Exhibit_09A_SCNF_Non-Wilderness_Invasives_BO.pdf

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE

West Coast Region

7600 Sand Point Way N.E., Bldg. 1 Seattle, WA 98115

Refer to NMFS No: WCR-2015-3863

May 17, 2016

Charles Mark

Forest Supervisor

Salmon-Challis National Forest

1206 S. Challis

Salmon, Idaho 83467

Re: Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) Biological Opinion, and Magnuson-Stevens

Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation for the

Salmon-Challis National Forest Invasive Plant Treatment Program (Non-wilderness

Areas), Upper Salmon River (17060201); Pahsimeroi River (17060202); Middle Salmon-

Panther (17060203); Lemhi River (17060204); Upper Middle Fork Salmon (17060205);

Lower Middle Fork Salmon (17060206); Middle Salmon-Chamberlain (17060207); Little

Lost River (17040217); Big Lost River (17040218); Lemhi and Custer Counties, Idaho

Dear Mr. Mark:

Thank you for your letter dated October 30, 2015, received November 17, 2015, requesting initiation of consultation with NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) for the Salmon-

Challis National Forest (SCNF) Invasive Plant Treatment Program for non-wilderness areas for the 2016 through 2026 management seasons.

In this Opinion, NMFS concludes that the actions, as proposed, are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon, Snake River sockeye salmon, and Snake River Basin steelhead. NMFS also determined the action will not destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat for Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon, Snake River sockeye salmon, and Snake River Basin steelhead. Rationale for our conclusions is provided in the attached biological opinion (Opinion).

As required by section 7 of the ESA, NMFS provides an incidental take statement (ITS) with the

Opinion. The ITS describes reasonable and prudent measures NMFS considers necessary or appropriate to minimize the impact of incidental take associated with this action. The take statement sets forth nondiscretionary terms and conditions, including reporting requirements, that the SCNF, and any permittee who performs any portion of the action must

Exhibit 9 A: Salmon-Challis National Forest Non-Wilderness Invasive Biological Opinion comply with to carry out the reasonable and prudent measures. Incidental take from actions that meet these terms and conditions will be exempt from the ESA take prohibition.

Helicopter applications of herbicides are covered under this Opinion. Aerial applications of herbicide formulations from fixed-wing aircraft were not included in the effects analyses, incidental take quantification, and conclusions for listed species and critical habitat in this Opinion; and, as such are not exempt from ESA section 9 actions. If the SCNF wishes to employ fixed wing aircraft for dispersing herbicides, additional information in the form of an aerial application plan detailing the herbicide formulations and quantities, type of aircraft, areas to be sprayed, spraying dates, and conservation measures designed to reduce spraying drift, prevent inadvertent contamination of riparian and aquatic ecosystems, and to monitor incidental take levels should be submitted to NMFS for additional consultation.

The aquatic application of herbicides is not covered under this Opinion. However, a framework strategy for dealing with future aquatic invasive plant treatments has been included in the proposed action. While no aquatic invasive plant infestations have, to date, been identified in waters of the SCNF, the framework has been identified to facilitate and expedite a treatment response if and when an aquatic infestation is identified.

This document also includes the results of our analysis of the action's effects on essential fish habitat (EFH) pursuant to section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), and includes 12 conservation recommendations to avoid, minimize, or otherwise offset potential adverse effects on EFH. These Conservation Recommendations are a non-identical set of the ESA Terms and Conditions. Section 305(b)(4)(B) of the MSA requires Federal agencies provide a detailed written response to NMFS within 30 days after receiving these recommendations.

If the response is inconsistent with the EFH Conservation Recommendations, the SCNF must explain why the recommendations will not be followed, including the justification for any disagreements over the effects of the action and the recommendations. In response to increased oversight of overall EFH program effectiveness by the Office of Management and Budget, NMFS established a quarterly reporting requirement to determine how many Conservation Recommendations are provided as part of each EFH consultation and how many are adopted by the action agency. Therefore, in your statutory reply to the EFH portion of this consultation, NMFS asks that you clearly identify the number of Conservation Recommendations accepted.

