gram with an implicit support for the Forest Service
preferred alternative.
The EIS was revised, where appropriate, to reflect
comments received from the public. Very few substan-
tive changes were needed. Some wording changes
have been made to clarify issues raised in comments
on the DEIS. These changes are noted in the respons-
es to individual comment letters. Copies of all written
comments, with individual responses, are reproduced
and made part of this chapter.
=
(i 4 February 13, 1995, letter (copy enclosed) addressing the Notice of Intent for this project.
IN REPLY REFER TO
United States Department of the Interior “-
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY Kara ee
Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance weer
500 NE Multnomah Street, Suite 600_,, -¢ \ act :
Portland, Oregon 97232-2036-——_|
Soe August 21, 1995
ER 95/0506
Debbie Henderson-Norton, District Ranger
Bonners Ferry Ranger District
Idaho Panhandle National Forests
Route 4, Box 4860
Bonners Ferry, Idaho 83805
Dear Ms. Henderson-Norton:
The Department of the Interior (Department) has reviewed the Draft Environment Impact
Statement (DEIS) for the Noxious Weed Management on the Bonners Ferry Ranger District,
Idaho Panhandle National Forests, Boundary County, Idaho. The following comments have
been prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, Migratory Bird Treaty
Act, and the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and are provided for your use
and information when preparing the final documents.
GENERAL COMMENTS
The Department generally supports the integrated pest management approach which this
project proposes for weed control. This approach consists of mechanical, cultural,
biclogical, and chemical control measures. We agree that potential adverse impacts to fish
and wildlife resources resulting from the proposed action would be relatively limited,
compared to long-term impacts associated with the uncontrolled spread of noxious weeds in
the project area.
With respect to minimizing potential impacts associated with the use of herbicides, we
‘incorporate, by reference, the comments included in the Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service)
5=2
)
A
SS warranted, but precluded from listing, and (2) on February 6, 1995, the Service
Debbie Henderson-Norton, District Ranger 2
Bonners Ferry Ranger District
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
Page 3-4, Bull Trout Under the "Bull Trout” heading, the following two corrections should
be made:
* The DEIS states that bull trout is considered a "Category C1 species under the
mene: ee es nn ee nr narra earn
Endangered Species Act." Asa point of clarification, the bull trout is considered a
enor apa et
category 1 candidate species, or Ci candidate species. Candidate species are placed in
a ee er
One of three categories: Category 1, Category 2, or Category 3.
* The DEIS indicates that: (1) on June 8, 1994, the Service decided that the bull trout is
eT rn oer —_——
changed the bull trout status to warranted and is in the process of drafting regulations.
These statements are both incorrect. On June e Service published a not a notice
of petition finding (59 FR 30364) that detested that listing the bull trout was
warranted, but precluded due to other higher priority listing : actions. On June 12,
1995, the Service published a 12-month recycled petition finding (60 FR 30825),
indicating that that listing the bull trout is still warranted but precluded.
Westslope Cutthroat Trout The DEIS indicates the westslope cutthroat trout is listed as a
"Category species". As a point of clarification, the westslope cutthroat trout is currently _
considered a category 2 candidate species.
Appendix E The clarifications and corrections provided also apply to the descriptions of the
bull trout and the westslope cutthroat trout in the Sensitive Fish Biological Evaluation.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
ONC eel WOKE
Charles S. Polityka i)
Regional Environmental Officer
Enclosure
Unit. ~States Department of ) ~ Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Northern Idaho Field Office
17703 E. Montgomery Drive, Suite #2
Spokane, WA 99206
February 13, 1995
Ms. Debbie Henderson-Norton
DiS ewvuete nemgers
Bonners Ferry Ranger District
Route 4, Box 4860
Bonners Ferry, Idaho 83805-9764
SUDJeCcu: Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for
Noxious Weed Treatment on the Bonners Ferry Ranger District
(LOSEO200) ER# 9570025
Dear Ms. Norton:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is writing in response to the
subject Notice of Intent (NOI), dated December 30, 1994 and received in our
office February 3, 1995. The proposed project involves an integrated pest
management approach to weed control which includes mechanical, biological, and
chemical control. These preliminary scoping comments are made pursuant to the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act,
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the Endangered Species Act.
1. Endangered Species - The analysis area for the proposed project includes
the recovery areas for the endangered woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus
caribou) “and the threatened grizzly bear (Ursus, arctos horribidias) 7 Your
documentation for the project should include a list of threatened, endangered,
and candidate species which occur in the treatment areas. You should ensure
that the arplication activities will not threaten the continued existence or
preclude recovery of any listed, proposed, or’ candidate species:
2. Water Quality - The Service is concerned with water quality impacts of the
propcsed project, particularly with respect to their effects on resident
fisheries such as bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout. The activities
should not result in any degradation of water quality, aquatic habitat, and
wetlands in the analysis area or downstream. The Service is particularly
concerned where the water table is high or where leaching or surface runoff is
like2ys
Application of herbicide sprays should not occur within 200 feet of
reservoirs, lakes, ponds (livestock and recreational), pools left by seasonal
streams, springs; or within 100 feet of perennial flowing streams and rivers,
and wetlands (e.g. swamps, bogs, marshes, and potholes). Ground applications
of solid herbicides (e.g. crystals, pellets) have a minimum buffer of 50 feet
from all flowing waters. A distance of less than 50 feet to within 20 feet of
flowing water may be considered depending on site specific factors.
3. Migratory Birds - The Service also has concerns with project effects on
bird species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), which
prchibits the take of migratory birds, nests, eggs, and nestlings. Use of
herbicides may have detrimental effects on various bird species, particularly
insectivorous, herbivorous, and granivorous (seed eating) species. Efforts
should be made to protect migratory birds and their habitat.
4. Fish and Wildlife - Short- and long-term impacts of the proposed project
on fish and wildlife and their habitats should be given full treatment in the
EIS prepared for this project. Specifically, we suggest that you consider
incorporating the following points in the proposal: pt a ene
} Gaver ae a Let Weal ox
| ei :
}
\
AUG 1 7 1995
5-4
B
Hak inncrtes xelboousl MisVvOlAGL Ligation, do not spr. enen wind velocities
a 7 mph, rain or other precipitation is falling or is imminent,
ier is foggy or is creating unstable air turbulence (normally when
Temperatures exceed 80 degrees Fahrenheit) that may seriously affect
7e normal spray pattern, and temperature inversions could lead to
fsite movement of spray. Weather conditions in operation areas should
monitored by trained personnel before and during application.
perations should be immediately suspended anytime it appears that
meat $a¥ conditions could jeopardize safe placement of spray on target
areas. Also, the prescribed nozzle pressure as recommended should be
used. Some applicators increase nozzle pressure creating molecule-like
Groplets that drift in any air movement.
7?
a @
iS
4
a
eure
(co Veneta ed
LACT AD
3)
4)
Conduct all mixing, loading, and unloading in an area where an
accidental spill will not contaminate soils and streams or other water
bodies. If monitoring water is planned, this should be done according
to a sampling schedule designated in approved plans before, during and
after treatments and make the results readily available to state and
local public health and water resources agencies and the general public.
Careful consideration of the toxicity of mixtures of herbicides is also
essential because interaction between herbicides may increase their
toxicity. These synergistic effects of various formulations have not
been well documented. Toxicity and persistence in the environment of
Carrier solvents (e.g. diesel oil, kerosene, mineral oil, limonene)
should also be assessed, along with the associated potential for impacts
to fish and wildlife resources and their habitats.
3 Preventative measures may in the case of somé types of exotic, plants be
the cniy realistic management. Many exotic herbs, for example, will
reinvade disturbed areas following removal efforts and will continue to
eebccmpetesnative sspecies on badly trampledYysites. Iti is’ therefore,
extremely important to encourage the re-establishment of native
wegecation. For example, an area (e.g. overgrazed meadows, campsites)
may be closed to reduce trampling and allow re-establishment of native
species after exotics are removed. In severely disturbed areas, or
those previously dominated by exotics, planting may be used to speed
Succession, to prevent soil erosion, and to change local environmental
conditions
Exotic plant management programs cannot be one-time efforts. To be
successful, these programs must be long-term, incorporating control efforts
znto routine resource management efforts. A monitoring program to evaluate
she ondoings status, ofsexcticavegetation msivital torsuccessfulvcentrol .
Periodically, a reassessment of the type, number, location, and distribution
of "pest" species should be made. Information collected could also be used to
evaluate the success of control measures and removal techniques.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the subject
propesal. We will participate in formal scoping and review of the EIS for
this preject as funding and time allow. For further information, please
contact Suzanne Audet of my staff at (509) 891-6839.
Sincerely,
RODeLE On Hal. OCK
Field Supervisor
GGi BwS, Portland - Dunn
PwS-£S, Boise
eine, Bl Texel
Response to US Department of Interior (Charles Polityka) letter received August 23, 1995.
1. The comments from the US Fish and Wildlife Service of February 13, 1995 were considered and addressed
in the preparation of the Draft EIS.
2. The corrections you have identified have been incorporated into the Final EIS text.
3. The correction you have identified has been incorporated into the Final EIS text.
4. The corrections you have identified have been incorporated into Appendix E of the Final EIS.
Thank you for your interest in noxious weed management on the Bonners Ferry Ranger District.
5-6
KOOTENAI COUNTY =: -
11140 AIRPORT DR. ¢ HAYDEN, IDAHO 83835 * PHONE (208) 772-9239 * FAX (208) 762-3095
August 3, 1995
BobekKraricnh
Interdisciplinary Team Leader
Bonners Ferry Ranger District
Rt 4 Box 4860
Bonners. Ferry = LD s6cs05
Dear Bob:
After reviewing your draft Environmental Impact Statement, Noxious
Weed Management Projects, my overall impression is that this
document is quite comprehensive and thorough. I have only two
comments to make it more complete:
Lt. There was no mention of deleterious health impacts on humans
from noxious weeds. Poison hemlock (Conium maculatum) was, of
course, used by the ancient Greeks to put Socrates to death.
Also, leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) has toxic sap and “spotted
knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) induces allergic reactions in in
some people (to name just three examples).
Lis No negative impacts to wetlands or riparian areas by noxious
weeds were discussed. Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria)
crowds out cattails and other native wetland _ plants;
_reportedly even fauna, such as song birds, leave once purple
loosestrife becomes dominant since habitat for them no longer
oneness Ae wo eee en ew
exists there. The The hawkweeds also can crowd out native grasses
in alpine meadows as wel] as in bottom lands, reducing or
eliminating winter _range for large herbivores; what hawkweed
does to smaller fauna _ is undocumented.
Regarding the list of approved herbicides, I would suggest you add
the very selective, environmentally friendly chemical triclopyr;
the trade name is Garlon and it is very useful, especially in
riparian areas.
Sincerely,
fj th
Lhe. A Palle oe
Frank aa agit
Superintendent
SJ
NATURAL RESOURCES PROTECTION’ c.
=
Response to Kootenai County Natural Resources Protection (Frank Frutchi) letter received August 4, 1995.
1. | Your comment that some noxious weeds can have deleterious health impacts on humans is true. We have
expanded the discussion of human health in Human Resources and Human Health in Chapter 4.
2. Fortunately, at this time on the Bonners Ferry District we do not have a population of purple loosestrife
(Lythrum salicaria). There are only two small sites where wetlands/riparian areas are affected by noxious
weeds and treatment with herbicides is identifed. At this time, the herbicides identified in this document used
per label instructions should not pose a threat to the sites treated. This document is oriented to site specific
projects, and as such had to address how to treat the sites currently needing our attention. If in the future
there was a need to deal with a noxious weed problem involving significant wetland and or riparian areas,
such site(s) would also be reviewed for site specific action. It is logical to assume that the herbicide triclopyr
would be considered at that time.
Thank you for your interest in noxious weed management on the Bonners Ferry
Ranger District.
RECEIVED
~Aa14.--
Boundary fojijons Nortous Weed rors 7
Bor 267
Bonners Ferry, Idaho 83805
August 14, 1995
Debbie Henderson-Norton District Ranger
Bonners Ferry Ranger District
Rt 4 Box 4860
Bonners Ferry ID 83805
Dear Debbie:
This letter is in response to the call for public comment on the noxious weed
EIS for the Bonners Ferry Ranger District. As the Boundary County Weed Control
Superintendent I highly recommend that alternative 4 (the integrated management
approach) be adopted. I personally know the weed control crew and have the utmost
respect and confidence in their ability to apply herbicides and access environmental
hazards.
It is important that the entire Forest Service, not only those folks in field,
recognize and act upon the serious threat noxious weeds pose to healthy ecosystems. It
is vitally important that funding for weed control programs remain in place and that
more 1s done every year.
My only concern with the Draft EIS is that under the Proposed Action the 41
identified sites and 335 acres is misleading. It leads the the reader to believe that it is the
extent of the weed problem when in fact it is FAR greater than t that. The severity and
rapid spread of ‘Hershweed and knapweed needs to be clearly ‘stated and cannot be over
emphasized.
BS
Bich bet (al
& iat Carlo
Boundary County
Weed Control Superintendent
5-9
Response to Boundary County Noxious Weed Control (Rich Del Carlo) letter received August 14, 1995.
1. |The Purpose and Need for Action section of Chapter 1 has been changed in the Final EIS to amplify the extent
of weed populations on the Bonners Ferry Ranger District.
Thank you for your interest in noxious weed management on the Bonners Ferry
Ranger District. Your alternative preference is included in the summary of comments on alternatives in the Final
EIS. Your comments will be considered in the alternative selection process.
USDA-FOREST SERVICE
RECORD OF PHONE CALL OR VISIT Of fp ox
File Designation VASO ( mrt LES) vate (-1S- -45 Time Aico Par
Subject Caorrmtnfr2 bite CA ELS =
Pen
TO Lies bS =
Visited By =
Called By lerry Ree /l
Calero
ox Boe AKOu Rays Co te 1S COG
= pecs onne / bad teers ( OV Jersatfren > VEEL, eA a
th é DELS an weeps : Z 2 LLY Soi Ae
[LA Khe Oc A wm Lene
€ WW $ YAve use
; es ge cle eae a?
2 that f le) Of -€ CA SOUS at
z 1 Ack "LA Ese Qe
USEC A yi apa aies 2
riya Vectypyea X Lee ota peter ks
So, fs ye 4 Za by 2 Yr Lo?
rp f es
SIGNATURE
ia
TITLE
FS-R1-04-6220-01 (1/82)
Response to Terry Bicknell phone call received July 15, 1995.
Thank you for your interest in noxious weed management on the Bonners Ferry Ranger District. Your alternative
preferences are included in the summary of comments on alternatives in the Final EIS. Your comments will be
considered in the alternative selection process.
5-12
“Bob K. pe
AUGUST 4, 1995 Deb. ee
BOX 48 Gab!
NAPLES, iD $3847 oo
DEBBIE HENDERSON-NORTON i,
DISTRICT RANGER pe ts = f i
BONNERS FERRY, i DAHO os
DEAR DEBBIE; Sia ee
Wise GU Kee LOn Gummer OURRHULIS SUPPORT “FOR JHE
NOXIOUS WEED PROGRAM PROPOSED.
NOS LOUS WEED CONTROL TS oe VERY IMBORTANT TO THE
DEA OFM EC RORES MAS Were CASSPRAVA RE MRROPERRY:
Wi GH IN KALE ERNAT EVES 4 WOULD =GIVE THE SEES BeCONTROL
AN DEBE MOD COS) SEP EE CIEE.
SUNCEREE,,
ee ieee
DON NYSTROM
BOUNDARY CCOUNTY BEUMBER
ANvEwQOO PRODUCTS
CevMr lias
Response to Boundary County Timber and Wood Products Committee (Don Nystrom) letter received August 7,
1995.
Thank you for your interest in noxious weed management on the Bonners Ferry Ranger District. Your alternative
preference is included in the summary of comments on alternatives in the Final ElS. Your comments will be
considered in the alternative selection process.
ee - os Sater Pactra tare
Bea tui eet ae
Boundary Soil Conservation District s ate ie ' oe -seee
P.O. Box 23 - Bonners Ferry, Idaho 83805 - Phone: 267-3340 SS Se
Augrste LO yi 993 ee ae
Rob Klarich
Bonners Ferry Ranger District
Idahn Panhandle Nationa! Forests
Route 4 Box 4850
Bonners Ferry, ID 83805
De a aeo0.
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Noxious
Weeds Management Projects, Idaho Panhandle National Forests,
was recently reviewed by members of the Roundary Soil
Conservation District and the Natura! Resources Conservation
Service and discussed at our last meeting. We would like to
cammend you for your efforts and fully endorse your noxious
weed management proposals as outlined in the draft EIS.
Our group was particuiarly impressed with the
comprehensiveness with which you have investigated the
problem and developed alternative management solutions for
noxious weeds on forest tands. As you know, the Boundary
Soii Conservation District and the NRCS are very concerned
with weed control in the local area. We find it refreshing
and encouraging that you acknowledge that the problem is not
onty with private land but that there is a responsibility
and need for public !tand managers to address the issue.
Bob, we wish you tuck in your endeavors to manage
noxious weeds on forest lands and please ‘et us know if we
can assist you in any way. We took forward to hearing of
the progress and results of your efforts as your management
plan may well become the modet to which other public tand
agencies turn.
Sincerely,
SS een,
Sfimed Kfar $.
Leonard Kucera, Sr.
Chairman
CONSERVATICN - DEVELOPMENT - SELF-GOVERNMENT
S71)
Response to Boundary County Soil Conservation District (Leonard Kucera, Sr.) letter received August 15, 1995
Thank you for your interest in noxious weed management on the Bonners Ferry Ranger District. Your alternative
preference is included in the summary of comments on alternatives in the Final EIS. Your comments will be
considered in the alternative selection process.
And thank you for your offer of assistance.
Phat he
IDAHO FISH & GAME Re Me Rie ee
PANHANDLE REGION Phone (208) 769-1414 + Fax (208) 769-1418 Philip E. Batt / Governor
2750 Kathleen Avenue Jerry M. Conley / Director
Coeur d'Alene, Idaho August 11, 1995
83814
Ms. Debbie Henderson-Norton
U.S. Forest Service
Route 4, Box 4860
Bonners Ferry, ID 83805
Dear Debbie:
RE: NOXIOUS WEED MANAGEMENT PROJECT DEIS
Thanks for the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIS for noxious weed management on the Bonners Ferry
District. In general, we support selection of Alternative 4 because we believe it offers the greatest probability
of success of all of the action alternatives, and because we believe the spread of noxious weeds poses a
serious threat to biodiversity on the Bonners Ferry District.
The Biological Evaluations in Appendix E generally provide well researched and substantiated reasons for
determining that no effect will likely occur to fish and wildlife. Provided chemicals, and particularly those
which are highly toxic and persist for long periods of time, are carefully applied, we agree impacts to fish and
wildlife should be minimal and outweighed by the benefits of noxious weed control. Based on the worst case
scenarios explored in the Fisheries BE’s, it is unlikely enough herbicide would enter into creeks to affect fish
or aquatic invertebrate populations. Thus, the greatest risk of negatively impacting fish or wildlife is from
untrained applicators or accidental spills. As we’re sure you are aware, using well trained, conscientious
applicators is a must, and safety procedures to prevent spills in waterways are important.