If you have questions regarding this consultation, please contact Mrs. Kimberly Murphy (208) 756-5180 or Mr. Bill Lind (208) 378-5697.

[,;William W. Stelle, Jr. 1or Regional Administrator

Enclosure cc: R. Holder – USFWS R. Rose – SCNF A. Rogerson – NPT C. Colter – SBT bcc: SBAO – Read File, File copy

SSBO – K. Murphy, B. Lind (electronic only)

Murphy:Lind:SCNFNonWildernessWeeds:am:20160517:WCR-2015-3863 cc Addresses:

Russ Holder

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service russ_holder@fws.gov

Robert Rose

Salmon Challis National Forest

Bill will send an electronic copy

Amanda Rogerson

Nez Perce Tribe amandar@nezperce.org

Chad Colter

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes ccolter@shoshonebannocktribes.com mailto:russ_holder@fws.gov mailto:amandar@nezperce.org mailto:ccolter@shoshonebannocktribes.com

Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation

Salmon-Challis National Forest Invasive Plant Treatment Program (Non-wilderness Areas) in the Upper Salmon River (17060201); Pahsimeroi River (17060202); Middle Salmon-Panther

( 17060203); Lemhi River (17060204); Upper Middle Fork Salmon (17060205); Lower Middle Fork Salmon (17060206); Middle Salmon-Chamberlain (17060207); Little Lost River

(17040217); Big Lost River (17040218); Lemhi and Custer Counties, Idaho

NMFS Consultation Number: WCR-2015-3734

Lead Action Agency: USDA Forest Service, Salmon-Challis National Forest

Af£ dS ecte ipec1es an dNMFS' D etermmat10ns:

Is Action Likely

Is Action Is Action Likely To to Adversely

BSA-Listed Species Status Affect Species Likely To Destroy or or Critical Jeopardize the Adversely Modify

Habitat?

Species? Critical Habitat?

Snake River steelhead

Threatened Yes No No ( Oncorhynchus mykiss) Snake River spring/summer

Threatened Yes No No Chinook Salmon ( 0. tshawytscha) Snake River sockeye salmon Endangered Yes No No

(0. nerka)

Fishery Management Plan Does Action Have an Adverse Are EFH Conservation

That Describes EFH in the Pro ject Area

Effect on EFH? Recommendations Provided?

Pacific Coast Salmon Yes Yes

Consultation Conducted By: National Marine Fisheries Service, West Coast Region

Issued By:

Date:

/}Z~~ C}/ William W. Stelle, Jr.

1 '-' Regional Administrator

May 17, 2016 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.1 Background

1.2 Consultation History

1.3 Proposed Action

1.3.1 Prevention

1.3.2 Early Detection/Rapid Response and Adaptive Management

1.3.3 Rehabilitation and Restoration

1.3.4. Monitoring

1.3.4.1 Implementation Monitoring

1.3.4.2 Effectiveness Monitoring

1.3.5 Control and Management

1.3.6 Treatment Methods

1.3.6.1 Biological Control

1.3.6.2 Mechanical and Manual Treatment

1.3.6.3 Chemical Control

1.3.7 Minimization/Avoidance Measures

1.3.7.1 General Herbicide Application

1.3.7.2 Aerial Herbicide Application

1.3.8 Aquatic Invasive Plant Control Framework Strategy

1.4 Action Area

2. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: BIOLOGICAL OPINION AND INCIDENTAL TAKE