It may be worth noting that 28 of 41 (68%) of the sites proposed for treatment are roads. While not
necessarily an applicable comment to this DEIS, it does point out’another problem with, and cost of. roads
on the National Forest. Preventing the spread of noxious weeds is another justification for minimizing new
road construction and maximizing opportunities for road obliteration.
We commend the District for tackling the noxious weed problem and hope it becomes a successful program.
Sincerely,
~
lv“
David W. Ortmann
Regional Supervisor
DWO:CEC:kh
ce US Fish and Wildlife Service, Spokane
Inland Empire Public Lands Council
Cal Groen, IDFG, Boise
An Equal Opportunity Employer
5-17
Response to Idaho Fish and Game (David Ortmann) letter received August 14, 1995.
Thank you for your interest in noxious weed management on the Bonners Ferry Ranger District. Your alternative
preference is included in the summary of comments on alternatives in the Final EIS. Your comments will be
considered in the alternative selection process.
0816/95 09:22 FAY ou 65456584 Petar ee arth Yo01
aoe a.
Nae 2
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SZ; REGION 10.
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Reply To i Sys y
Attn Of: WD-126 August 15, 1995
Debbie Henderson-Norton, District Ranger
Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho
Panhandle National Forests, Route 4, Box 4860
Bonners Ferry, ID 83805 (208-267-5561)
Re: Noxious Weed Management Projects
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
Dear Ms Henderson-Norton:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the
DEIS for the Bonners Ferry Noxious Weed Management Projects. Our
review was conducted pursuant to the Wational Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act. Our
comments are offered to assist in the preparation of the final
BSS
We are rating this DEIS an EC-2 {Environmental Concerns-
Insufficient Information). A summary, of our comments will be
published in the Federal Register. We believe additional
-information is required to effectively communicate the nature and
risks associated with the proposed-herbicide treatments and tie
them to specific management objectives. We also believe
potential impacts on ground and surface water should be assessed
more clearly, and more detail provided on herbicide formulations
and application methods in the affected management areas. We
have no inherent objection to the use of certain herbicides under
appropriate, controlled conditions, if more environmentally-
benign alternatives have been demonstrated to be either
ineffective or significantly not cosu-eL lect ive in relation to
the herbicide application.
CD send wi tenyvian evar
A
Caz
08/16/95 09:22 FAX 26 553 6984 EPA REG X WATER by 002
One area of concern is that the draft has not related
specific mana management objectives to specific treatments, which may
include herbicides. The management objectives of timber ~
production, game and wildlife habitat, and recreation are
identified (cattle grazing is reportedly another), but not
- associated with vegetation management methods. Would it be
desirable, for example, to maintain some browse and shade for
game animals? -Or do herbicide residues and potential water
runoff take on more significance in areas designated for
recreation? The appropriate method may vary according to asertea
Management objectives. It would also be instructive to provide
some damage threshold graphs, showing the level at which
vegetation (ie, noxious weeds) becomes unacceptable if management
goals are to be met.
_Identifying overall management strategies, which would
_-initially include prevention and maintenance before corrective
-actions, would clarify the process for EIS readers Are cattle
gGrazing and the roads themselves major contributors to weed
development? Could native vegetation have been enhanced
alongside roads to inhibit weed growth? Even though this is
looking backward, it’s relevant to how the public will view
future management strategies and lira should be mentioned in
the document. “J6.8ad, Ol 2P2R Law Fi
The DEIS presents some technical information on: each of the
proposed herbicides to be used in Alternative 4 regarding plant
specificity and persistance. As suggested above, these concerns.
should to be related to management purpose, application
techniques and site-specificity. We have enclosed a planning
document from the Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region,
showing the kinds of site-specific considerations which should be
assessed (see I-30). Much of the same information is contained
in your supplemental document on risk’ assessment utes sent us, but
_Some enumeration of of risk assessment _principles_an lanning needs
“i Ws LEO. > be placed in the _body of the EIS. This would = Pp prepare the
Le
(hs
fo\ &
ote
of riparian areas, drainage ditches and potential for—he
outside reader to relate management objectives to environmental
concerns.
Since one of the concerns in Laingehechiriinn sietewe
persistance of residues, it _would be -useful_to know the proximity
_entering the surface and groundwater systems. The two maps in
Appendix A may have some of that information, but they should be
keyed to qualitative descriptions in the text. There is an
obvious need for management flexibility, but the EIS should
_include a description of which chemicals---2, 4-D, dicamba,_
-Clopyralid and plicloram---will likely be used in each situation.
and indicate that records will be kept mapping location of
‘specific applications.
5-20
08/16/95 09:23 FAX 76.3250 6984 EPA REG X WATER 003
-
non-quantifi e_
|
The proposed usage should indicate fhe method of application
and type of formulétion. Is it sprayed on plants individually, ~~
or is that not cost-effective? The method would indicate
potential unintended side-effects from non-selectivity on native
plant species, as well as possible water contamination.
A matrix (such as that
on 2-11) could show some of these
+USeS_and minuses alongside cost data, thus
making the economic choices not appear so one-sided. a8
We hope these comments will be useful to you as you prepare
the final EIS. I£ you have any questions about our comments,
Please contact Doug Woodfill at (206) 553-4012.
Sincerely,
AA
Joan Cabreza, Chief
Environmental Review Section
Enclosure :
Deh
Response to United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 (Joan Cabreza) letter received August 15,
1.995:
1. Control of noxious weeds on a given site has relatively little to do with management objectives and much to
do with the goals and objectives throughout the ecosystem the site is associated with. The sites where chosen
and EIS written to an ecosystem approach to weed management.
Put another way, if a site had weeds and the weeds were to stay on that site, we would not propose treatment.
Unfortunately, we know that is not the case. From noxious weed surveys, characteristics of noxious weeds species
present, and resources within the ecosystems that make up the Bonners Ferry Ranger District sites were targeted
where the risk of spread would have the greatest impact on sensitive areas in ecosystems which have no or very
few noxious weeds.
2. The Idaho Panhandle National Forests has operated under a multi-faceted integrated pest management
(IPM) approach since the Record of Decision, Weed Pest Management, Idaho Panhandle National Forests,
October 1989. The District has been actively surveying, vegetating new and old road sides, promoting public
information about noxious weeds, and is about to (along with other Idaho Forests) go to a weed free hay
restriction starting January 1, 1996.
The Proposed Action in Chapter 1 in the Final EIS adds information regarding prevention and maintenance not
presented in the Draft EIS.
3. Further enumeration of strategy has been added to Chapter 1, Weed Management Philosophy by reference
to an appendix F, "idaho Panhandle N.F. Proposed Integrated Weed Management Program". This was a
guiding strategy reference for the 1989 Weed Pest Management, Idaho Panhandle National Forests EIS.
There have been some other changes as well. In Chapter IV under "Human Resources and Human Health",
additional information has been added to emphasize to the read that risk assessment has been completed.
4. There is a reference in Chapter II for a table 2-1. The table was inadvertently left out of the draft publication.
The Final EIS has table 2-1 which indicates the preferred treatment and distance to ground or surface water
for each site.
5. See response to #4.
6. Chapter 1, "Proposed Action" in the Final EIS identifies that chemicals will be applied either from backpack
sprayers or truck mounted boomless sprayers that are powered by gasoline engines.
7. Table 2-4, the table that shows cost to implement each alternative, is the last of four tables in Chapter Il. The
reader is shown other comparisons of the alternatives including environmental impacts which are in qualita-
tive terms in tables 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3.
Sree
CHAPTER VI
LIST OF PREPARERS
The following individuals are core members of the inerdisciplinary team (ID Team) for the Noxious Weeds Manage-
ment Projects EIS:
NAME AREA OF EXPERTISE id AREA OF CONTRIBUTION
Bob Klarich Range/Noxious Weed Mont. ID Team Leader,
Writer/Editor
Mark Grant NFMA/NEPA compliance Watershed Analysis,
Editor
Ed Monnig Environmental Chemistry Pesticide Impacts on Region 1
Resources and Human Health
John Chatel Fisheries Biologist Fisheries Resource
North Zone, IPNF Analysis
Diane Amato Botanist Vegetative Analysis
Sandy Jacobson Wildlife Biologist Wildlife Analysis
Maridel Merritt NFMA/NEPA compliance Editor
Jerry Niehoff Soils Scientist Soils Analysis
Idaho Panhandle NF
Ti ae 0 ee i eee
y aa My
\ 4 a »
1 ! bi
ih
. eel
‘ you ra : ay bj ce a i
in : oe
= Le ae oY rae in isha :
he caong a >
setae pied
ae Nt te Wy 2 ae Ah Veg ii Py Wai an thee
| Sai a ‘aim 40 Tau
aah ee ee Be et eee we eit
ay ee.) © EEN Bh To's ie mn yenp ark ¥en fi oe age hiv ah
Pie wee aie. am ir TRS 8 Ane eeeeebitthieinic dieting } r Li Ao geal
» / te yee Ole oe ey Thy Cott eae we ‘ tie i bo ae
sven apntilg a er Ribsisiasa beaks thay inka sh naib! ov y bene srs
i ee. 2 ee Y “2 (bry esp Pe, @ Oe ely lees hoes:
a ee oe PA Fae ches Bs la ont ieee
- i PON hires |
-_
ido) ‘ mre ? dtog yy mV) ae .» wie lng ihe) ine r Pf o i ghee? ieviae | a
metatan . panes ae Be aA ais
CM aer Pde Min Ota <> Kare ne poke wre os PAE o
f rage sont a was Saaalliad see ce! ye Mite Fare gees a on teas es
CL IT APE ie OL ion
eT RAGA? eel OD earn heh ban ae laiepee
: aw’ 4 i? oe ls ae 27 ‘ anc? ¢ rg a
ve eae ary a ste s BEES fe 2 ee A CO as © eee eee awa
a i, fe 4 a 2 ety ag : 2 : fwd iy >t \eod be Sg 2 Rae hig wit 2
ae ee Ko Ne ia ea eae F vile
edd Wiis tient ans sees co ufc PMA ue thar: (eer vin wat
ATS gh Pe Pg get a erg aie
+h re Pos iahaalell avi Prent :
erry i gt SE eae
pee ya eadage tin gtr +t aa ly ayy Oe von eters bal ot
ap tae), 2 Se ae iw a Elan it PD FOP ON Dre” gat Avi ed a |
rt 'bPs) ole Pa at Dati a /
i : : - od hel ~ i
my HS | ck ie i
: 7 s ad 7 ‘
le '
es oe gate Ti: 2 EATS il eee MG Gites: |
(epee / Wik edule) Oitrags weyers Tae ret ae (<
— wr ad v1 NOE Pe Pe
7 Teron aal, IM sah Le eiswe cue ep eninnt wot mpeece bie, ae de bites ad
pray & soar Grew hea 22th 5 Cw ng AR eitllells' peas es
(ep arog D ten O48, 22 a | - : oa :
7 a l 7 gy
Tat € + =<
i 2 tn
REFERENCES
Ames, B.N. 1983. Dietary carcinogens and anticarcinogens. Science 221:1256-1264.
Belcher, J.W. and S.D. Wilson 1989. Leafy spurge and the species composition of a
mixed-grass prairie. Journal of Range Management 42(2):172-175.
Campbell, D.L., J.Evans, G.D. Lindsey, and W.E. Dusenberry, 1981. Acceptance by
black-tailed deer of foliage treated with herbicides. Research Paper PNW-290. USDA Forest
Service. Pacific Northwest Forest Range Experiment Station. Portland, Oregon.
Crouch, E.A.C., R. Wilson, and L. Zeise. 1983. The risk of drinking water, Water Resources
Res 19:1359-1375.
Del Carlo, Rich. 1995. Personal communication between Bob Klarich and Rich Del Carlo,
Boundary County Weed Supervisor, Bonners Ferry, Idaho.
Dow Chemical Company. 1986. Chemistry, environmental, and toxicology profiles of clopy-
ralid herbicide. Form NO. 137-1846-86. Midland, Michigan.
Dow Chimical Company. Undated. Clopyralid: technical information. Midland, Michigan.
Edson, E.F. and D.M. Sanderson, 1965. Toxicity of the Herbicides 2-Methoxy-3,
6-Dichlorobenzoic Acid (Dicamba) and 2-Methoxy-3, 5, 6-trichlorobenzoic Acid (Tricamba).
Food Cosmet. Toxicol. 3-299-304.
Lacey, C. 1987. Overview of the state noxious weed management plan. In: Proceedings of
the annual conference of the Montana Weed Control Association. Great Falls. January 13-15.
Lacey, J.R., C.B. Marlow, and J.R. Lane, 1989. Influence of spotted knapweed (Centaru-
rea Maculosa) on surface runoff and sediment yield. Weed Technology 3:627-631.
Losensky, J.B. 1987. An evaluation of noxious weeds on the Lolo, Bitterroot and Flathead
Forests with recommendations for implementing a weed control program. Lolo National
Forest. Missoula, Montana.
Mayer, F.L. and M.R. Ellersieck, 1986. Manual of acute toxicity: interpretation and data
base for 410 chemicals and 66 species of freshwater animals. Resource publication 160,
U.S. Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C.
Monnig, E. 1988. Human health risk assessment for herbicide applications to control
noxious weeds and poisonous plants in the Northern Region. FPM Report 88-9. USDA
Forest Service. Missoula, Montana.
Pitcher, S.L. 1987. Letter from Steven L. Pitcher, State of Montana Water Quality Bureau,
to Ronald C. Prichard, Supervisor, Beaverhead National Forest, February 6, 1987.
Peschken, D.P. and P. Harris. Host specificity and biology of Urophora cardui (Diptera:
Tephritidae). A biocontrol agent for Canada thistle (Cirsium Arvense). Canada Department
of Agriculture, Regina, Saskatchewan. |
Ref - 1
Rees, N. 1992. Personal communication between J.T. Winfield and Norm Rees, Biological
Control Specialist. Agriculture Research Station Rangeland Weeds Lab, Montana State
Univesity. Bozeman, Montana.
Rice, P.M. 1990. A Risk Assessment Method To Reduce Picloram Contamination of Streams
and Groundwater From Weed Spraying Projects. Division of Biological Science, University
of Montana, Missoula, Montana.
Rice, P.M., D.J. Bedunah, and C.E. Carlson, 1992. Plant Community Diversity After Herbi-
cide Control of Spotted Knapweed. USDA Forest Service. Intermountain Research Station.
Ogden, Utah.
Rules and Regulations, 1992. Idaho Forest Practices Act, Title 38, Chapter 13, Idaho Code.
Idaho Department of Lands. Boise, Idaho.
Spoon, C.W., H.R. Bowles and A. Kulla, 1983. "Noxious Weeds on the Lolo National
Forest. A Situation Analysis Paper." USDA Forest Service, Northern Region.
Thompson, J. 1990. Personal communication between E. Monnig and John Thompson,
Wildlife biologist with State of Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, on the effects
of herbicide application to contro! spotted knapweed on the Three-mile Game Range.
Tyser, R.W. and C.H. Key. 1988. Spotted knapweed in natural area fescue grasslands: an
ecological assessment. Northwest Science 62(4):151-159.
USDA Forest Service, 1984. Pesticide background statements. Vol. 1, Herbicides. Agricul-
ture Handbook no. 633. Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office.
USDA Forest Service, 1992. Risk Assessment for Herbicide Use in Forest Service Regions
1, 2, 3, 4, and 10 and on Bonneville Power Administration Sites. FS 53-3187-9-30.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Ecological Risk Assessment.
EPA-540/9-85-001. Office of Pesticide Programs. Washington, DC 20460.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1986. Quality Criteria for Water (The Gold Book)
EPA 440/5-86-001. Office of Water Regulations and Standards. Washington, D.C.
Watson, V.J., P.M. Rice and E.C. Monnig, 1989. Environmental fate of picloram used for
roadside weed control. Journal of Enviromental Quality 18:198-205.
Willard, E.E., D.J. Bedunah, and C.L. Marcum, 1988. Impacts and potential impacts of
spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) on forest and range lands in western Montana.
Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station. School of Forestry. University of
Montana. Missoula, Montana.
Woodward, D.F. 1976. Toxicity of the herbicides dinoseb and picloram to cutthroat (Salmo
clarki) and take trout (Salvelinus hamaycush). J. Fish. Res Can. 33:1671-1676.
Woodward, D.F. 1979. Assessing the hazard of picloram to cutthroat trout. J. Range
Management 32:230-232.
Ref - 2
Yates, W.E., N.B. Akesson, and D.E. Bayer, 1978. Drift of glyphosate sprays applied with
aerial and ground equipment. Weed Science 26:597-604.
Zwolfer, H. and P. Harris, 1965. Ceutorhynchus litura (F.) (Col. Curculionidae). A potential
onsect for the biological control of thistle, Cirsium Arvense (L) Scop., in Canada. Canada
Department of Agriculture. Belleville, Ontario.
Ref - 3
a = nn ea
Di
hag! wey
snes AAG te S 8a. 4 g
Watoor. Vidi P ia a ts ew! ¢¢. eis, rn oe
' he a5 Mie , mm cere %
Pa lt ; =) ia ae a ‘
a a . 4 FP ye, Bei A on '
ee De see are "s
iil lied dial “et adllnss aa
ad ih i net uy i,
: i) iy
Ne >
” a 7 ra . . “3 +4 > fal a = oy
. —' = » ane* ‘ a at = ‘ a
eat he eee ec ee eee a”
7
at
: 2
* itty ee PY. oe ” 78 iv } sl al
4 : : - ru
‘ : a. ely Pe ae y.. bos
é & ¥ yo) ,e 0K r )
- ; + f ;
| palin her eytha rota
‘ go e oe oth “ee iS : Un find: &
4 - F ine Yau; ¢ a tay : Aang Swe Sie
ae Coty Ape ent ep Ad oe ras svar *
_ 7 a an | \je gy 4 beak AS
irae .i 6 ¢ - Pai Piet? ea ine Oe)
" ° a 2 ay ime Le pag) »*
“i ae =a “
pahg ee
NRO Hee..0 “Jt nt sienna’ ehacenpitig: ibis a: Fapagt
) ss Lnidgike “ppm Alar tera Fea. (ORD
2 sneha Gein. nao :
Sop) Comma. 4 Begin was sy eh oe
£-4e3 * Af -, ; bre, 7F% i asa iad.
bs
or
a e tes ett
Wid, ES, Od. Buetans pew Od. dala
iia Bs 11 OS 2 i if y ae
Mortans fohee phan ay wa"
Monti: Mapolty, BROOMS, -
ri
‘a te NeOS et:
Pa
LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS TO WHOM COPIES OF THE RECORD OF DECISION AND CHAPTER
V HAVE BEEN SENT.
LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS
TO WHOM COPIES OF THE RECORD OF DECISION (ROD) HAVE BEEN SENT
COPIES OF THE NOXIOUS WEED RECORD OF DECISION AND CHAPTER V HAVE BEEN DISTRIBUTED
TO THE FOLLOWING AGENCIES, LIBRARIES, ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS AS OF SPETEMBER,
1995. AN ASTERISK * DENOTES THOSE AGNECIES, LIBRARIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS
TO WHOM A FINAL EIS WAS SENT ALSO. MOST RECEIVING FIANL EIS COPIES COMMENTED ON THE
DRAFT EIS.