STATEMENT

2.1 Analytical Approach

2.2 Rangewide Status of the Species and Critical Habitat

2.2.1 Status of the Species

2.2.1.1 Snake River Sockeye Salmon

2.2.1.2 Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon

2.2.1.3 Snake River Basin Steelhead

2.2.2 Status of Critical Habitat

2.2.3 Climate Change Implications for ESA-listed Species and their Critical Habitat

2.3 Environmental Baseline

2.4 Effects of the Action

2.4.1 Effects on ESA-Listed Species

2.4.1.1 Effects of Non-Herbicide Treatments

2.4.1.2 Effects of Herbicide Treatments

2.4.1.3 Chemical Exposure Pathways and Mitigating Measures

2.4.1.4 Exposure to Herbicide

2.4.1.5 Toxicological Effects of Herbicides

2.4.1.6 Assessment of Ecological Risk

2.4.2 Effects on Designated Critical Habitat

2.5 Cumulative Effects

2.6 Integration and Synthesis

2.7 Conclusion

2.8 Incidental Take Statement

2.8.1 Amount or Extent of Take

ii

2.8.2 Effect of the Take

2.8.3 Reasonable and Prudent Measures

2.8.4 Terms and Conditions

2.9 Conservation Recommendations

2.10 Reinitiation of Consultation

3. MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT

ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT CONSULTATION

3.1 Essential Fish Habitat Affected by the Project

3.2 Adverse Effects on Essential Fish Habitat

3.3 Essential Fish Habitat Conservation Recommendations

3.4 Statutory Response Requirement

3.5 Supplemental Consultation

4. DATA QUALITY ACT DOCUMENTATION AND PRE-DISSEMINATION REVIEW .. 94

5. REFERENCES

APPENDIX A ................................................................................................................................. A-1

APPENDIX B ................................................................................................................................. B-2

TABLES

Table 1. Invasive Plant Species Treatment Priorities Table 2. Maximum acres to be Treated Annually by Treatment Method

Table 3. Active Ingredients and End-Use Products that May be Used by the SCNF for Noxious

Weed Control Activities and Ground and Aerial Herbicide Application Buffers Table 4. Guidelines for Application of Herbicides in Proximity of Water

Table 5. Federal Register notices for rules that list species, designate critical habitat, or apply protective regulations to evolutionarily significant units (ESUs)/distinct population segments (DPSs) considered in this consultation Table 6. Snake River Sockeye Salmon Adult Returns

Table 7. Summary of VSP parameter risks and overall current status for each population in the

Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon ESU (NWFSC 2015)

Table 8. Summary of VSP parameter risks and overall current status for each population in the

Snake River Basin steelhead DPS (NWFSC 2015)

Table 9. Types of sites and essential physical and biological features designated as PBFs, and the species life stage each PBF supports Table 10. Summary of acres, by 4th Field HUC, treated with herbicides on non-wilderness forest lands within the SCNF

Table 11. Adjuvant types, names, and application rates used by the SCNF during the 2012, 2013, and 2014 spray seasons Table 12. Physical properties, application rates, and EECs for herbicides proposed for use

Table 13. Toxicity of active ingredients and surfactants proposed for use by the SCNF Table 14. Characteristics of end-use products that may be used by the SCNF iii

FIGURES

Figure 1. EDRR and Adaptive Management Decision Tree Figure 2. Boundaries of the Salmon-Challis National Forest Invasive Plant Management

Project Area and locations of Invasive Plant Management Zones

ACRONYMS

mg a.e./L milligrams acid equivalent per liter

APHIS Animal, Plant Health Inspection Service

BA Biological Assessment

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BMP Best Management Practice cfs Cubic feet per second

CWMA Cooperative Weed Management Areas

DPS Distinct Population Segment

DQA Data Quality Act

ECA Equivalent Clearcut Area

EDRR Early Detection Rapid Response

EEC Estimated Environmental Concentration

EFH Essential Fish Habitat

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

ESU Evolutionarily Significant Units

EUP End-Use Products

FC-RONRW Frank Church River of No Return

FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

FSH Forest Service Handbook

FSM Forest Service Manual

GLEAMS Groundwater Loading Effects of Agricultural Management Systems

GPS Global Positioning System

HUC Hydrologic Unit Codes

ICBTRT Interior Columbia Basin Technical Recovery Team

IDEQ Idaho Department of Environmental Quality

IDFG Idaho Department of Fish and Game

ISAB Independent Scientific Advisory Board

ITS Incidental Take Statement

IWM Integrated Weed Management

LGD Lower Granite Dam mg/L milligrams per liter

MPGs Major Population Groups iv

MSA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

MSDS Material Safety and Data Sheets

MSO Methylated Seed Oil

MUP Manufacturing Use Products

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

OHV Off-highway vehicle

Opinion Biological Opinion

PBFs Physical and Biological Features

PCEs Primary Constituent Elements

PDC Project Design Criteria

PMS Publication Management System

RHCAs Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas

SCNF Salmon-Challis National Forest

SERA Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc.