FEDERAL AGENCIES AND OFFICIALS
USDA/FOREST SERVICE, ENVIRONMENTAL CO-ORDINATOR, WASHINGTON DC
*USDA/FOREST SERVICE, REGIONAL OFFICE-REGION 1, MISSOULA, MT
*USDA/FOREST SERVICE, NATIONAL FORESTS
IDAHO PANHANDLE NATIONAL FORESTS, COEUR D’ALENE, ID
*USDA/FOREST SERVICE, RANGER DISTRICTS
IDAHO PANHANDLE: AVERY DISTRICT, AVERY, ID
IDAHO PANHANDLE: FERNAN DISTRICT, COEUR D’ALENE, ID
IDAHO PANHANDLE: PRIEST LAKE DISTRICT, PRIEST LAKE, ID
IDAHO PANHANDLE: SANDPOINT DISTRICT, SANDPOINT, ID
IDAHO PANHANDLE: ST MARIES DISTRICT, ST MARIES, ID
*USDA/NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL LIBRARY, BELTSVILLE, MD
*DOCUMENTS DEPARTMENT - KW, THE LIBRARIES, COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY, FORT COLLINS,
CO
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, DIR. FEDERAL ACTIVITIES, WASHINGTON DC
*US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, SEATTLE OFFICE, SEATTLE, WA
USDI/U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, SPOKANE, WA
*USDI, OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE, PORTLAND, OR
FEDERAL CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION:
US SENATOR LARRY CRAIG (ID), WASHINGTON DC AND BOISE, ID
US SENATOR DIRK KEMPTHORNE, CD’A, ID
US REP HELEN CHENOWETH, BOISE, ID
STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES AND OFFICIALS
*IDAHO DEPT. OF FISH AND GAME, COEUR D'ALENE, ID
IDAHO DEPT. OF HEALTH & WELFARE, DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENT, COEUR D’ALENE, ID
IDAHO STATE SENATOR TIM TUCKER, PORTHILL, ID
BOUNDARY COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, BONNERS FERRY, !D
*BOUNDARY COUNTY EXTENSION OFFICE, BONNERS FERRY, ID
CITY OF BONNERS FERRY, BONNERS FERRY, IDAHO
*KOOTENA! COUNTY NATURAL RESOURCES PROTECTION, COEUR D'ALENE, ID
BONNER COUNTY WEED CONTROL, SANDPOINT, ID
Noxious Weed Management Projects Draft EIS List of Agencies - 1
LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS TO WHOM COPIES OF THE RECORD OF DECISION AND CHAPTER
V HAVE BEEN SENT.
INDIAN TRIBAL AGENCIES
KOOTENAI TRIBAL COUNCIL, BONNERS FERRY, ID
YAKIMA INDIAN NATION, TOPPENSIH, WA
UNIVERSITIES AND LIBRARIES
*BOUNDARY COUNTY LIBRARY, BONNERS FERRY, ID
BUSINESSES
CPI, L.P., BONNERS FERRY, ID
KPND, SANDPOINT, ID
ORGANIZATIONS
ALLIANCE FOR THE WILD ROCKIES, MISSOULA, MT
KOOTENAI! VALLEY SPORTSMAN ASSOCIATION, BONNERS FERRY, ID
NORTH IDAHO AUDUBON SOCIETY, BONNERS FERRY, ID
INLAND EMPIRE PUBLIC LANDS COUNCIL, SPOKANE, WA
GREYSTONE, ENGLEWOOD, CO
WOODNYMPH WILDERNESS WATCH, MOSCOW, ID
*BOUNDARY COUNTY SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT, BONNERS FERRY, ID
*AGRICULTURAL COMMITTEE, BOUNDARY COUNTY, IDAHO
INDIVIDUALS
KAREN WILLIAMS, COEUR D’LENE, ID
FRANCIS BUCHER, BONNERS FERRY, ID
MIKE AND DAN RIPATTI, BONNERS FERRY, ID
DONNA AND ART BRATTKUS, HOPE, ID
*TERRY BICKNELL, MOYIE SPRINGS, ID
INTERMOUNTAIN RESEARCH, SANDPOINT, ID
List of Agencies - 2 Noxious Weed Management Projects Draft EIS
APPENDIX A
y a lw hil ~ ‘a te: Ree
i 7 ¥ -
ae es . .
Cente, ee ee | ; : va Px :
_ eae wake
71> aa ener ee ae dae. 7” - } yr
Vire
M a -
eae anu leat aa 7 , Meuae | 7”
en eS aa, Pid ee a . na
a > an 'r2 CIE, OC 5
pe 5 WS var tar ou ery ere ' c
pir Oe ae * 1K?
ee Py eee tate fa 2
4 Mi ; >, aoe an ay : : ‘ t 7 i
my .. ho ’ a aan ries : ie 7 y - ad - | ¥ . ; ; sf ;
* ~S, © ion # ay ‘
a
es iy a . - % ra, r 7 / .
oe he le in iene aa renee J ee
ia Oh a55e iat, ee) | re
(ee CD eee TSS ee) ee
its SC a awe | res Pee
che hat talc ymer | 7 a - 7) = :
‘i re een: Hae oi
i ae a 7 Pi
isicsheaiieianehe i Ree ee
IDAHO PANHANDLE NATIONAL FORESTS
INTEGRATED WEED MANAGEMENT
POovoOn eve
Potential New Invaders: Emphasis on education, awareness and preventicn cf
noxious and undesirable weed species that do not yet occur on the National
Forest. This will be accomplished by continuing to participate and further
develop programs with State and County Agencies informing the public of the
various noxious and undesirable weeds that are invading the State and rears
of helping prevent or control these plants.
A. People working to manage noxious and undesirable weeds need the
knowledge and ability to recognize when a new plant is present ané
what to do about it when one is found or thought to exist. To
accomplish this the Forest will expand the present program for
in-service training and involvement to reach more of those working on
the District (including volunteers and other cooperators) in
identification, monitoring, and treatment of new infestations as well
as those that are established. The Forest will also expand work with
the local State and County agencies in education and awareness
programs for the public and land users to recognize Priority I noxious
weeds.
Be Develop a monitoring and survey program to maintain surveillance of
the Forest for new invaders, spread of established invaders, outbreaks
and other related information.
ae The Forest will develop a noxious weed (undesirable plant) field guice
for the IPNF with sufficient colored pictures and descriptions so it
cen be carried in the field as an aid in identifying these plants.
Include instructions on collection and submitting plants for
pape ee Nahas and techniques to be used in recording infestations.
his work will be accomplished in cooperation with State and Count:
Agencies and the University of Idaho.
ee
4 form and instructions for submitting specimens to the U. of I. fer
identification are included in Appendix J.
De The IPNF will, at least, on an annual basis, share informetion on
their respective noxious weed treatment programs and established
priorities with State and County Agencies and County Weed Control
Associations and other interested groups. The IPNF will continue
support for the 5 County Weed Association in northern Idaho.
Once a Priority I weed is identified as having invaded an area, it
will be placed in Priority II and appropriate action taken. as
described in Prioritvi1t..
0)
A-6
Priority I1!: hi
Eradication of New Invaders:
The highest priority for treatment will be given to new invading noxice |
weeds. A key factor in treating Priority Il weeds is to prevent condi tt".
that allow them to become established. Eradication is the goal for new _
invaders. Each District will develop their own list of new inveders.
Components of this treatment priority include:
rT
+.
A. New invaders are the highest priority for funding of control “ls
B. The objective for new invaders is immediate control and eventual
eradication while the infestation is spall and before it has a chane<
3 to spread. Take appropriate isolation and eradication measures as
F scon as a new invader is officially identified. Report location o
the infestation to the University of Idaho who maintains a State wi1-
inventory.
3
Bee There are drainages, road systems and areas on the IPNF where only a
few or a small area of noxious weea infestation exists (breakout |
e
-
3 areas). This includes several new weed infestations on the fores
3 wnere the soil was not disturbed by human activity. Spotted knarwe
leafy spurge, rush skeletonweed, common St. John's-wort, etc. ATE ve
aggressive plants and compete successfully with native vegetation.
example is the new infestation of rush skeletonweed on the meadow
aiong the upper Coeur da' Alene river, section 20, TI54N., R-2b., Bos
Merdian. This infestation is 100 yards from the road and no othe: )
Gevelopment is located near the site. Elimination of the few > eal
in these areas followed by annual monitoring and follow-up treatment
as needed will keep these areas free of noxious weeds. The son ofl
will include revegetation to reduce opportunity for re-invasion o
nexious weeds.
meximize efforts to identify all infestations.
E. Where feasible, identify and treat the cause(s) of the noxious we
infestations to reduce the possibility of re-entry. This may inc
the following:
{ 5 ° 8 ‘
D Coordinate surveys with adjacent landowners and other agenczes “i
% ix Means of transport (vehicle, animal, bird, etc.)
2 2. Existing vegetation. Identify the vegetation growing on the s:
- of the infestation. Include an estimate of crown density by
species.
~
"
i 3. Identify soil and land conditions. This includes recent
= | disturbances such as road construction, road maintenence.
logging. catastrophes such as fire, landsiide, etc..
information that may be available such as distance from the
4 4, If available, identify closest seed source and other a
= Forest, property owner, travel route. etc..
A-7 |
Priority ail
Established Infestations:
weed species in this priority have become well established and eradication is
not economically or environmentally feasible within the boundaries of the IPNF.
Generally the treatment for these invaders will be by biological control
methods. Exceptions may be around campground, administrative sites, seed
orchards and similar areas where mechanical mowing may be in order or chensica?
treatment followed by revegetation with desirable plants to reduce opportunity
for re-invesion by noxious weeds. Seeding of desirable plants and
fertilization may be a control in may areas that are now a problen.
This treatment priority includes the following:
A. Emphasis will be on containment and preventing further spread.
Be Special consideration will be given to "breakouts" from established
infestation and along routes of spread, or adjacent to private lands.
Acceptable, but immediate and effective control measures will be taken
in such ereas.
CA Any approved control measure may be used on established infestations,
however, the decision on which to use will include the "cost/benefit
of the alternatives and an evaluation of the likelihood for success.
Ba Biological control will be emphasized on established infestations
where successful agents are available and an evaluation shows there is
reasonable expectation for success. Research Application and
Development (R&D) efforts on biological control agents will be
concentrated on Priority III species.
Ee Management practices will be used in conjunction with control
activities. These management practices include, but are not to be
ienired: toc
1. Promoting the introduction/growth of both native and non-nat-ve
species of vegetation that will better compete with noxious weeds.
2. Regulating the movement of and/or the use of livestock.
3. Regulating the movement of and/or the use of vehicles.
A-8
ONT ate a cet ce ni et ON SER, St TOTITT
eee ee
ee Re ae ee Yee ee ee | a ww
we gee Oye Pee Te
.
:
PROPOSED FIVE YEAR IWM PROGRAM OBJECTIVES FOR NEW INVADERS Z Hi
Summary: New invaders are isolated stands of noxious and other undesirable (a
weeds whose population levels outside a specified area or region are such tha}™
all seed production can be prevented each growing season. Based on informatic:.
gathered during inventory work (1987 & 1988) nine plant species have been 1
identified on the Forest which meet this definition. As yet, none of the ni
species occur in large enough population levels that they are causing any
significant resource damage. However, all the species are highly aggressive.
competitive and difficult to control. If left unchecked all will estabiisn ©
the Forest, impacting resources. Once established the financial burden of
control would be staggering. Hence, control strategies are being implemented
now while the numbers of weeds are few and the acreage affected are smal:. |
This results in lower costs then if these weeds are allowed to become
established.
es which can be measured to
Project objectives (statements of precise outcon
determine actual accomplishments):
his project is immediate containment (100%
The overall objective of t
Ultimately, howeve
control) of the nine species listed as new invaders.
he objective is to eradicate all infestations.
ass
2. To take appropriate control measures as soon as a new invader is officia
identified to prevent all seed production. This will require follow-up —
treatment each growing season until the invader is eradicated.
2. To maintain a New Invader list on each Ranger District and Maintearo oan
elert program that aids in early detection of new locations.
4. To give highest treatment priority to funding control efforts on new
invaders.
5. To hold annual in-service weed education and identification courses anc
reguire attendance.
6. To provide weed education and identification clinics and training in
cooperation with Counties and other organizations (an example is a Back
Country Horsemen Clinic being held in 1989, cooperative work with the Nor
Idaho Weed Association and the Idaho Weed Control Association)
- To identify and develop strategies for a realistic and systematic survey
all lands susceptible to invasion within the boundaries of the IPNF.
Surveys will be scheduled to coincide with bloom periods to aid in
detection.
~
&. To identify high risk areas outside the areas of infestation and monitos
tnese at high risk areas on an on-going basis.
aw®
2)
9. To identify defendable weed barrier lines for each species conmcentrati
control effort at the perimeters working towards the center of the
infestation.
Oe ee et ee ee
10.
ee
Lae
Ley
14,
16;
To maintain a map record showing locations of all found infestations and
keep maps up to date.
To identify rehabilitation needs for ali sites in the project areas and
carry through with rehabilitation. =
To advise all agencies and organizations with a vested interest in
manegement of the IPNF about these projects and to solicit their support
and assistance.
To identify and treat the causes of the infestations to reduce the
possibility of re-invasion.
To coordinate mapping and surveys with State and Local agencies maxinize
efforts. Enlist support of volunteers, agencies and organizations such es
the Idaho Wildlife Federation, Back Country Horsemen, Kootenai
Environmental Association and Counties to help with inventory work.
To supplement surveys with awareness posters at strategic locations
throughout the Forest.
To report all new invader locations to the University of Idaho which
maintains a statewide inventory.
A-10
EO Oe ee oe Te ee ee
:
PROPOSED FIVE YEAR IWM PROGRAM OBJECTIVES FOR POTENTIAL INVADERS 1
Summary: Potential invaders are noxious and other undesirable weeds as yetmy
unrecorded on the IPNF but the potential for infestation is imminent. Peop] gm
who work within the Forest Service as well as users of Forest resources needa
the knowledge and ability to recognize these exotic species and what to co |
about them when they are found or thought to exist. Thus, the emphesis in i
proposed program is education, awareness, and prevention. During the
environmental analysis, 28 species were identified as potential invaders -- }
species are recognized as most likely to invade within the next 5 years. E |
detection of the Forests future weed problems before they get out of hand a}
good resource management.
1. The overall objective is early detection of noxious and undesirable |
while infestations are such that all seed production can be prevented al
prevention of the conditions which allow them to invade the Forest.
Project objectives (statements of precise outcomes which can be measured to
determine actual accomplishments):
2. To continue to participate and further develop programs with individual
organizations, other federal agencies and state and county agencies to
inform on the means of helping prevent and control these weeds. This
includes providing clinics, publications and distribution of brochures if
provide information on the "most likely" potential invaders. ’
To expand in-service training and involvement to reach more of those
working on the Ranger Districts (including volunteers and other
cooperators) in identification, proper reporting procedures, monitoring é&
treatzent of potential invaders. IE
LS)
4. To use the University of Idaho form and instructions for submitting
specimens (see Appendix J).
5. To begin collecting initial information on potentiel invaders (i.e. A
biology of the weed and of known natural enemies; the biology of the
ecosystem surrounding the weec; monitoring techniques; non-toxic manag
technigues; and chemical tools ideally used to quickly suppress the co
outbreak). First priority will be given to the 10 most likely to invace
tne next five years.
6. To prioritize the potential invader list for development of surveys. R
highest priority to those species which occur adjacent to Forest Service
lands, species which occur along waterways which run through the Fores
which occur along major transportation routes which run through the Fo
7. To complete initial surveying for the 10 potential invader species thrq@
out tne Forest.
8. To establish an annual weed alert and survey program on the Forest.
To obtain herbarium specimens of potential invaders and display at i
Ranger District Offices.
We)
Aq-1i
10. To develop educational materials for distribution to Forest users.
To take immediate action when potential invaders are identified to prevent
all seed production.
12. To immediately survey, identify, and locate on maps locations of all found
potential invaders. Continue annual survey work for the found potential
invaders until there is assurance the weeds are eradicated (5 or more years
in some cases).
tee www
;
|
|
PROPOSED FIVE YEAR PROGRAM OBJECTIVES FOR ESTABLISHED INVADERS
Overview:
Established invaders are noxious and
the IPNF that for ell practical purposes seed pro
prevented.
however to attempt to contain exis
undesirable weeds so common cr
Therefore eradication is.not technically feasible.
and prevent the establishment of new
management activities.
s
duction can not be reasonab-
It is feasil
ting infestations, reduce infested acreage’
infestations as a result of land
The primary purpose
protection of uninfested acres of range.
Within ithe bcuncaties of athe .leNre
of this program shall be the
forest, recreation and pasture ian
determine actual accomplishments):
1
Project objectives (statements of precise outcomes which can be measured ol
goal.
The main cbjective is containment, with annual reduction as a long- tera ill
2. To emphasize and prioritize control measures in recreational areas and ¢
along routes of spread. Control shall be prioritized beginning with --
of highest human usage.
3. To locate, map and cause control of isolated infestations of spotted i
knapweed and St. John's-wort.
= ‘LU. To coordinate control efforts of northern Idaho counties. Such
3 coordination will stress elimination of duplication and will encourege
¥ cooperation and sharing of educational materials.
on users of the Forest.
; 6p
meet objectives.
To develop a targeted, Forest-wide education end awareness program foc
To follow-up initial control efforts with site specific management ef
~
.
.
‘7
To determine site-specific injury/action levels using the criteria te
Policy Priority III).
SB.
including seeding, fertilization, and other spot treatment as needec t
recommended by the Idaho Noxious Weed Workgroup ( ppendix A - Noxious wé-
To use management practices in conjunction with control activities.
management practices include, but are not limited to:
i.
-- Promoting the introduction,growth of both native and desirable ii
non-native vegetation that will better compete with targeted weeds.
-- Regulating the movement of and/or use of livestock.
-- Regulating the movement and/or use of vehicles.
harvest sites.
*
-- Use the knapweed road model (Appendix E)or a similar method to pred
the risk of knapweed invasion on all new road construction and
timber
ome
_ mee
wee
\O
*
-- Use the Losenski knapweed road model (Appendix E) or a similar method
to predict the risk of knapweed invasion on all new road construction and
timber harvest sites. Use the risk rating to determine mitigation measures
necessary to reduce target weed invasion risk.
-- where practical, retain shade on road surfaces by limiting road-side
clearing and harvest cutting.
-- Newly constructed roads should be surveyed and all new knaepweed and St.
Johns-wort plants pulled or spot sprayed seasonally as a part of road
maintenance.
-- Conduct a survey of existing roads. Those segments that are currentl
free of knapweed and St. John's-wort should be treated as new constructicn.
-- Evaluate the proposed cutting unit as to the risk of spotted knapweed
invasion using the models in Appendix E).
-- Consider requiring "clean" equipment for timber harvest in high risk
ereas where spotted knapweed and St. John's-wort are not present.
-- Use dozer scarification only when it is the only prectical treatment on
moderete and high risk areas. This treatment should be carried out with
"clean" equipment.
-- Creme Re prescriptions should be directed at maintaining es much
de as possible on site and limiting the amount of soil disturbance to
t regeneration needs. On high risk areas, consider using single tree or
ignt shelterwood harvest method.
Luate the risk of permitting cattle use after harvest on high risk
s (Cattle use occurs on about 3 percent of the Forest).
-- Consider winter logging on high risk areas where seed is present to
educe the threet of seed transfer to uninfested sites in the stand.
-- Consider seeding non-sod forming grasses.and forbs to occupy disturbed
tes on high risk areas.
To expend and further the establishment of host-specific biological agent
cn St. John's-wort and spotted knapweed and establish specific areas for
repid colonization of new bioagents for future redistribution. Once
established these areas will provide sites for training and education
purpcoses.
--Appropriate release sites for colonization of biological control agents
11 be determined. Release site will be chosen depending on the severity
the weed infestation, present and planned land use and weed control
fforts. Releases will be made in densely infested areas. The number of
agents released at any site will be that which is deemed optimum for fieid
establishment. Where necessary, cooperation from permittees will be
secured to protect the release sites from disturbance from people or
livestock.
q
~ |
P|
Ee |
|
-- To collect and/or purchase biological agents.
-- To develop a recordkeeping system and regularly monitor release sized
ascertain colonization and establishment.
-- To monitor the population development and spread of the colonized a
agents.
bioagents. Training will include procedures for collection and release
-- To train in-service personnel on identification and life history of {
--Purchase and/or develop educational materials which help the public a:
involved agency personnel understand the major role biological control
pleys in an integrated weed management progran.
-- If appropriate, quantitative evaluation of the bioagent populations i”
be performed following the guidelines and procedures set by Dr. Joe
McCaffery, University of Idaho or a similar survey procedure.
&
Losenski's models may need modification to meet the
climatic and environmental characteristics found on the IPNF.
A=15
| 1002 Uey Jajea19| SpeoJ ssa00e Gu0)e ‘paandeuy’s|oe 9°¢/ju 94
| 100) UO43 4938946 A]}S0W| 59 9 speos fAsuey ‘paamymen|oe ¢°¢/1w 2°2|
| 100E YOY} 4238949| speoy 6u0)e ‘Asue, ‘paamyneq|9e g°g/tw g*2|
| 100} UeY4, 4238219] MOU peos BUC}e ‘paandeuy ‘paamymen|o@ Z2°¢/1w ¢°1|
| 1002 ueyy 49}e949| 5) U} pue speou Bu0}e {\esanas| re ZL/iw 2|
| : | - | - |
| 1002 UeYy} 4a}ea419| MO’ peos Bu0}e ‘paandeuy ‘paamyneH|Ie 9°¢/iw C*4|
| ,00£ UeY} Jazea19| MOJ peos 6u0)e ‘paamymey ‘Asuey|2e 9°Z2/1w Q°4|
| ,00¢ UY Jajea49| Mos peos Buoje ‘Asuey ‘paamyneq|Ie ¢°9/1W 9°2|
| 1002 YUeYy} 42}e3949| Jipesods ‘paamymey| 28 "1 |
| s00E UY 49}ea46 A}JSOW| mos peos /)esaaas|Ie 6°Z/1m 274]
| ,00£ UeY 49}Ze046 A]}SOW| MoJ peos Buoje /)esaaas| 2°42/1W 2°01|
| 7 | : | |
| ,00£ UeYZ Ja}e9I9| S]184} ayx1qsoJoW Buoje !)}euaaas| 98 4°2/1wW 4|
| 100 UeY Ja}eaI9| peos ssao0e Buoje ‘/)esaaas| 9e 9°Z/1m 1|
| 100£ UeY J4a}e949| pasa}3e9s ‘xe}jpeo, ‘u0}a)24$| 28 2] |
| ,00£ UeYy 4a}ea19| MOJ peos Gu0je ‘paamymeq| Ie 4°21 /1w S|
| 1002 UeYy 42}e919| MOJ peos 6u0)e ‘paamymeH|Ie 6°¢/1W 9°]
| 1002 uey, 4a}e919| Jipesods ‘paamymey| 28 rE |
| ,00£ “ey 4a}e019| Jipesods ‘paamymeq | 2e 2 |
| s00L Yay 4238016 A}3SOW| Mod peos 6uoje ‘paamymen|e@ 6°61/1w 2°79]
| 1001 ueYy, 4a}e019| S}1un N4y} Iipesods ‘paamyneq| 28 QZ |
| 1002 UeYy 42}8919| MOJ peos 6u0je ‘paamymeq| ce s1/tw |
| s00E UeYZ 493e946 A} JSOW| smopeaw ut ‘paanyney | 2e 9 |
| ,00£ UeYX 49}@a46 A}JSOW| SMOpeawRNos peow Buo}e ‘paamymeH| 28 JL /1W Z|
| 1002 UEY 493ea46 A} ISOW| Mos peos buoje ‘paanymeq|2e ¢¢/iw g*eL|
| 100 UY 42}3e949| MOU peo’ Gu0)e ‘paandeuy ‘paamymeH| Ie 9°6/1W 4]
| ,00E “ey, 4a}ea49| Iw eG 4S, BuO]e ‘Asue} ‘paamynen| 2e8 G° |
| /00E UeYY 4a}eaI9|W 2°, 3S, Buoje ‘paamdeuy ‘paanyneq| 28 6° |
| s00L UtYyrIA| sa9e)d ut snoul}u0d ‘paamyney | 28 g |
| ,00£ UeY. 423@019| MOU peo’ Gu0)e ‘paamdeuy ‘paamymey|I2e4°¢)/1W 49°C]
| 1002 “ey 4930956 Ay1s0W| mod peos Huo)e SAsue} ‘paamymey | 28 9°6/iw |
| 1002 “ey 49}3ea19| MO’ peou Buo}e ‘paamdeuy ‘paamymey|Ie ¢-9/1m 9°2|
| 100 UeY} 49}ea46 A} }SOW| mo. peos Buoje ‘paamymey| Ie gy*/iw 2°|
| ,00£ “ey 49}ea46 A)}SOW| Mos peos Buoje ‘Asue, ‘paomymeq|Ie 72°9/1tu g*2]
| 100¢ uey? 49}ea59| Mo4 peos Buoje ‘paamdeuy| oe ¢-7/iw ¢|
| ,00£ UY} 412}3e049|peo4u seau ydJed j})eWS ‘Asuey UOWMOD| De 42°/1w 1 -|
| ,00£ UeY, 4a}e949| Mos peos ‘ASUeY UOUMIOD ‘pasmyMeH| Fe ¢7Z/tu ¢|
| 1 OOF UeY? 49}e919| MO4 peos Guoje ‘poomymey| 9e gy-/iw ¢°|
| ,00£ YUeY, 4a}e949| MOJ peos Buoje ‘poamymey| 9e go y/iw 2]
| 100€ YEYI 4193e046 A}YSOW|MO4 peos ‘poomdeuy ‘Asuey *paomymey | 2e2"g] /u ey
=e 4 t
|
4a}em 0} Aytwixoug |
(Sn - a
aoaoaguwrxreeoeaaoa8wanaaxrwee oe A 2
Tiar-xewa.ski ax a it
x & & xX
xa-rex ao Qa
a a a
a a x a
=<
pazeod| Ssatdads poo,
|-
1
5 ee ee eee pe Po ee ee
aaa aa
t
a
t)
a
| pu sse2oy 99 y 49 Jeddo3|
| speos 3 99 2487 UosU:goy|
ssad0y 34@7 ysnig|
| spy ssaooy aye] steyours|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| sas9e/ab6e9)tw|a-9‘2 pue }9td|do)a/quesig|a-9*2|o1g|uen|
9) pue speo.
43 mopesy |
42 ulge3|
807 Pu 2) suiAquan 4 |
809/922 PY ULEIUNOW 49e)8|
SMOpeaW Jap}nog|
829 ‘80% Pu 4ep)nog|
2022/6022/71£ Spa &428>|
4} 241Q4020W g apadwe)s|
aU} }JamMog Vda y epedwejs|
poem U0J2)9xS apadwe}s |
OS92 Pue 2e2 PY ue}}eI1|
OS72 PY 49 Auepunog|
42 60g|
Yid Jeae4yN 4D sses9|
9£9 Pu 49 sses9|
S3}UN JSeAsey 4D a)ppes|
speoy Asepunog/)ppes |
4 no? saddy|
PY 4D Yy2!wWs seddp|
2)ppes ‘seaeog
*mo) peag|
182 PY Jamo] y 4D YyrIWS|
}$841 49 UoAUeD 6u04|
b22B7_ $) $843 49 49x4eq|
30} )}@ MOD 4D NOI, 4aM07|
9£9 PY 49 N04 |
bby2 8 2k Spu
229 Pu
££9 Pa seddn 9
££9 PY PIW B
CL9BLLVZ PU V
24992 P
V9792 PU
sseq noqise)
2001 Pu
207 PY
94ts
8 49 1)e8|
v 49 11e8|
42 2)3AsH|
42 2) 34AW|
42 3) 34AW|
3 49 mous |
Q@ 49 mous |
Sy ris) mous |
@ 49 mous |
v 49 mous |
S311S 910
&g2
Je
92
S2
972
£2
e2
be
02
6L
8
qb
BLL
ot
St
aL
tb
ay
bt
OL
6
PB
28
98
8g
Z
nw ©
-“_nwmvwrunwvder ©
SSS 8483} eee OT Oe Le
SS eee ee ee eS oe ep ee
,00E UeYI 4232049
|
|
|
|
$n2uea}2 ut pue speos buo)e| .
poomyney ‘paamdeuy~s ‘ayasiysa| 9€ Go yL/tw 9|
4ayem OF AIWLXOId
|
pazeas) satdads poen
ak anes ene wel Wana ans Mase roe, RNR SRI Sm a oe EST ST,
loot waste [ath * [| i+ «| th-d=3 - am
ee ae [b> al 3 beds - ft [Fas
~ | ~ | ~ { + [p= <a Vise | | £9
d | ~ | d | d|- | 6062 spy a 4aa49 saddop| = qgz | 2%
}- 4 =} $$$ fp tp
| sause/abea)tw|a-7'2 pue 121d|do)3/questa|a-97‘z|o1a|uew| az! Jon aats|
S311S 91d
BURIUOW
oyep|
et | 1Z|
ID sepinog
you|siq sabuey Avwa+ siauuog
NISL
| | Aue4 =i
r —_ ae)
Res :
‘ 4 oueroo” | Siouuog \! .-
z Am
BURUOW)
NZEL NS91
APPENDIX B
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Poticy AND MANAGEMENT 677 Huntington Avenue
(617) 732-1090 Boston, Massachusetts 02115
February 1, 1990
Dr. Richard E. Stuckey
Director
The National Association
of Wheat Growers Foundation
415 Second Street, N.E.
Suite 300
Washington, DC 20002
Dear Dr. Stuckey:
In response to your request for an independent review of the
evidence on 2,4°D and cancer, I _ have the pleasure of
transmitting to you the final report of the workshop held
October 17°19, 1989. The report considers both the
toxicological (animal) and epidemiological (human) evidence.
The toxicology data by itself provides little reason to expect
that 2,4=-D causes cancer in people. Experimental studies have
shown an excess of brain tumors in male rats at the highest
levels of exposure but not in female rats or mice of either
gender. Further research is necessary to generate reliable data
on the effects of high doses ingested by male rats. If 2,4-D is
ultimately shown to be an animal carcinogen, it is unlikely to
be a very potent one.
weighing the epidemiological evidence, the workshop concluded
that a cause-and-effect relationship between 2,4-D and cancer is
far from being established. The results of two studies
conducted by the same research tean suggest an association
between the occupational use ef 2,4°-D and non-Hodgkin's
lymphoma. However, the workshop participants felt this
association needs to be interpreted cautiously, first, because
other studies have not shown the sane results and second,
because some factor other that 2,4-D might be involved.
Additional epidemiological studies already underway in the
United States, Canada, New Zealand and Sweden will address this
question.
Based on all available evidence, the panelists were asked to
assess how likely it is that exposure to 2,4-D is capable of
causing cancer in people. None of the panelists felt that the
evidence was strong enough to conclude that 2,4-D is either a
known or probable cause of cancer. Of the 13 panelists, 11 felt
it is possible that exposure to 2,4-D can cause cancer in
humans, though not all of them felt the possibility was equally
likely: one thought the possibility was relatively strong,
leaning toward probable; and five thought the possibility was
relatively remote, leaning toward unlikely. A minority of two.
participants felt it was unlikely that 2,4-D can cause Cancer in
people. Several members felt that the evidence was barely |
adequate to support any conclusion. (The panel stressed that it
used the terms "probable" and "possible" in their ordinary sense
and not as reference to specific carcinogen classification
categories used by any regulatory agency.)
As a means of resolving these issues, workshop participants
stressed the need for future studies to develop more reliable
and precise estimates of 2,4-D exposure and to distinguish more
Clearly between 2,4-D and other agents in the collection and
analysis of data and the reporting of results.
In closing, I would like to recognize the distinguished panel of
workshop participants and project staff for their thorough,
expert evaluation of the complex body of scientific literature
on this widely-used product.
Yours sincerely,
Qe De
hn D. Graham, Ph.D.
Director ;
Program on Risk Analysis and Environmental Health
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX C
PROCEDURES FOR MIXING, LOADING, AND
DISPOSAL OF PESTICIDES
The following measures will apply to all pesticide applications.
1. All mixing of pesticides will occur at least 100 feet from surface waters or well heads.
2. Dilution water will be added to the spray container prior to addition of the spray concentrate.
3. All hoses used to add dilution water to spray containers will be equipped with a device to prevent
back-siphoning.
4. Applicators will mix only those quantities of pesticides that can be reasonably used in a day.
5, During mixing, mixers will wear a hard hat, goggles or face shield, rubber gloves, rubber boots, and
protective overalls.
6. All empty containers will be triple rinsed and rinsate disposed of by spraying near the application site at
rates that do not exceed those on the Spray site.
7. All unused pesticide will be stored in a locked building in accord with pesticide storage regulations
contained in Forest Service Handbook 2109.13.
8. All empty and rinsed pesticide containers will be punctured and either burned or disposed of in a sanitary
landfill.
APPENDIX D
APPENDIX D
SPILL PLAN
The following equipment will be available with vehicles or pack animals used to transport pesticides and in
the immediate vicinity of all spray operations. Mi
ONO nhWDND —
. A shovel
. A broom (except backcountry operations)
. 10 pounds of absorbent material or the equivalent in absorbent pillows.
. A box of large plastic garbage bags.
. Rubber gloves
. Safety goggles
. Protective overalls
. Rubber boots
The appropriate Material Safety Data Sheets will be reviewed with all personnel involved in the handling of
pesticides.
The following material from the U.S. EPA document entitled Applying Pesticides Correctly: A Guide for Private
and Commercial Applicators will be reviewed with all personnel involved in handling pesticides.
CLEAN UP OF PESTICIDE SPILLS
Minor Spllls
Keep people away from spilled chemicals. Rope off the area and flag it to warn people. Do not leave
unless someone is there to confine the spill and warn of the danger. If the pesticide was spilled on
anyone, wash it off immediately.
Confine the spill. If it starts to spread, dike it up with sand or soil. Use absorbent material such as soil,
sawdust, or an absorbent clay to soak up the spill. Shovel all contaminated material into a leakproof
container for disposal. Dispose of it as you would excess pesticides. Do not hose down the area,
because this spreads the chemical. Aways work carefully and do not hurry.
Do not let anyone enter the area until the spill is completely cleaned up.
Major Spills
The cleanup of a major spill may be too difficult for you to handle, or you may nc be sure of what to
do. In either case, keep people away, give first aid if needed, and confine the spill. Then call Chemtrec,
the local fire department, and State pesticide authorities for help.
Chemtrec stands for Chemical Transportation Emergency Center, a public service of the Manufactur-
ing Chemicals Association. Its offices are located in Washington, D.C. Chemtrec provides immediate
advice for those at the scene of emergencies.
Chemtrec operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to receive Calls for emergency assistance. For
help in chemical emergencies involving spills, leaks, fire, or explosions, Call toll-free 800-424-9300 day
or night. This number is for emergencies only.
If a major pesticide spill occurs on a highway, have someone call the highway patrol or the sheriff for
help. (Cary these phone numbers with you.) Do not leave until responsible help arrives.
D-1
In addition the section from the Northern Region Emergency and Disaster Plan entitled *Hazardous Materials
Releases and Oil Spills' will be reviewed with all appropriate personnel (See following pages). Notification and
reporting requirements as outlined in this section will be followed in the unlikely event of a serious spill.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RELEASES AND OIL SPILLS
(Excerpted from the Northern Region Emergency and Disaster Plan)
AUTHORITY: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); and
Supertund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA). Other statutes that may apply include
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA); Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA); Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); Clean Water
Act (CWA); and Clean Air Act (CAA).
DEFINITION: A hazardous materials emergency or oil spill is defined as any release or threat of release of
a hazardous substance or petroleum product that presents an imminent and substantial risk of injury to heatth
or the environment.
A release is defined as any spilling, leaking, Pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting,
escaping, leaching, dumping, or disposing into the environment.
Releases that do not constitute an immediate threat, occur entirety within the work place, are federally
permitted, or are a routine pesticide application, are not considered to be an emergency and are not covered
by this direction.
RESPONSIBILITY:The first person who knows of a release and is capable of appreciating the significance
of that release has the responsibility to report the release.
Only emergency release response and reporting is covered by this direction. Non-emergency reporting will
be accomplished by appropriate RO staff specialists who should be notified directly of all non-emergency
releases.
An emergency release of a hazardous substance or petroleum product may be from a Forest Service
operation or facility; from an operation on National Forest land by a permit holder, contractor, or other third
party; or from a transportation related vehicle, boat, pipeline, aircraft, etc., crossing over, on, or under Forest
lands. Response and/or reporting by Forest Service employees will differ in each situation:
1. ‘ifthe release is from a Forest Service facility or operation, the Forest Service and its employee(s)
is clearly the “person in charge," and is fully responsible for all reporting. Immediate response
action is limited to that outlined in emergency plans and Only to the extent that personal safety
is not threatened.
2. i the release is from a third party operation, the Forest Service will only respond and/or report
the emergency ff the third party fails to take appropriate action.
3. Ifthe release is from a transportation related incident, the Forest Service will only respond and/or
report the emergency if the driver or other responsible party is unable or fails to take appropriate
action.
RESPONSE ACTION GUIDE: THE PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY OF ANY FOREST EMPLOYEE(S) ENCOUN-
TERING A HAZARDOUS MATERIALS EMERGENCY OR OIL SPILL IS COMPLETE AND ACCUKATE REPORT-
ING TO APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES IN A TIMELY MANNER.
Forest Service employee(s) will not assume an incident command role for any hazardous materials emer-
gency or oil spill, but may provide support services as directed by an authorized Federal On-Scene Coordina-
tor (OSC) or other State or local authorized authority. ;
Within the limits of personal safety, common sense, and recognition of the dangers associated with any
hazardous materials emergency or oil spill, Forest Service employee(s) may provide necessary and immedi-
ate response actions until an authorized OSC or other authority can take charge. These actions may include:
- Public warning and crowd control.
- Retrieval of appropriate information for reporting purposes.
Additionally, and only after verification of the type of hazardous material involved and its associated hazards,
a Forest Service employee(s) may also take actions including:
- Rescue of persons in imminent danger.