TGAI Technical Grade Active Ingredient

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load

Tribes Nez Perce and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USFS U.S. Forest Service

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

VSP Viable Salmonid Population

WCRs Water Contamination Rates

1. INTRODUCTION

This Introduction section provides information relevant to the other sections of this document and is incorporated by reference into Sections 2 and 3 below.

1.1 Background

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) prepared the biological opinion (Opinion) and incidental take statement (ITS) portions of this document in accordance with section 7(b) of the

Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 USC 1531, et seq.), and implementing regulations at

50 CFR 402. NMFS also completed an Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) consultation. It was prepared in accordance with section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) (16 U.S.C. 1801, et seq.) and implementing regulations at 50 CFR

600. The Opinion and EFH Conservation Recommendations are both in compliance with section

515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 2001 (Public Law 106-

5444) (“Data Quality Act”) and underwent pre-dissemination review. The document will be available through NMFS’ Public Consultation Tracking System [https://pcts.nmfs.noaa.gov]. A complete record of this consultation is on file at the Snake Basin Area Office, Boise, Idaho.

1.2 Consultation History

This Opinion is based on information provided in the October 20, 2015, biological assessment

(BA), NMFS 2014 Opinion (NMFS Tracking Number 2014/541), NMFS 2012 Opinion (NMFS

Tracking Number 2012/02030), and NMFS 2007 Opinion (NMFS Tracking Number

2004/00499), administrative records from those consultations, the November 17, 2015, email with attached consultation request letter, and the December, 17, 2015, email clarifying the discrepancy in critical habitat determinations between the BA and consultation request letter.

The December, 17, 2015, Salmon-Challis National Forest (SCNF) correspondence concluded that the proposed action “may affect,” and is “likely to adversely affect” Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon, Snake River sockeye salmon, Snake River Basin steelhead, and their critical habitats. The BA described the environmental baseline as well as the proposed noxious weed management activities likely to occur for an undefined period. NMFS requested clarification on the term of the action and Robert Rose, the author of the BA, indicated the request for consultation covered a 10-year period (2016 to 2026).

Implementation of weed control on lands administered by the SCNF has been ongoing for over

20 years. The 2007 Opinion (NMFS Tracking Number 2004/00499), addressing weed control in non-wilderness areas contains a detailed description of the consultation history for weed management actions on the SCNF. That Opinion expired on December 31, 2011. The SCNF reinitiated consultation in 2012 (NMFS Tracking Number 2012/02030) to continue implementing the existing weed management program through the 2012 and 2013 weed treatment seasons. That Opinion expired on December 31, 2013. The SCNF has continued implementing the existing weed management program through the 2014 to 2015 weed treatment seasons under the existing reinitiation of consultation issued in 2014 (NMFS Tracking Number

2014/541), which is set to expire in 2018. During this period, the SCNF has prepared a new invasive plant treatment program environmental impact statement and associated programmatic

BA for future weed management activities. As proposed, many of the same program design elements and mitigation measures described in the 2004 BA and the 2007/2012/2014 Opinions will continue to be implemented with this new invasive plant treatment program.

Program changes from the SCNF’s previous non-wilderness invasive plant treatment program include proposed aerial herbicide applications, and incorporation of an aquatic invasive plant species early detection/rapid response strategy framework. To date, no aquatic invasive plant infestations have been identified within the project area. If an infestation is discovered, the

SCNF will utilize the framework strategy identified in the BA to initiate a site-specific consultation, separate from the terrestrial invasive plant treatment program addressed in the proposed action, to address potential treatments.