- Limited action to mitigate the consequences of the emergency.
Under no condition shall a Forest Service employee(s):
- Place themselves or others in imminent danger.
- Perform or direct actions that will incur liability for the Forest Service.
IF THERE IS ANY QUESTION THAT THE EMERGENCY MAY CONSTITUTE A THREAT TO PERSONAL
SAFETY, LIMIT YOUR RESPONSE TO PUBLIC WARNING AND REPORTING OF THE INCIDENT.
PRECAUTIONS: When approaching the scene of an accident involving any cargo, or other known or
suspected hazardous materials emergency including oil spills:
Approach incident from an upwind direction, if possible.
Move and keep people away from the incident scene.
Do not walk into or touch any spilled material.
Avoid inhaling fumes, smoke, and vapors even if no hazardous materials are involved.
Do not assume that gases or vapors are harmless because of lack of smell.
Do not smoke, and remove all ignition sources.
ORGANIZATIONS FOR EMERGENCY AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE:
CHEMTREC - Chemical Transportation Emergency Center - 800-424-9300
(24 hour) (For assistance in any transportation emergency involving
chemicals.)
Rocky Mountain Poison Control Center - 800-525-5042 (24 hour)
303-629-1123 (24 hour)
National Agricuttural Chemicals Association - 202-296-1585
(For pesticide technical assistance and information referral.)
Bureau of Explosives - 202-293-4048
(For explosives technical assistance.)
Centers for Disease Control - 404-633-5313
(For technical assistance regarding etiologic agents.)
EPA Region 8 (MT, ND, SD)
Emergency Response Branch - 303-293-1723; FTS 564-1723
EPA Region 10 (Idaho)
Superfund Removal and Invest Section - 206-442-1196; FTS 399-1196
Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences (24 Hour) 406-444-691 1
Water Quality Bureau - 406-444-2406
Solid Waste Managemen Bureau - 406-444-2821
North Dakota State Health Department
Environmental Engineering - 701-224-2348
Hazardous Waste Division - 701-224-2366
Radiological Hazardous Substances - 701-224-2348
South Dakota Division of Environmental Quality :
Office of Water Quality - 605-773-3296
Office of Solid Waste Management - 605-773-5047
Idaho Department of Heatth and Welfare |
Water Quality Bureau - 208-334-5867
Solid Waste Bureau - 208-334-5879
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RELEASES AND OIL SPILLS -- CONTACT LIST
AND IMMEDIATE ACTION GUIDE
INDIVIDUAL
Do not expose yourself or others to any unknown
matenal.
a. Do not attempt rescue or mitigation until
material has been identified and hazards and pre-
Cautions noted.
b. Warn others and keep people away.
c. Approach only from upwind.
d. Do not walk in or touch material.
e. Avoid inhaling fumes and vapors.
f. Do not smoke, and remove ignition sources. | District Dispatcher or Ranger
Report the incident. Complete "Reporting Action
Guide’ within reasonable limits of exposure and
timeliness, and report information to District/
Forest Dispatcher.
If there is any question that incident is a threat to
personal safety, limit response to public wamings
and reporting.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RELEASES AND OIL SPILLS -- CONTACT LIST
AND IMMEDIATE ACTION GUIDE
DISTRICT
Forest Dispatcher
e
Insure reporting individual is aware of hazards as-
sociated with incident.
Obtain as much information as possible, complete
@ Copy Of the "Reporting Action Guide," and relay
all information to Forest Dispatcher.
For fixed facilities, verify if possible, whether or not
an emergency guide, Spill Prevention Control and
Countermeasure Plan, or similar response plan is
available for the specific emergency. If so, imple-
ment the response actions as indicated.
Dispatch additional help, communications sys-
tems, etc., to incident scene if incident is on Na-
tional Forest land or is caused by Forest Service
activity or facility. Otherwise support as requested
by official in charge.
If there is any question that incident is a threat to
personal safety, limit response to public warning
and reporting.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RELEASES AND OIL SPILLS -- CONTACT LIST
AND IMMEDIATE ACTION GUIDE
FOREST
Immediately contact the Forest Hazardous Materi-
als Incident Coordinator who will take the following
actions:
a. Determine ff incident is true emergency.
b. Determine who is responsible party for inci-
Gent, and whether appropriate actions and report-
ing have been accomplished.
c. From available information, determine haz-
ards and precautions, if possible, and relay further
instructions to reporting individual through the
District.
d. Initiate appropriate local reporting actions,
and coordinate responses with District. *
e. Arrange Forest support for on-scene coordi-
nator and/or local emergency response officials
as requested.
Make appropriate local emergency contacts as
directed by Forest Hazardous Materials Incident
Coordinator.
Relay information from Forest Hazardous Materi-
als Incident Coordinator back to District and up to
Regional Office as appropriate.
Forest Hazardous Materials Incident Coordinator who
will determine extent of emergency. If incident is de-
termined reportable, contact:
a. National Response Center (X9).
b. EPA Hazmat emergency response (X3).
c. Regional Incident Dispatcher (1).
d. County sheriff and/or county disaster and emer-
gency services coordinator.
e. State Emergency and Disaster organizations
(X12, X15, X17, X21)
f. North Dakota State Fire Marshal for oil spills ir,
North Dakota only (X19).
g. Internal Forest contacts.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RELEASES AND OIL SPILLS - CONTACT LIST
AND IMMEDIATE ACTION GUIDE
REGIONAL INCIDENT DISPATCHER
Immediately contact the Regional Hazardous Ma-
terials Incident Coordinator who will take the fol-
towing actions::
a. Personally work with Forest Hazardous Mate-
rials Incident Coordinator to determine extent of
the emergency. If incident is reportable, imple-
ment the following actions:
(1) By Data General (DG) mailing list notity:
Regional Forester, Deputy Regional Foresters,
Staff Directors, Attorney-In-Charge (OGC).
(2) Contact other RO specialists, other
Agency personnel, etc., as necessary to deter-
mine scope of problem and appropriate actions.
RO specialist contacts include:
(a) Regional Watershed Coordinator (if
incident involves streams, lakes, rivers, etc.) (2)
(b) Regional Reclamation Officer (if inci-
dent involves mining) (12)
(c) Regional Safety and Health Program
Manager (6)
(d) Regional Cooperative Forestry and
Pest Management (if pesticide related) (13)
(3) Arrange Regional support for on-scene
coordinator and/or local emergency response offi-
cials as requested.
(4) Arrange a Regional investigationfollowup
team if determined to be necessary.
(5) Keep Regional Forester, Staff Directors,
and OGC advised of situation via routine DG up-
dates.
Regional Hazardous Materials Incident Coordinator
(11)
Hf incident is determined to be reportable, verity that
National Response Center and appropriate Federal,
State, and loca! contacts have been made.
WO Personnel Management (Safety and Health) (W4)
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RELEASES AND OIL SPILLS -- CHECKLIST
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND OIL SPILLS REPORTING ACTION GUIDE
Atthough reporting requirements vary depending on the type of incident, the responsibility of the employee(s)
in the field is limited to collecting appropriate information and relaying it to the proper level of the organization
in a timely manner. Following is a list of the information that should be collected, if possible; however, it ts
more Important to maintain personal safety and report In a timely manner than to collect all information.
1. Date: Time of release:
Time discovered:
Time reported:
Duration of release:
2. Location:(Include State, county, route, milepost, etc.)
3. Chemical name:
Chemical identification number:
Other chemical data:
NOTE: For transportation related incidents, this information may be available from the driver, placards on the
vehicle, and/or shipping papers.
4. Known heath risks:
5. Appropriate precautions if known:
6. Source and cause of release:
7. Estimate of quantity released: gallons
Quantity reaching water: gallons
Name of affected watercourse:
8. Number and type of injuries:
9. Potential future threat to health or environment:
10. Your name:
Phone number for duration of emergency:
Permanent phone number: FTS Commercial
For transportation related incidents, also report:
41. Name and address of carrier:
12. Railcar or truck number:
tf there is any doubt whether an incident is a true emergency, Or whether reportable quantities of hazardous
materials or petroleum products are involved, or whether a responsible party has already reported the
incident, always report the Incident.
ont, 4 o* —P Pic 2 © 4 x nee @ 2 . 2 ye a i
i ¢
ys oe , cb oe re nbnioet os ath ope — 4
Deak eee . tee ed
: 5 ee ; re = a ne pee /m~_wie a ee i ;
Ew ee eeu PL, ‘ih eae Y ors it ¢ al “ue re te WE * ah ax ieee ay |
t es . 4 ian al Noyce de , - ‘ ‘ io Py / 4 = a ee Henne tr erat
, - 3 ie “ts ® it. 5s So Ye ; ree, Som, , 0 Pgs) a7 Pye ry oes ¢ ~ |
iy’ : ; » ee) OI yr taney 1 ‘ sida es ve» a a oe "
“he Wt ay (a a 2 co he Veg 7eFi 1B (ey ile, => Qngior a 6 ho wa ee re nl ? “es oe |
» _ 7 uate ‘ vets ‘ , = hee Sateh 7 yA A > ™ :
by om Vee yay: Sg oO CS yoTs ~ a C4 SA er So Ra rs : ht =
Rotor ohh 44 Bet Reg pcre enh Pat ht le Tome adr a et ee Be feet
>
| "?
‘ _ do
« Kare
’ ° ;
» 7]
7 ¢
Pi
!
’ Ss}
> * be ry a ” , 2 » * .
L a ' bs os sal ye »
]
: oy 2) ‘ , : , 6 4 > & >
athe TO ree uate ay a ae Sea eae Fe Bet a aremi, ne tepals
i ae ; ' ’ a: 2 i) OK. Sr Tales
iP
® - hay ~~ e a 7 ©
'
| ¥
HF * 9 f 7 ¥ + ‘ Phys a 2
‘ ad
be i
‘ ele 4 L0H 2 ‘
be 1 ie 15G Tes8 Sa Se
. ih 2» _
, y nr A ty : Lowe ipa f i ial ‘n ei ne ° 4 7
ahs oe | - oO - 4 - a)
‘ = ae . - - oe. * _
A —. = —iutteele or o @- % += re ad ates % ait) bape Pa re
<#- ae i BY
,
} fa
Sr ge Nae te. hae
eb
j
E wie Ewes
APPENDIX E
Uniced States
Department of
Agriculture
Forest
Service
Bonners Ferry
Ranger District
(208) 267-5561
Route 4, Box 4860
Bonners Ferry, ID
FAX (208) 267-7423
83805-9764
Re
Reply toi “2670 Date: 6/7/95
Subject: Sensitive Fish Biological Evaluation
for Nexious Weed EIS
To: District Ranger, Bonners Ferry
i. introduction
U.S.D.A. Forest Service policy (FSM~2672.4) requires a Biological
Evaluation (B.E.) to be completed to review programs Or activities in
Sufficient detail to determine how a project or proposed activity may
éziect any threatened, endangered, proposed or sensitive species. The B.E.
precess is intended to analyze and document activities necessary to ensure
Proposed management will not jeopardize the continued existence or cause
adverse modification of habitat’.
wné purpose of this B.E. is to evaluate the potential effects of the
roposed Noxious Weed EIS on threatened, endangered, and sensitive fish
Species, and determine whether any such species and habitat are likely to
be acversely affected by the proposed action.
5
e.
eee Ge
eee eee =
Meee eee
Cultural
Biologica
ction will use a combination of manual, cultural, biological,
atments to control noxious weeds. Each treatment is
a 9)
O
=
range from hand pulling and grubbing with hand tools
the plants with scythes or other cutters. If
removed, the individual plant can be destroyed.
reduce reproduction of perennial plants and weaken
iS ese
Control:
ontrol generally involves manipulating a site to increase the
ive advantage of desirable species and decrease the competitive
of undesirable species. Manipulations could involve
ting native plants to shade out weedy species or covering
contaminated soil with a layer of uncontaminated soil. Seeding
cies and applying fertilizer on site where ground cover is sparse
p to culturally control weeds.
DeControL:
bictessecaimace
hown some promise in reducing weed infestations. At the present time
relatively few biclogical control agents are available that are effective
aceéinst the weed species of concern here.
Biclegical control is the use of biotic agents to attack undesirable plant
species. Populations of native species are generally limited in part by
herbivorcus and pathogenic organisms as well as by competition for
nutrients and moisture. Non-native vegetation has had a dramatic impact in
man rts of the West because it has been introduced without biological
QO o
oh OS
Ct
K
ents present in its place of origin. The introduction of these
ents is viewed by most experts as the best long-term solution to
cious weed problem.
Tt QO)
BE On (é
(Vine
ct
ah ota
OO ORs.
bane OJ J 9)
Currently, two biocontrol agents, Urophora affinis and Urophora
ouadrifasciatus, are present in some knapweed infestations on the district.
In sufficient concentrations these seedhead flies can reduce seed
Ercducticn by 50 te 90 percent. However, knapweed is such -ayproliiicrseed
producer that these organisms have had no effect on the density of the
@ [Ome anoeletrule eLLects Onuiis ratemoLaspredc)
Several ciclogical agents are currently being introduced into the United
States for the control of Canada thistle. Ceuvutorhynchus litura is a stem
minzsce weeval which attacks the young Canada thistle plants in early
spring. The stem mining larvae internally attack the elongating stem in
€ariy summer. As the larvae develop they begin to create numerous exit
holes near the root crown leaving the plant succeptible to a variety of
tient pethogens. Under ideal circumstances (soil, size of anftestation,
climezre etc.) Eecrulacion densities may be reduced up to 90 percent
depending er the number of weevils released at the infestation (Rees,
Urorn=*2 Sargui is a stem and shoot. gall. fly which attacks Canadastnistie.
Adults deposit their egas on the axil of the stem in early summer. As the
larvae develop they burrow into the stem creating a walnut size bowl or
o@.1. The gall formation diverts the normal nutrient translocation away
from the metobolic and reproductive systems of the plant. As a result
flowers Gevelop abnormally, and seed production is reduced.
Chrvsclirné ouedrioemina is a defoliating beetle which attacks St. Johnswort
or goatweed This defoliating beetle has successfully reduced the density
cf this weed in locations where fall temperatures are mild and the rainfall
LEAL Ce Le There have been introductions of this beetle annually since
7650. Tne beetle is thriving and is found at several locations on the
Gistrict. There is evidence of St. Johnswort populations suffering the
effects of defoliation by this beetle.
Climatic and habitat conditions are expected to play a major role in the
success of biological control agents. The adaption of these biocontrol
organisms to the habitats currently infested by Canada thistle remains an
it chose hosbennored wher biological control agents will not completely
€réarcste &@ noxious weed infestation. Rather, a biological control strategy
wWou.c allow the weed species to spread, though at lower density, through
Gis SUitacie habitats in the forest.
Chemical Control
Four herbicides, 2,4-D, dicamba, clopyralid, -and picloram, were considered
ication on various sites. 2,4-D is herbicide with very little
€ in the environment. The herbicide has low toxicity to aquatic
end several formulations are approved for use in water and near
eater. As noted above, aquatic applications are not proposed in this
rogrem. At application rates of 1 to 1.5 pounds PeTreacre »2,.4-D exhibits
control of knapweed with repeat applications and moderate control of
gce tweed, houndstcngue, sulfur cinquefoil, and Canada thistle.
e broadleaf herbicide that is readily absorbed by leaves and
a is concentrated in the metabolically active Darts.ch the ‘plants.
tive against a similar range of weed species as 2,4-D at
ation rates. However, dicamba is somewhat more persistent
herbicide and thus provides somewhat longer control of
bh
y oO
t
79)
Ts CS) 40)
Fh
Ht
a0)
(@}
O
only three plant families: the composites, the legumes,
At application rates of one-quarter to one-half pound
ct
Wp
(
qT
t
Yn
Oo
0) SER DP
4
ion
rt
J
an
(
.)
ow t
=
y
mM
KH oO
ct
Se = R=
ia)
lad
ey
()
"x
ay)
(a)
' =
Ht 0)
4a!
Ke
9)
P-
QO,
P-
109)
<
Mm
fa)
th
h
om
io)
ct
r-
<t
oO
my
tQ
»
r-
2)
w
co
~
2]
m
'O
=
ca)
om
QO,
ct
aE
M
Kap
ey)
=
x
=
ay)
ay)
Q.
w
»
“i
Q,
th
)
)
j
)
4OE Qe Kayiew “<p
9
19)
C
9
ct
y
vp)
ct
mM Oo
Se
O
=
a)
<q
oO
K
p-
ct
oO,
O
M
”
J
O
ct
19)
O
J
ct
K
O
pt
ie)
Sy,
KK
O
=
ct
ay
mo
O
ct
ay
(0)
Ln |
=
oO
M
OQ,
n
O
oO
(9)
p-
(0)
~n
Mm
5
n
n
1
fa)
j
ct
(ou
r
10))
J
4)
-
9
eer
O
vais
10h)
3
te eee
Ficicram controls @ variety of broad-leaved weed species, including all the
weeds species of concern here. Picloram is generally applied at rates of
one-guarter to one-half pound per acre. However, picloram’s combination of
mobility and persistence have generated concern over possible ground-water
contamination. Possible environmental impacts are compared between this
method and the other chemical and non-chemical control methods.
Control with a combination of chemical and non-chemical control
Site conditions such as vegetation types, soil types, and infestation
levels vary significantly on some sites under consideration in this EIS.
Therefore a combination of chemical and non-chemical methods may be
selected for some sites. The selection of a herbicide alternative for a
site would not prevent the application of manual methods either
ncurrently or as a follow-up treatments on remnant weeds ona site.
i)
O
Control with mixtures of the herbicide Picloram and 2,4-D
Some control specialists treat several noxious weed species with mixtures
ofak2e4-2Dwand proloram., \Use of a mixture’ is done to reduce the quantity of
the cicioram to half of what is normally applied ana thus reducing the
amount Of effects On non-target species’.
Herbicide prescriptions would be consistent with or more restrictive than
preduct=tebel nequirements. If a herbicide is used in the annual
floodpléein, the Forest Service would only apply a herbicide formulation
approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency forsdirect
ms t
Cc water.
3. Action/Evaluation Area
lementation is proposed on 41 sites on the Bonners Ferry Ranger District
undery County). The size of these sites range from .48 acres in Myrtle
tc 33 acres in Saddle Creek. Over 83% of the 41 sites identified with
€ ions are located along roads and trails. For more specific location
ermation refer to the Noxious Weed EIS.
9)
+ 16%.
jw
4. Listed Species
ervice Region 1 has identified three sensitive species
nt in the analysis areas (U.S.D.A. 1989 and 1991). These
sc considered Species of Special Concern by the State of
on WM
Eull Char, Salvelinus confluentus °
Redband Trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss
Tre poll cher is now considered a Category Cl species under the Endangered
Specsese Actes (19789 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decided on June 8,
1262. ~Sar ther buldecharadsS warkanted but (precluded from listing. On
February €, 1995 the USFWS changed the bull char status to warranted. This
meerns sionificant threats exist to the continued existence of the species
i “S is in the process of drafting regulations. Redband and are
ars 5
listed es a C2 species under the Endangered Species Act (1973).
Westslope cutthroat are.listed as a Category species, as of November 15,
1994, under the Endangered Species Act, (1973). This means that the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service indicates that proposing to list as endangered or
threatened is possibly appropriate, but for which conclusive data on the
iclogical’vulnerability and threats are not currently available to support
the proposed rules.
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service has listed the Kootenai River
pepuletion of White Sturgeon as endangered under the Endangered Species Act
‘Federal Register 59:171:45989-46001).
Tnite Sturgeon, Acipenser transmontanus
5. Prefield and Field Review
mM
i)
S conducted using literature-accounts, District and
(IDFG) sightings, and the evaluation of the location
ject. No field review was completed.
1@)
9)
es
@)
"ry te.
ww
1)
>
J
Q
n
ie)
O
'S
(ai)
O
tH 9)
ty Dp
; NB,
OK
Mm
Ht
100)
6. Analysis of Effects
Status of Sensitive, Threaten, and Endangered Species in Analysis Area
Bull Trout (Salvelainus confluentus)
=
LO Ww
“Te
to
re found in cold water streams, rivers, and lakes (U.S.D.A.
chér spawn in late summer through fall (August to November),
s of ground water infiltration. Fry hatch at the end of
d emerge in early spring (April). Juveniles remain near the
tom or in low velocity habitat (pools and pocketwater) for the
{
pees
a
i
ft oD
=
GO » Ww
Py Aa te
= rt
ov
'
a)
0)
Bh ie)
a}
ay)
o
a}
ie
en
ct
rt
Te an MR 4
nN om
oO
}
= ata:
()
(i
fo)
ears of their life. Unembedded substrate and dispersed woody
commonly used forms of cover. Most juveniles migrate at the
£
y
Q, th In
'
ab
1°)
Up
m
o
bh
mo
he third growing season into larger lakes or rivers. Bull
ture at age 5 to 6. Adult migration begins in early spring
) and may extend through the entire summer. Most fish are in
ms by August. Some adults will spawn more than once during
€, but they may not spawn each year (Pratt 1992).
tesa aa
Oy
6 fa)
mM
HK
t
™
eae
o£
Hy
()
aye
K
Gh Gt I (Ee)
a
"t
tw
’
h- KR
4a 0
10)
Bull trout ere present in several of the drainages proposed for spraying.
2 2 trout from the Kootenai River have been found at the mouth of
éribou Creeks (Paragamian 1994). Bull trout have also been.
-1 Myrtle, Trout, Boundary, Grass, Parker, and Long Canyon Creeks.
mot known whether these fish are from resident or fluvial
¢. The status of bull trout in the Kootenai River, below the
nea wlelbleyis thought tosbe atta thigh risksof “extinction (personal
Twi Cat TOME eaVeMCrOS San.
J
()
<
Cian f
”
Or:
J
zo
™)
ve Oo
etry
ww
CYS GIANG):
Psi 8)
()
Oka!
Ch. ¢
mM
J
%
QO
=4
}
J
Westslope Cutthroat (Oncorynchus clarki lewisi)
Westsiope cutthroat trout occur in clear, cool streams usually with water
tures less than 17 degrees celsius. Cutthroat habitat contains
rocky, silt-free riffles, for spawning and slow, deep pools with well
vegerétead stream banks for feeding and resting (U.S.D.A. 1989). They tend
to occupy headweter areas especially when other salmonid species are
present in the same stream (Hickman and Raleigh 1982). Cutthroat trout
usually reach sexual maturity at age 3 to 4. They spawn in the spring,
usually in April or May. Fry and juveniles occur in stream sections that
llow with slow velocity flows. As fish grow larger and mature, they
t deep water habitat types such as pools and deep runs (Hickman and
Isee;)Ratte er al 1951)" © During winter. cutthroat® trout typically
} eeper water associated with large woody debris (Moore and Gregory
1968). Strong populations of this species exist in only 36% of its original
range in Idaho (Rieman and Apperman, 1989).
@ cutthroat trout are present in most drainages of the Kootenai and
Westsiop
Mcyie River. Westslope cutthroat have not been found in McGinty, Gable,
Twentymiie, Cow, or Katka Creeks proposed for spraying. The status of
oruléetions in remaining watersheds proposed for spraying is unknown. In
Cc
where introduced rainbow and brook trout occur, long term
Viebrvecy ef westSlope cutthroat may be in question (personal
commumucetions Dave Cross). In many: cases this: may not be vauertorsolely
intresuced species. Instead, Cumulative effects from fishing pressure,
inircaucea species, and a depressed cutthroat! population from managed
nces have all played apart to tip the balance against: cutthroat.
Redband Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss gibbsi)
Trout are a strain of rainbow trout that are native to the Kootenai
Reabend
River Basin. The mainstem Kootenai retains a hybrid mixture of
redbend/reainbow/cutthroat, but barriered tributaries may have headwater
redband populations (U.S.D.A.: 1994). Field:evidence indicates that “interior
redbend anc westslope cutthroat generally coexisted below Kootenai Falls
before exotic species were introduced. For the most part the two species
were secregeted spatially, but in sympatric situations they were able to
m&éintéin a high degree of genetic integrity. It is only where the coastal
réinkcws were introduced that we see hybrid swarms of
réinbcw-recapand-cutthroat where few if any individuals are genetically
pure
ckince cf ccastal rainbows (as early as 1914) has complicated the
es as did the release of eastern brook trout, yellowstone
host of other species (U.S.D.A. 1994). Redbands are
c be virtually extirpated through hybridization with
s. In essence, in those places where someone has bothered
Gs, it looks like there are very few clues left to
i€ir status.
s from genetic surveys conducted in 1994, located redband
e of the nine streams surveyed. Saddle and Grass Creeks
in genetically pure populations, while Boundary Creek
ation (personal communication, Doug Perkinson).
+ vues
DES 6.27 tee. >
White Sturgeon cipenser transmontanus)
Cc o
fe -
cm are anadromous in the most of the larger rivers in which
t are landlock in the middle and upper Columbia River system.
River population range includes lake and river habitats
he outflow of Kootenay Lake and Kootenai Falls upstream in
a. Most fish have been found only in the Kootenai River, but a few
een located in larger tributary streams (Graham 1981). In 1989, a
of Montana enforcement officer cited an angler for taking of a
on in the Yaak River (U.S.D.A. 1993). However, few have been sighted
ier tributary streams .
wring period for white sturgeon occurs in May and June. Spawning
obably occurs over rock or bedrock substrate in swift currents near
s, when water temperatures are between 8.9 and 16.7 degrees celsius
hem 1961). It is believed that that most spawning in the Kootenai River
s in the canyon section between Bonners Ferry and Kootenai Falls.
ons have not been identified in any of the tributary streams proposed
ty G)
th. cs
9
O
4
hW O
rt
c
+
mM tQ
Other Species
ion to the above mentioned species, tributaries and lakes of the
K enem Kaver Supportescuipins. (Cettus)yeslimy sculpins: (Cottus
side shiner (Richardsonius balteatus), mountain whitefish
-iémsoni), kokanee salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka), rainbow trout
Oncerhynchus mykiss), peamouth (Mylocheilus caurinus), northern sgauwfish
Prychcocheilus oregonensis), pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus), largemouth
ss (Micropterus salmoides), yellow perch (Perca flavescens), crappie
omoxis), and brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis).
Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects
Manual treatment would result in localized soil disturbance. An increase in
sediment tc streams from the manual treatment along road cuts and fills and
within the twce riparian areas is possible, but the increase would likely be
undetectable for several reasons. First, disturbed areas would be replanted
with gress seed after treatment reducing erosion as roots became established
Second, not ail sediment reaching ditchlines would be transported directly to
Streams: Many ditchlines are intercepted by reliefculverts;swhich drain conte
the forest filocry Finally, soil disturbance would be minimal and localized in
comparison tc the entire watershed.
Cultural treatments (seeding, transplanting, and fertilizing) would not effect
fisheries. Fertilizers would be applied according to Forest Service and
manufaéciune guidelines. Runoff nutrient concentrations therefore would not be
large encuch te enrich streams. Seeding and transplanting would involve limited
SOsie oss Ur bancerne Tnéres cr eanorcumulatriveretiectsiwithrthis’ alternative:
Eirfects from manved tand “culturalytreatnients: are Simidar to those. displayed) in
SrCesrecave: Z Kelease of biocontrol agents would have no direct effect on
fasmerzes cy surface wacer quality. The ’pvocontrol "agents would not compete
With G2Guet1e INSece Species since tneésrercoo base is very specific, nor would
they previde more than an incidental food source for fish. There are no
cumulative ezfects with this alternative:
osed for use on these site are all characterized by
VO. TOKLCIC VY = ner s6-nour DC for the four herbicides is
relétiveiy 1 0
provided a lanve 441 = = thie Vo=tiour LC, refers 25 the concentration nat is
lethal ve St"percent "ol the fish exposed at that level for 96 hours> The “lower
the LC the more toxic the compound.
Table 4-1.Toxic levels of herbicides to fish
Herbicide 96 hour LC50 LC50 divided NOEL
(test Species) (milligram/liter) by 10 (milligram/liter)
Cloryralic 103 10.3 not available
(raeanbCwetreur,)
2) 4eDacia 24 2.4 not available
(Guitwinwe ees FOU) r
DF. 4 =D Reais ae 420 42 not available
(LES HnSSwee seas
Dicamba 28 BD ai) not available
ambe, and picloram values are taken from Mayer and Ellersieck
Sward 1976 and 1979. Clopyralid value is from Dow Chemical Company
2,4-D arid is the parent compound which is formulated in a variety Of forms,
includine the amine which would be used under the 2,4-D alternative.
Althesc guneeLe 1y ts eirequentty, used as a toxicity standard, fifty percent fish
morteélity is genérally not acceptable. Because we often do not have long-term
rest results that provide safe concentrations. or no-observed-effect levels
(NOP | =e. U.S. EPA hes recommended thatthe 96-noursLC be divided by 10 to
set & stanaerd for concentrations to protect aquatic species (U.S. EPA 1986).
able 4-1 crcevides these concentrations, which are used as a benchmark to judge
the sicriticance of possible impacts. It is)interesting to note that the NOEL
for picicram developed from long-term laboratory studies corresponds fairly
ClOSEs Vee mene LC. Givided by 10 (see Table 4-1).
The SECCH
cert of the risk analysis for aquatic species involves determining
e herbicide concentration in streams. Field studies of pesticide
s s have shown that pesticide input to streams ranged from
non-Geterzible toe 6 percent of the amount applied.
ict the potential water quality Preaere of herbicide
acicre on the sites under consideration, it is important to distinguish ©
betweer infiltretion-dominated sites and runoff-dominated sites. In all but
é conditions, rainfall percolates into the soil on an
ominated site. On a runoff-dominated site, rainfall is more
uce overland flow. These two classes of sites are differentiated
on the basis as vegetative cover, soil type, degree of disturbance and
compacticn, and slope. The majority of the proposed treatment sites are
runoff-dorinated (road cuts and fills), except for Saddle Creek, where the
majority cf the proposed treatment sites are previously harvested stands
adjacent to roads. Roads enhance runoff by concentrating flows on compacted
road surfaces and ditches, intersecting groundwater flow from cut slopes, and
using coarse material with low organic matter to create the fill slope. It was
assumed thet Saddle Creek sites are infiltration-dominated.
Based con a review of scientific studies of picloram runoff to streams, it is
estimated that a maximum of 10 percent of the herbicide applied on a
nated site and 1 percent on an infiltration dominated site could be
LOS TO te stream in a six hour period. Because of its relatively long
Beene ee persistence and relatively low soil adsorption (high mobility),
piclorer represents the worst case of the herbicides analyzed here.
, the worst-case concentrations of herbicide can be calculated for
€S in the vicinity of the proposed treatment sites. The seasons entire
tion wes calculated per drainage as if weeds were sprayed continuously
along eéch roeqd. In reality, approximately 40 percent or less of the distance
ad would be sprayed. It was assumed that the seasons application
place within a few days time and that a thunderstorm would wash
he active ingredient into the stream over a six hour period.
dology, Meadow Creek showed the highest concentration of
2
£
ho
0287 mg/L (Table 4-3). Grass Creek showed the highest
Se Paelorateicc
concentrét
étion of 2,4-D at 0.0690 milligrams per liter (a mg/L is equivalent to
a part per million). These results are well below the estimated NOEL. With
the water yieid of these drainages, this analysis shows that 100 percent of the
application rete scheduled for each drainage could be washed into the creek
Over @ perioc cf 6 hours and the concentration, would still be less than NOEL.
Again it snouida be emphasized that these calculations represent a worst case
1D and the probability that these concentrations would be reached is very
ikely that any herbicide would be detected in stream water as a
spray operations because of the low level of herbicide use
od of 2 months or more compared to the water yield in these
period ofr time.
40)
Ds
Mm
wo
9
S
mM
A report by Scott er aly (1976) of ther rish. and Wildjifer Service, concluded
thet @ ccncencrationsot, 0.6 ppm picloram decreased cutthroat ‘fry growth by 25%.
No edverse eftects were observed when, concentrations were below 0/3 ppm.
Woodward (2575) concluded that’ picloram increased the mortality of fry in
concentréticn above 1.3 ppm and reduced their growth in concentrations above
O Cie Do Worst case scénario concentrations calculated in Table 4-3 are well
belcw these accumented effect levels or the 0.35 mg/L concentration listed in
Table 4-1
Concenurezicns for clorpyralid, cdicamba, “and 2,/4-D that could enter streams
under @ wcrst case scenario are also low. The highest concentration of
clopyrelia, cicemba, and’2,4-D is" 7.0209 ma/l, 20155 ma/L; and 23278 ‘mo/h
PESDECt Vely. Nese are far .Delow the LC, Givided by 10 value reported in
Tepes. 2.
When herbicides are applied, there is often concern that they will
bioconcentrate in organisms through uptake and retention by tissue or gills.
For this to occur, retention of a pollutant must exhibit a high resistance to
breakdcwn or excretion by an organism to allow a sufficient uptake period for
an elevated concentration. A high concentration must also be applied for an
extended period of time. Bidlack (1980) studied channel catfish exposed up to
28 days tc picloram at 1 ppm (mg/L). Analysis showed that picloram did not
bioconcentrate. Each herbicide proposed has a worst case scenario
concentration below 1 mg/L and would not be applied over an extended period.
Therefcre, there is a low risk of bioconcentrating.
etimes expressed over the possible cumulative or synergistic
ixtures of chemicals on sensitive resources. Synergism is a
one interaction where combined effect of a certain herbicide with
als in the environment is greater than the effect of any one
This issue is discussed in greater detail in the section on
Human Heeith Impacts. As noted there, EPA currently supports an additive model
in predicting such interactions. Even with the assumption that the chemicals
are cresent simultaneously, their additive concentrations are still well below
the NOEL threshclds. Furthermore, where more than one herbicide is applied,
the dessoe would be reduced (personal communication, Bob Klarich). From the
small does expected irom this project, synergistic effects are not expected.
Herbicides can also-indirectly influence fish populations by affecting the
populations of other organisms upon which fish aré dependent. Table 4-2
provides toxicity data for other aquatic organisms.
As indicated in Table 4-2, these herbicides are generally less toxic to lower
orders of aguatic organisms than to fish species. Although the species listed
in Table 4-2 are not the only aquatic organisms found in these waters, they are
used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. EPA as indicators of a
wide rense of aquatic organisms. Again, the worst-case concentrations of the
herbiciaces in water are well below levels that would affect these organisms.
ree a
levels of herbicides to aquatic organisms other than fish
cr
—
Test Spécies Test Results
Dapbrids (Daphnia sp-} 48 hr LC50 is 225 mg/L
Rem’s horn snail (Helisoma trivolvis)
No mortality after 48 hours in a
solution containing 1 mg/L
(ab)
n Algae (Selenastrum capricornutum)
96 hr LC50 is 61 mg/L
Duck weed (Lemna minor) No growth reduction at 2 mg/L after
21 days
Dachnia maqna 48 hr LC50 is greater than 100 mg/L
Seed shrimp (Cypridopsis vidue)
48 hr LC50 is 8 mg/L
Scuds (Gammarus fasciatus) 96 hr LC50 is greater than 100 mg/L
Midges (Chironomus plumosus)
48 hr LC50 is greater than 100 mg/L
Derhnia magna 96 hr LC50 is greater than 100 mg/L
Sow bugs (Asellus brevicaudus)
96 hr LC50 is greater than 100 mg/L
Scuds (Gammarus fasciatus) 96 hr LC50 is greater than 100 mg/L
Shrimp (Palaemonetes kadiasis)
96 hr LC50 is 28 mg/L
Picioren aos Ort Ss) 7 Ge may LU
ag)
we
fa)
a)
()
"{
oO)
}
—/Y
@
G
QO,
Y
(Sammarus fasciatus) PO Nt sco 38) 27 mg/L
= | ea) | -_ -~
T Sscuas (Gammérus
¥6!
w
a)
'
.)
Hy
ie)
seudolimnaeus)
Zoenr LC50) is 16.5 mg/L
Picloram Stonefly (Pteronarcys californica)
vo Dr DCSOsis 4. 6 mg/L
on this table are taken from Mayer ands Ellersieck) 1966) (2,4-D,
icamba, end ricloram) and Dow Chemical Company 1986 and undated (clopyralid).
It must be recognized that Forest Service spraying is minimal compared to the
Ooveréil use cf herbicides. A demonstration that Forest Service spraying on a
Speciltico “site sernct affecting a specific aquatic resource does not exonerate
aim) pesser iicetions of these herbicides. The U.S. EPA has the overall
etermining the possible aquatic and other environmental
bicides under their registered use Dpetterns. nlf
-.
Vasece
MNeCeeC err ewonpact € suspected, the EPA must require additional testing and
monitoring under the pesticide registration process. During the registration
or réreg:strétion of these compounds, the EPA did not identify impacts to
nisms as
nd &@ major concern. In fact, the EPA continues to allow the
Of PSone LCrmutetlonss or 2.4 =D directly to water. The major surface
ra é€d for picioram is the possible contamination of
sfects downstream on sensitive Crops.
Municire® waéversheas
Spréying is proposed in two municipal watersheds above the water system
Givers:cr points. These streams are Caribou Creek and Myrtle Creek. The
National Toxic Rule has set water quality standards for acceptable levels of
compounds in surface water. The acceptable level of 2,4-D for domestic water
Supplies is "Ss micrograms per liter (ug/L). ‘The acceptable level of 2,4-D for
waters coal support organisms for human consumption is 790 ug/L.
The resuits cf the worst case scenario discussed above were converted to ug/L.
ase scenario, the concentration of 2,4-D for Caribou Creek was
concentration of 2,4-D for Myrtle Creek was 17 ug/L. Both
figures are well below the acceptable level established by the National Toxic
Rule. Acéin it should be emphasized that these calculations represent a worst
case scenaric and the probability that these concentrations would be reached is
very low
Table 4-3 Herbicide Concentrations mg/L (ug/L) Worst Case Scenario
Drainaoe Clopyralid 2,4-D Dicanba Picloram
Boulder Creek 0.0068 . . ©. 0076 0.0016 0.0020
0.0209 ie 8
to
ro)
=
'
a
a
CF
H
a
m
nw
SMES s
Siiace nae
Boundary
Meadow Cr
mM
Gress Creexk
=~ mY re. ~ =
Saddie Creex
recon seascnse
weeas were §
It wés assur
acta ve nore
ss Shi =
CY, Poy (Paar s Gale
Teel per sec
(nero Cre we
apewateceon
bo ees: |
Wnermeim eee Re
chem CBee cin
Gel curate eh
yess Ne. Febcom
CW eK FS £7
CIS wete rele
Best Manecement
. £ -* aa
Rule € cf the Ru
ele Abele: Kise Ache
<< ~ =~
purpose of these
chemicals in suc
= 7 = aie ee
habscats (woe ne
water. The rule
opératsonal “proc
There 1S oné exc
untreated on eac
areas of open wa
where tr nt
and Grass Creek.
be filed with th
TOmMceot meme miners
this The
spot sprayed by
an ad
Ee€acme
Lp
aS
.0005 wOO Si Sc3))
0108 OSS 0.0541 #0,051
.0045
.0028 (Cdoe O(a!
70029 -OLB9 0.0155 .0048
.0524 .0138
-0128
.0014 .0477
0652 2 LTs
rail epg) .0287
.0690 SOLS 4
.03478 .0092
tire herbicide application was calculated per drainage as if
ed continuously along each road in a matter of a few days.
hat a severe thunderstorm could wash 10 percent of the
ient into the stream on runoff-dominated sites and 1 percent
on dominated sites over a six hour period. The average cubic
water yield for the month of July was used to calculate the
produced during an average 6 hour time period. Herbicide
conducted mid-May through early August, stream flow for the
used as a worse case since the July flow is-much lower
Five year average guaged water yield was used to
for Boulder, Smith and Boundary Creeks. The yield per
these drainages was used to calculate an estimated
ow for the remaining drainages.
i
ey
is
4 Mm
Ha}
fag
oth
oO w
and Regulations Pertaining to the Idaho Forest Practices
er 13, Idaho Codé pertain to the use of chemicals. The
wey that the public health and aquatic and terrestrial
be endangered by contamination of streams or other bodies of
have generally been adopted by the Forest Service as standard
eption. One rule requires that at least 25 feet be left
h side of all Class I steams, flowing Class II streams and
ter. As discussed in Chapter III, there are two locations
of meadow hawkweed is proposed within this zone, Trout Creek
For these cases, a Request for Forest Practice Variance will
€ Idaho State Department of Lands. The request will be to use
Dicide 2,4-D that have been certified for use over water within
herbicide would not be sprayed directly on water but would be
hand directly on hawkweed plants up to the edge of the water.
In summary, the direct, indirect, and cumulative water-quality impacts of these
prejects would be minimal. Under reasonable assumptions, it can be concluded
that no herbicides would be detected in surface water at the part-per-billion
ision were made to apply herbicides. Effects on
ormal-use scenarios should not be detectable, although
to test this assumption.
Gerece iar SyeEITONS alee Fy Oke
6
ovo 3 0
ects could be more serious in the event of. a spill of herbicides
y 2MtoO a small stream. It 4s not possible to predict the concentration
éticn of contamination in advance. However ja Spill could resuit in
lizea fish mortality, especially to young fingerlings, or mortality to the
ly developmental stages of other aquatic organisms.
7. Determination of Effrects
. eo
w concentrations which could enter streams, even under the
cenério, the proposed action will have no effect on sensitive
8. Recommendations and Conditions
No conditions or recommendations are needed for the determination.
9. Consultation With Others and References
informal consulation with Bob Klarich, Bonners Ferry, Idaho Panhandle
Nationa: Forest, 5/30/95; Dave Cross, Forest Fisheries Biologist, Idaho
Penhancle National Ferest, 5/5/95; Doug Perkinson, Forest Fisheries
Bao 6 kos ena Netogelmrorest) 5/2/95,
Altenocrin FiWo, and Rew beary 2988. Conservation and distribution of
Genetic verietion in polytypic species, the cutthroat trout. Conservation
BLOT OOy. 202 a ag
Baltz, O.M., B. Vondracek, L.R. Brown, and P.B. Moyle. 1991. Seasonal
icrchabitat selection by rainbow trout in a small stream.
>)
J
»
J
)
D
n
1
J
i ee
ion cf the American Fisheries Society 120:2:166-176.
Bidileck, H.D., 1980. Kinetics of "Aged" Picloram in a Model Aquatic
Microcos. The Dow Chemical Company.
Bilby, k.E. and J.W. Ward. 1989. Changes in characteristics and function of
oocy debris with increasing stream size in western Washington.
ct
ions of the American Fisheries Society. 118:368-378.
Gorman, O.T., and J.R. Karr. 1978. habitat structure and stream fish
communities. Ecology 59:507-515.
Greham, P. 1961. Status of White Sturgeon in the Kootenai River. Montana
Fis Wilalife, and Parks. Kalispell, Montana.
rariitn, ©o.S. 1988. Review of competition between cutthroat trout and
we we
other saimcnids. American Fisheries Society Symposium 4:134-140.
1c.
Hicks, B.J. 1990. The influence of geology and timber harvest on channel
morgnclcsy and salmonid populations in Oregon Coast Range streams. Doctoral
dissertation. Oregon State University, Corvallis.
uiekman mend RuFo Raleigh. 2 9e2, | Habitat esuitapiiacy index models:
Curthreat Trout U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-82/10.5.
WEI. BPOrcL COMI s = COLoradoneeeunpedes,
Tnvin D.B. 1987. Cutthroat trout abundance, potential yield, and
on with brook trout in Priest Lake tributaries. Master’s thesis,
ity of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho.
| G. 1991. The use of wolman pebble counts and channel geometery
channel stability. USDA Forest Service, Idaho Panhandle National
S.V. Gregory. 1988. Summer habitat Utiirzation and
t trout fry in Cascade Mountain Streams. Canadian
= and Aquatic Sciences) 45:1921=2950'.
Partricce, F. 1963. Kiver and stream investigations. Study VI: Kootenai
River Fisheries Investigations. Project F-73-R-5. Idaho Department of Fish
Pract, KD, 1592) *A review of bull trout iaite history .. Pages 5-3 tree:
Uowell-end D.V. Buchanan, editors. Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain
Soe COC et RellOp
Rieran, =.E., and K. Apperson, 1989. Status and analysis of salmonid
ficteries, westsicpe cutthroat trout and analysis of fisheries information.
Thano Deon. “cf Fish and Game: pp 71-16.
Caco euee ore hee, Schultz and PvH. Eschmeyer. 1977 -8Fisheries and Wildlife
Rescerch. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Printing Office,
Lob dare eomstas
fe. Form # 024-020-0047-12.
| Forest Service. 1991. Update on Northern Region sensitive
list. Letter signed by the Regional Forester, 5/17/91.
U.S.D.A., Forest Service. 1989. Caring for our natural community: Region
1 - Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species Program. U.S.D.A. Forest
Service, Northern Region.
Woodwerd, D.F. 1979. Assessing the Hazard of Picloram to cutthroat trout.
1 of Range Management. 32:230-232.
List of Preparers
Revi
ian)
a0
Oo,
ipa]
y: Cha Qifitdant Date: CaaS:
John C. Chatel ox
Zone Fisheries Biologist
United States Forest Bonners Ferry Route 4, Box 4860
Department of Service Ranger District Bonners Ferry, ID 83805-9764
Agriculture (208)267-5561 FAX (208) 267-7423
> mee
Reply to 92672.42 Date: June 2, 1995
Subject: Noxious Weed BIS
Threatened and Endangered Species Draft Biological Assessment
To: District Ranger
Introduction
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&WS) list (FWS-1-4-93-SP-NI-(9-15)
dated June 1, 1995 lists five threatened or endangered species that may
occur on the Bonners Ferry Ranger District: Bald Eagle, Gray Wolf,
Woodland Caribou, Grizzly Bear, and Peregrine Falcon. This Biological
Assessment (BA) addresses these five species for the Weed Environmental
Impact Statement area.
The Bonners Ferry Ranger District proposes to control noxious weeds in
certain areas on the district where control programs still have a chance of
success. Control alternatives include non-chemical and chemical treatment
methods under an Integrated Pest Management program.
In the past several years the Bonners Ferry Ranger District has conducted
extensive inventories of noxious weeds on large portions of the ranger
district. The district has also been treating noxious weeds as directed in
the Idého Panhandle National Forest Weed Pest Management EIS. District
personnel have searched all suitable and likely locations including travel
corridors, campsites, and vulnerable habitats.
Currently 41 sites with noxious weeds have been identified. Sites range in
size from 0.24 acres to 33 acres and total 335.55 acres. This area
represents less than 0.08 percent of the four hundred ten thousand acres of
National Forest System lands administered by the Bonners Ferry Ranger
District. It is important to note that on many of these sites the
infestations of noxious weeds are still very scattered, and not all of
these acres would require treatment. For example, the largest site is 13.8
miles of road in the Smith, Cow, and Beaver Creek drainages where
infestations of primarily meadow hawkweed can be found along the road.
Sites have been grouped into one of 3 “geographical ecosystems". Three Or
the geographical ecosystems are physically separated by either the Kootenai
River or the Purcell Trench. Each of the three is associated with a
Pérticular mountain range, namely the Purcells, the Cabinets, or the
Selkirks. Site maps are provided in Appendix A.
38 of the forty-one sites are infested with meadow hawkweed (Hieracium
pretense) ) or combinations of meadow hawkweed and spotted knapweed
Centéurea maculosa). Two of the sites are infested with Rush Skeleton Weed
(CHronar we) ta juncea), found in but three sites in Boundary County. One
Site, Roman Nose Lake #3, is infested with common tansy (Tanacetum
vuloare). Ten other sites are infested with common tansy along with
hawkweed, spotted knapweed, or thistles. Three sites are infested with
yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris).
Twenty-five of the 41 sites are located in the Selkirk Ecosystem. Five
sites are located in the Cabinet Mountains Ecosystem and seven sites are
located in the Purcell Mountain ecosystem. Three sites are identified in
the valley outside the three mountain ranges.
The preferred treatment varies by site and can include either chemical,
Biological, or manual treatment or combinations of these treatments. A
complete listing of preferred methods is provided in Table 2-1 (p. 2-8) of
the £iS-
Weed control is proposed in order to accomplish the following. 1) Protect
the nétural condition and biodiversity of the Selkirk and Cabinet Mountain
Ecosystems by preventing the spread of aggressive, non-native plant species
that displace native vegetation. 2) Prevent or limit the spread of noxious
weeds in key low elevation lakes in the Purcell Mountain ecosystem. Lakes
to be protected are Brush Lake, Dawson Lake, Robinson Lake, and Smith
Lake. Campgrounds at these lakes under Forest Service jurisdiction and
other campgrounds within this ecosystem will be targeted for weed control
action. 3) Comply with Federal and State Laws regulating management of
noxious weeds. 4) Cooperate with other agencies and private individuals
concerned with the management of noxious weeds.
Determination of Effect
Peregrine Falcon: Peregrine falcons nest on cliff ledges, rock outcrops or
steep talus slopes. There are no known nest territories on the Bonners
Ferry Ranger District, and few large cliffs which would provide suitable
breeding habitat. There are no known historic peregrine Sightings from the
project area.
Peregrine falcons are the classic endangered species affected by
pesticides. However, the pesticides that were the nemesis of peregrines are
persistent chlorinated hydrocarbons that bioaccumulated in fatty tissues,
causing eggshell thinning and a drastic decline in nesting productivity.
Based on the lack of suitable breeding habitat, the absence of known
peregrines, the distance any spraying activity would be from any likely
nesting cliff, and the relatively rapid breakdown rates of the herbicides
proposed for treatment, the proposed project would have no effect on
peregrine falcons.
Bald Eagle: The entire district is within the recovery zone of the bald
eagle. According to the USF&WS (Letter, 9/16/92), "the bald eagle should
be reviewed" if a search of a 3.1 mi (5 km) zone around the project
boundary reveals a previously recorded nesting territory.
No known winter roost sites are near the proposed treatment areas.
Disturbence in these areas would not be a factor because the time of year
that spraying would occur is in spring and summer.
There are two known eagle nests within these distances. One is the Robinson
Lake territory, which is occupied by a pair of eagles highly habituated to
human activities. The other nests along the upper Kootenai River near
Katka.
Disturbance is an issue with nesting bald eagles. The pair at Robinson Lake
has been shown numerous times to be tolerant of human activity, especially
in the campground and on the trails. These are the areas that will be
treated in this project, with few if any outside of known use areas. The
Kootenai River territory is probably less habituated to human presence, and
would possibly be disturbed by continuing presence. However, Spraying is a
short duration and relatively quiet activity. Disturbance can be kept to a
minimum by following the conservation requirements below.
The herpicides proposed will not directly affect this species if applied at
the recommended rates and quantities identified in the EIS. The chemicals
selected for this proposal are water soluble, therefore, the extent of
bioaccumulation is insignificant. These herbicides are rapidly excreted by
animals that might receive a small dose from contacting or consuming
sprayed vegetation. Although none of these herbicides have been tested on
threatened or endangered species of concern here, tests on surrogate
species indicate that the compounds are only slightly toxic to these
species.
Based on the lack of suitable habitat at the project sites (except as
noted), and the lack of toxicity, bioaccumulation potential, and degree of
exposure to the herbicides proposed, this project is expected to have no
effect on the bald eagle or its habitat. For the two locations near known
nest territories, this project is not likely to adversely affect bald
eagles or their habitat.
Gray Wolf : Northern Idaho has been identified as a travel corridor to
allow wolves to disperse from Canada and travel down to the Central Idaho
Wolf Recovery Area (CIWRA). According to Hansen (1986) the "entire
northern Idaho/northwestern Montana border area should be considered
important to wolf conservation in northern Idaho and ultimately to wolf
recovery in central Idaho".
The USF&WS (Letter, 9/16/92) recommends that the gray wolf be reviewed in
areas outside of the CIWRA if "a search of the project area and a 6.2 mile
zone around the project boundary reveals previously recorded wolf
sightings". Wolf sightings are distributed across the Bonners Ferry Ranger
District. No den locations have been recorded, and most sightings indicate
transient animals. However, denning animals are expected within the next
few years.
The Forest Plan states for wolf habitat that “in areas of reported
ocCurrence, consider maintenance of a high number of prey species (deer,
elk) and maintenance of security through road management".
The primary effect of noxious weeds on wolves is their effect on the
ungulate herbivore prey they depend on. As noted in the EIS, displacement
of native forage plants with non-nutritious noxious weeds is detrimental to
ungulates. This effect is more likely to cause a problem with wolves than
the direct effect of either the chemicals themselves or the disturbance of
the people applying the chemicals. Disturbance is controlled by
administrative use guidelines behind closed gates, and for those sites
within bear units, security is higher than in non-bear units.
The toxicity of these compounds on wolves has not been tested Orrect. ya
However, these compounds have been tested on dogs, as reviewed in the Human
Health Risk Analyses referenced in Chapter 4 of the FIS. Due to the small
and widely distributed herbicide treatment sites, it is unlikely that
wolves would be exposed to these chemicals. Potential doses to wolves
either from the direct contact with treated vegetation or from consumption
of animals that have consumed treated vegetation are well below toxic
levels. These herbicides are excreted rapidly through the kidneys in
ungulates, the process taking up to five days at most (see Human Health
Risk Analyses referenced in Chapter 4 of the EIS). These herbicides do not
bioaccumulate in fat tissues (as would an organochlorine insecticide).
ed cn the previous anélysis, the proposed weed control activities would
ave’ no effect oneawolves or their hebitat.
Woodland Caribou: Portions of the project area lie within the designated
woodland caribou recovery area. Wocdland caribou would not be directly
affected by the increase and spread of noxious weeds due to displaced
habitat. Spraying and disturbance would be the two most likely effects of
the noxicus weed control program.
As noted for other ungulates, evidence does not exist that the proposed
chemicals are either toxic or detrimental to health or reproductive
potential. For caribou, this is especially true, because the amount of
spraying necessary in the areas occupied by caribou is small. Additionally,
caribou dine on different forage plants than many other ungulates, often
preferring huckleberries or angelica instead of species mixed with those
likely to harbor noxious weeds.
Based on the above analysis, the proposed weed control activities would
have no effect on caribou or their habitat.
Grizzly Bear: The project area encompasses several Grizzly Bear Management
Units (GBMU) across the district.
The bear is not likely to be affected directly by use of the proposed
herbicides. The proposed sites to be treated with herbicides are
relatively small, and not generally in areas known to be favored by bears,
although there are a few sites in important bear areas. Noxious weeds are
not known to be part of grizzly bear foraging diets (Grizzly Bear
Compendium 1987). Some incidental exposure could occur if bears graze on
treated non-target vegetation. Immediately after treatment concentration
on grass and leaves could range from 50 to 150 parts per million. These
concentrations would be quickly reduced either through photodegradation or
rainfall. Although these herbicides have not’ been tested on bears, tests
on other mammalian species at much higher concentration and for longer
periods have shown no ill effect.
The major effect from noxious weed control activities would be from the
access needed behind gates to control sites there. Administrative use
guidelines are developed for such activities and are strictly adhered to.
Spraying can be accomplished well within administrative use timelines
because of the short time involved. Mortality risk associated with the
proposed activity due to an increase in human activity in the area would be
minimizea through scheduling restrictions.
No past, present or reasonably forseeable actions, when considered with
this project, would cause cumulative effects greater than the direct and
indirect effects considered individually.
Based orn the above analysis, the proposed timber management activities are
not likely to adversely affect the grizzly bear or its habitat.
CONSERVATION REQUIREMENTS
The following should be done to ensure that the findings of not likely to
adversely affect is valid.
Gagezcey Bess
Where it is necessary for herbicide applicators to camp in bear
a. Utilize bear proof storage containers for human and livestock
foods.
b. Store foods away from sleeping areas.
c. Suspend foods/garbage at a minimum of 10 feet above ground
and four feet from the tree used for suspension.
ad. Proper menu planning to eliminated excessive left over foods.
e. Cooking and eating should be done away from sleeping areas.
f. Proper cleanliness of cooking facilities, including removal
of all cooking residues.
Bald eagle:
1. In the Katka vicinity Only (T61N, R3E, Sections 5, 6, 8,9),
the following requirements apply. Plan spraying so that it is
Gone as quickly and quietly as possible. Spray in the middle of
the day, if possible, since eagles tend to be more apathetic to
disturbance at this time. During some years, these precautions
may not be necessary, and they may be waived upon consultation
with the district wildlife biologist.
PREPARED BY:
SANDRA L. JACOBS
District Wildlife Biologist
Literature Cited
Hansen, J. 1966. Wolves of Northern Idaho and Northeastern Washington.
MT Coop. Wlidf Research Unit. USF&WS. 88 pp. pages 36, 51, 72, PP id = ols =pigs
Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan (NRMWRP). 1987. USFE&WS. Sey)
29s, Ieee) WS.
USF&WS. Letter dated September 16, 1992. Subject: Species List Requests
for Fiscal Year M993.
Grizzly Bear Committee. 1987. Grizzly Bear Compendium. U.S.
falite service; Missoula; *MTe?tS6 pp.
est Service. 1993. Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Noxious
Weed Projects, Spotted Bear and Hungry Horse Ranger Districts. Hungry
Ke
United States Forest Bonners Ferry Route 4, Box 4860
Department of Service Ranger District Bonners Ferry, ID 83805-9764
Agriculture (208) 267-5561 FAX (208) 267-7423
Reply te: =2672 40 Datetewune 47 1995
Subject: Ncexious Weed EIS
Sensitive Species Drait Biological Evaluation
Tos= Distrzcr Ranger
Introduction
The Regional Forester for Region 1 of the Forest Service has designated
certain wildlife species as sensitive. These species may warrant this
designation for a variety of reasons, such as extremely limited or fragile
habitat, continuing or past habitat reduction or limited reproductive
potential. There are eleven species so designated that occur or whose
habitat may occur on the Bonners Ferry Ranger District. These are Coeur
d'Alene Salamander, common loon, harlequin duck, boreal owl, flammulated
owl, black-backed woodpecker, lynx, fisher, wolverine, Townsend’s big-eared
bat, and northern bog lemming.
Refer to the introduction of the Noxious Weed EIS Biclogical Assessment
(for threatened or endangerec wildiife); for & summarized description of the
project.
Determination of Effect
Coeur d’‘Alene Salamander
The known geographic range of the Coeur d’ Alene Salamander is in northern
Idaho and northwestern Montana. As research continues, it is being
discovered in many new locaéticns (Manns, pers. comn.). Coeur dad’ Alene
salamanders inhabit splash zones of spring seepages over rock faces along
roaas, waterfall spray zones, and edges of streams beneath moist rocks
(Groves 1988, p. §&). They occur in wet, humid, and cool microhabitats
containing fractured bedrock or gravel that provides shelter and retains
moisture (USDA 1989, p. 40). In the northern part of its range in Idaho
(Cabinet and Purcell Mountains) the lack of fractured rock types is
probably the major factor in limiting the species’ distribution (Groves,
19&€9 p. 4). Sharply fractured rock formations are often associated with
Belt Rock formation but can also occur in other geologic types. Most of the
Suitable habitat of this description falls within the Purcells and Cabinet
cuntaéin Ranges for the project area.
Because riparian areas are being sensitively handled for this project, it
is unlikely that this species would come into direct contact with any of
the herbicides to pe used. Further, the weeas targeted do not normally
occur in rock cliffs or seepy rock faces, although they may occur in the
ditches alongside roads, where salamanders also occur. Precautions noted to
protect water quality would be adequate protection for this species.
Cumulative or indirect effects would be probably greater without noxious
weed control than with it, since the spread of less erosion-controlling
plants such as knapweed may indirectly affect water quality.
The proposed noxious weed treatment activities would have no effect
individually or cumulatively on the Coeur d’Alene salamander or its
habitat.
Common Loon
The geographic breeding range of the common loon extends from the southern
coast of Iceland south throughout most of Canada, Alaska, and the northern
border states. Loons are large, heavy-podiea pirds with their legs and
feet positioned far te the rear &éllowing then to propel guickly through
water but unable to walk weli on land. Lakes suitable for nesting are 10
acres or larger with emergent shoreline vegetation and secluded areas for
nesting and brood rearing. Only a few lakes on the district meet these
criteria, and most are low elevation. There is no suitable habitat for
common loons immediately adjacent to any treatment area, however several
potentially suitable nesting lakes are near treatment sites. These are
Dawson, Brush, Smith, Bussard and Robinson Lakes.
Common loons have not been recorded as breeders in Boundary County for many
years. Disturbance at nest sites is the likely cause. Once the lakes become
extirpated, recolonizers would have é difficult time locating suitable
nests again in this area where suitaple lakes are relatively rare.
Loons forage on small fish. The greatest likelihood of the project
affecting this species would be if the forage species were affected. As
noted elsevnere, fish are not likely to be affected by the chemicals
proposed. Because they do not bioaccumulate, loons would therefore also not
be affected in this manner.
There would be no cumulative effect associated with past, present, or
5
reascnably foreseeable future actions.
The propesed ncxious weed treatnent activities would have no effect
individually or cumulatively on the common loon or its habitat.
Harlequin Duck
The western geographic range of the harlequin duck extends south from
Rlaska to portions of the northwestern United States and California.
Harlequin ducks winter on the ocean and migrate inland to breed. They are
generally associated with fast flowing streams which are 10 meters wide or
greater during the breeding season (Cassirer & Groves 1990, p. 8).
Harlequin duck habitat Goes occur on the district and there are recent
records of breeding. As in common loon and Coeur d‘Alene salamander,
water-associatea effects woud be mininial because of project design.
Harlequin ducks forage on invertebrates which, because of their short
life-cycle, generally do not have tine to vioaccunulate pesticides. In turn
because of this and because the project chemicals do not bioaccumulate, the
risk to harlequin ducks directly cr indirectly is immeasurable.
There would be no cumulative effect associated with past, present, or
reasonably foreseeable future actions.
The proposed noxious weed treatment activities would have no effect on the
harlequin duck or its habitat.
Townsend’s Big-eared Bat
The geographic range of Townsend’s big-eared bat extends throughout western
North America, from British Columbia south to southern Mexico, eastward to
South Dakota and western Texas with isolated populations in the southeast
United States. Townsend’s Big-eared Bats have been found in a wide variety
of habitats, from arid juniper/pine forests to high-elevation
mixed-coniferous forests (USDA, 1985 pg. 32). Caves and cave-like
s are @ critical habitat for this species, both as hibernacula in
r and as roosts for summer nursery colonies (ODF&W, 1987, pg.
hey occasionally use bridges and old buildings for roosting and in
es have been known to use building attics as nursery sites
(Perkins, 1352 p. 9). They are typically founa in shrub-steppe or forest
edge (Notes of MT Bats, 1952). Foraging habitat is not well known but
preliminary data suggests they forage along cliff faces and along small
stream corridors in forested habitats (Perkins, pers. comm.). Other
foraging habitat may include forest edges and openings, riparian areas
where flying insects are abundant, and there are no obstructions to
flight. Loss and disturbance of hibernacula and roosting habitat is the
limiting factor for Townsend's big-eared bats.
tf)
StTTZUGe
Natural cave habitat is virtually nonexistent on the Bonners Ferry Ranger
District because of the lack of limestone. Hibernacula temperature and
humidity requirements are so specific that it is unlikely that Townsend’s
big-eared bats occur on the District because of lack of over-winter
habitat. There are no caves or mine adits in the assessment area or in the
Vicinity.
Because of lack of suitable habitat tne proposed noxious weed treatment
activities would have no effect on the Townsend's big-eared bat or its
habitet.
Northern bool lemiina
The geographic range of the northern bog lemming extends from southern
Alaska, throughout most of Canada and into northern Washington, Idaho, and
Montana. The only known location of the northern bog lemming on the
Bonners Ferry Ranger District is in & subalpine boggy meadow in the Selkirk
Mountains. Northern bog lemnings typically inhabit sphagnum bogs, but are
also occasionally found in mossy forests, wet sub-alpine meadows, and
alpine tundra (Reichel and Beckstrom, 1993 P.1). According to the most
Current research in Montana, Sphagnum mate are the most likely sites in
which to find new bog lemming populations (Reichel and Beckstrom, 1993 )%
S*weth the ether wetland-ascsceieted Species 1 this analysis, the
Protections associated with water Qusiity snourid adequately protect this
Species * trem any cheniice) Visi eescclciated with water. This species is not
uy
likely to be present in most of the sreas infested with the targeted
NOXi0us weeds, since it OCCssS 2h Cather very moist habitats or old-growtth
cecdaebrjsoittschds cece Cxposece snouia be VE Deere y nil.
There would be no Cumulative effect associated with past, present, or
reasonérly foreseeable future actions,
Based on the above analysis, the proposed weed treatment activities would
have no effect individually or cumulatively on the northern bog lemming or
its habirar!
Black-backead Woodpecker
The geographic range of the black-backed woodpecker extends south from
Alaska to central California and Nevada and throughout most of the northern
United States. Black-backed woodpeckers nest in snegs or in live trees
with heartrot which are at least 5 inches in diameter. They often use
clumps’ of nesting, and are known to nest in spruce, lodgepole
Tp)
o
0
00)
4
Cc
bh
pine, espen, ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and western larch (Thomas 1979,
p- 361; Harris 1982, Penoe, e376 160). Black-backed woodpeckers feed
rimaraly on wood-boring beevlese ang ewecialize on large areas of recently
illed, beetle infested Eamoens Ereeaing densities cf Dlack-backed
woodpeckers vary considerabiy in response to prey availability, increasing
up tc 7 times the normal jevel during beetle epidemics (Jackman 1975, p.
FORA
Because this species is associated Prinarily with snags and the insects
that live in them, it would net be affected by either the vegetation change
Or the chemical treatments proposed. Based on this, the Proposed weed
treatment activities would have no effect on woodpeckers or their habitat.
The geographic breeding range of the flammulated owl extends from southern
British Columbia throughout most of the western States but not along the
coast. Flammulated owls are known to occur in Boundary County (District
files). They occur in ponderosa Pine and Douglas-fir forests with fairly
Open canopies (typically 35-653 closure) and snags at least ye heat =< | 0) ee
Nesting stands are at least 35 acres in size.
Flammulated owls are dependent on appropriately-sized snags for nesting
and flying insects as prey. Neither of these life attributes would be
affected by the proposed weed treatments. There would be no cumulative
ffect associated with past, present, or rezsonably foreseeable future
scl sOons:
Based on the above analysis, the propcsed noxious weed treatment activities
would have no effect on flamnulated owls and their habitat.
Boree! Owl
The geographic range of the boreal owl in North America extends from Canada
and Alaska and throughout the northern Rocky Mountains in eastern
ton, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and Colorado. Boreal owls inhabit the
spruce fir and upper cedar heulock zene in North Idaho. Mature and older
conifer forests are suitable for nesting and foraging, and immature forests
are used for foraging.
As with the previous species who depend mostly on forest components such as
snags, boreal owls would be unlikely to be directly affected by either the
presence of weeds or tne use of chemicals to control them. Indirectly, the
presence of noxious weeds may affect the quantity of rodent prey if an
infestation is too severe, however, the likelihood is that boreal owls are
limited by nest sites rather than prey base ana an infestation affecting
rodent numbers would have to be serious indeed to switch this to the
Based on the above analysis, the proposed weed treatment activities would
have nc effect on boreal owls or their habitat.
Lynx
The geographic range of the lynx is wiaespread through the boreal regions
of North America, Europe, and Asia, throughout most of Alaska and Canada
and southward on the high elevation spine of the Cascades and Rocky
Mountains into Washington, Iuaaho, Moneta, Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah.
Lynx generally maintain home ranges cf petween 5 and 20 square miles, but
ranges as large as 122 square mites nave been documented (Bender-Retie
FETS, 1991 p. Al0-Az0O). According to Koehler (1990, p. 845-851), lynx in
Washingten usea nigner elevations in tne sumuer than during the winter with
the icwest elevation peing about 4500’. Denning habitat in Washington
consisted of mature or old-growth spruce/sfir with a mix of lodgepole pine
(Koehler, 1990, p. 845-851). Denning stands may be quite small (less than
¢
in some cases) but must be interconnected by forested cover
(Koehler and Brittel, 1990, p. 10-14). Other higher elevation mature and
older stands likely provide denning habitat also.
Snowshoe hare are the primary prey species of lynx. In Washington, hares
are most abundant in young forests (approximately 20 years), usually
lodgepole pine or other habitats with dense tree or shrub understory
(Koehler, 1990, p. 845-851). Some portions of the project area occur within
areas potentially inhabited by lynx.
As with the other species dependent on forested areas, lynx would not be
directly affected by either the presence of noxious weeds nor the control
programs to remove them. Snowshoe hare may be indirectly affected by the
spread of weeds if such spread reached a point that its native forage
species were affected; however, many ct these plant species would not be
affected by noxious weeds (such as loagepole pine seedlings). As previously
need aithcugh no direct studies have been made On COxicity=to lynx, since
the chemicals break down rap-dly and there is no bioaccumulation, the
direct or indirect effects from the pesticides should pose no threat to
this species.
Based on the above anélysis, the proposed treatment activities would have
no effect on lynx and its habitat.
Wolverine
Today the wolverine ranges from Alaska, most of Canada, and parts of the
northwestern United States. Wolverine are a wide-ranging member of the
Mustelid family. They inhabit "high elevation, mature coniferous forests
with openings" and prefer "rocky places with scattered pockets of timber"
(Groves, 19€9, p. 2 & 30). In Northwestern Montana they selected subalpine
fir habitat and “large areas of nediwn. or scattered mature timber". They
laged areas of "dense, young tinber” ana were rarely in large open
eas. They aisc _reguire renore macltat With fone wal numan activity and
ct besically roadless areas. They feed on a variety of small
Sole, eNCew Leon Ce teen.
ni
<
O
br
af otsy)
awe Fy
'O
v1)
9)
Lai
a
(Oe (0)
iD)
00) .
ae
M
oii — ers
Incidental trapping poses a4 threat to wolverine populations. None of the
alternatives, would significantly increase the potential of trapping.
As with the other carnivores discussed, the largest potential threat from
al noxious weed control is from ingestion and poisoning of chemicals,
oncern especially since the wolverine is & scavenger of carrion. Again,
Cumuiation and direct toxicity are not problems with the chemicals
Disturbance from weed spraying crews may occur but this would be minimized
by conformance with district administrative use guidelines. No increase of
mortality risk would ocecur from thisi disturbance.
No pest, present or reasonably forseeable éections, when considered with
, would cause cumulative effects greater than the direct and
€tsS consiaered inaiviauaiiy.
Based on the above analysis, this proposed noxious weed treatment
activities would have no effect on wolverine cr its habitat.
Fisher
The fisher was extirpated from most of its range by the early 1900s. It
now occurs from southern Canadé south into the northwestern states and
California and the Great Lake states. Research in various areas indicates
fishers prey on a large variety of small mammals and carrion (Arthur et
al., 1989, p. 680) and they are closely associated with seral to old growth
coniferous forests. In northcentral Idaho, grand fir and spruce forests
were preferred by fishers (Jones, 1951 p. &9-$2) and elevations from
approximately 3000 to 5000 feet were used. They are thought to
predominantly inhabit mid elevations in this area (Johnson pers. comm.,
1$91). Fisher also need late successionel habitats "linked together by
closed-canopy forest travei corridors” (Jones, 1S91 p. 89-92). Large
diameter spruce and grand fir snags and lerge downed material are used for
denning and foraging. Fishers prefer nabitats with high canopy closure
(>80%), and “avoid areas with low canopy closure (less than 50%)" (Powell,
1S€2) pe GE) a Deranorthe: wintes they appeer to use 80-100 year old
Douglas-fir and lodgepole pie foreste iy ado.tion tc the- above.
Fishers use riparian areas because of their travel corridor value with
dense overhead cover, and foraging opportunities. Neither of these have any
direct tie to noxious weeds. Although fisher will eat carrion, some from
large animals, most prey items are small rodents. The danger to fishers
from an occasional carrion meal would be even less than that described for
wolverine because of the lesser frequency of it and, as described, the low
risk imposed by the chemicals anyway.
There would be no increase in trapping risk imposed by this project.
Besed on the above analysis, the proposed weed treatment activities would
have no effect on fisher or their habitat.
CONSERVATION REQUIREMENTS
There are no conservation requiremelits mandatory to the determination of no
effect fer this proj ect.
Prepared By:
SANDRA L. JACOBSON
District VWildiife cBaclogisr
PETE RATURE ClrTeD
Arthur, Stephen M. 1989. Habitat use and diet of fishers. Journal of
Wildlife Management 53(3):680-688. ~-
Bender-Retie FEIS. 1991. Bender-Retie Timber Sale Final Environmental
Impact Statement, Beaverhead National Forest. pages A1l0-A20.
Bull, E. Perterson, S., and Thomas, J.W. 1986. Resource Partitioning
Among Woodpeckers in Northeastern Oregon. Excerpts from
PNW-144.
Cassirer, E. Frances and Craig R. Grcves. 1650. Distribution, habitat
use and status of harleguisn ducas (Histrionicus histrionicus) in
northern Idaho, 1990. Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game. Natural
Heritage Section.
Copland, Jeff. 1994. Personai Communication regarding wolverine.
Groves, Craig. 1989. Status an distribution of the Coeur d’ Alene
Salamander (Plethcodon Vanaykei Idenoensis) in Idaho - Part at
Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game Nongame Report, February ao Bee
Groves, Craig. 1989. The wolverine wilderness symbol. Idaho Wildlife.
Fall, 19692) pp. 2e6:-30,
Groves, Craid. LSsier Status and distribution of the Coeur d’Alene
salamander (Pletncodony vandykei idahoensis) in Idaho. Idaho
Dept. of Fish and Gane Nongame Report, February 1988.
Harris, M. 1982. Habitat Use Among Woodpeckers in Forest Burns. Masters
Thesis, Univ of Montana. 61 pp.
Jackman, Siri Marion. 1975. Woodpeckers of the Pacific Northwest: their
characteristics and their role in the forests. M.S. Thesis.
Oregon State University. 147 pp.
Johnson, Greg. 1991. IDF&G Conservation Officer. Personal communication
regarding fisher.
Jienes, set fr. 1991. Halitat use of fisher in northcentral Idaho. M.S.
Thesis, University of Idaho. 146. pp.
Jenes, Jeff. Personal Communicétion regarding fishers, Western Forests
Furbearer Meeréng, March 255 2594.
Koehler, Gary M. 1¢¢90. Popuiation ana Bea Characteristics of lynx
eng enowshoe haree in acrt: central Washington. Canadian
Joernai of Zoology 6t(S)se45-e52 :
Koehler, Gal no Britteti, 22D. 99. nageng epruce-fir habitat for
MEnZY
end snowshoe nares. <<. Of Forestry. 88(10):10-14.
Ser.. Personal Comuunicatlon regarding Amphibians and Coeur 7a
Rlene Salamanders, Region 1 Wildlife Congress, February 3, 1994.
Notes on Montana Bats. January 21], 1552.
ODF&W. 1987. Distribution, Stétus, and Habitat Affinities of Townsend's
Big-Eared Bat (Plecotis townsendii) in Oregon. Technical
Report # 86-5-01. p.27.
Perkins, Mark. Personal Conmmunication regarding Townsend‘s big-eared bat.
February, 1994.
Powell, RA. I982. The Fisher Life History, Ecology, and Behavior.
University of Minnisota Press, Minnesota. 2i7 pp.
Reichel, J. & Beckstrom, S. 1993. Northern bog lemming survey, 1992. A
Report to: USDA Forest Service, Kootenai National Forest. MT
Heritage Program.
Thomas, Jack Ward, et al. U. S.D.A.-Forest Service Agriculture Handbook
No.553. Wildlife habitats in managed forests: the Blue
Mountains of Oregon and Washington. 512 pp.
USDA, 19°89. Caring for Our Natural Community. Threatened, Endangered,
and Sensitive Species Program. p. 38 & 40.
Wilson, Cynthia, Richard FE. Johnson and James D. Reichel. 1980. New
records for the northern bog lemming in Washington. Murrelet
617104106.
APPENDIX F
IDAHO PANHANDLE N, F. PROPOSED INTEGRATED WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
ay viv a Ly rn
é
T 4
fl Cin | S
nok! LAS oe Paes
nating TFA eae)
. OP a
3 .
ie
a i )
7
- "e i 7 :
¥ -
2 <
_ - -_
. = i :
.- - = :
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11