The proposed action additionally proposes the addition of three new herbicides for chemical treatment of invasive plant species. Aminopyralid is proposed for upland, riparian, and aerial applications; imazapyr is proposed for upland and riparian applications; and imazamox is proposed for riparian applications. No new adjuvants are proposed for use.

NMFS provided copies of the draft proposed action and terms and conditions to the Nez Perce and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (Tribes) and requested comments on March 15, 2016, because the proposed action would likely affect tribal trust resources. The Tribes did not respond.

1.3 Proposed Action

“Action” means all activities or programs of any kind authorized, funded, or carried out, in whole or in part, by Federal agencies (50 CFR 402.02). Interrelated actions are those that are part of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification. Interdependent actions are those that have no independent utility apart from the action under consideration. No interdependent or interrelated actions have been identified for this action.

The Federal action is to authorize, fund, and carry out the SCNF Invasive Plant Treatment

Program outside the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness (FC-RONRW) (SCNF

Invasive Species Program). The purpose of this program is to control, contain, or eliminate noxious and invasive non-native weed invasions and infestations on National Forest System lands, and maintain vegetative communities and the species dependent on them, within lands administered by the SCNF for the term of this consultation which covers the 2016 to 2026 spray seasons. Although portions of the FC-RONRW are within the SCNF or are administered by them, the noxious weeds and non-native invasive plants control program for the wilderness areas of the SCNF are included under a separate BA and consultation (NMFS Tracking Number

WCR/2014/539).

The SCNF Invasive Plant Treatment Program adopts an adaptive Integrated Weed Management

(IWM) strategy, which directs National Forests to implement adaptive IWM programs following nationally established program components as described in the October 20, 2015 BA.

Management activities include inventory and assessment designed to support Early Detection

Rapid Response (EDRR), control methods, implementation and effectiveness monitoring, and rehabilitation. Activities will be implemented with partners at the Federal, state, and local levels, where opportunities exist. The activities will follow both U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA) Forest Service Intermountain (Region 4) Best Management Practices (BMPs) for

Invasive Plant Treatments and specific SCNF Project Design Criteria (PDC) (see Appendices D and E in the BA) for the Invasive Plant Treatment Program. The program involves planning and cooperative control among SCNF, state, and county weed control personnel. Cooperative Weed

Management Areas (CWMAs) are a vital component of the SCNF’s plans for controlling weed infestations on U.S. Forest Service (USFS) lands. The SCNF coordinates and participates with the Lemhi County CWMA, Lost Rivers CWMA (Butte and Custer counties), the Continental

Divide CWMA (portions of Lemhi, Butte, Jefferson, and Clark counties), and the Idaho Noxious

Weed Coordinating Committee. The actions and lands covered by the FC-RONRW CWMA are outside of the purview of this Opinion. Part of the SCNF’s cooperation with the Idaho CWMAs includes providing funds and Federally-funded workshops, personnel, equipment, vehicles, and supplies for weed control activities outside of the SCNF-administered lands. General program elements of the IWM Strategy are summarized below.

1.3.1 Prevention

Prevention of new infestations and the spread of noxious and invasive weeds will be enhanced through education/outreach and a noxious and invasive weeds prevention plan. The plan includes a variety of educational materials such as signage, exhibits, presentations, and workshops; all of which will be used by the SCNF and cooperative partners to raise public awareness of invasive plants and the ecological and economic damage created by their establishment and spread. Internal training will be used to educate personnel to recognize invasive plant species, understand vectors and preventative measures, incorporate preventative measures into the project design of all projects and activities, follow procedures for reporting and mapping invasive plant infestations, and communicate with other programs and agencies. This is a non-treatment aspect of the IWM approach.

1.3.2 Early Detection/Rapid Response and Adaptive Management

The EDRR is a critical component of the IWM program. As new invasive plant infestations are detected, a quick and coordinated inventory and eradication response will reduce negative environmental and economic impacts.

The EDRR is intended to find new invasive plant infestations at the earliest stages of invasion, resulting in decreased control costs and the need for repeated treatments. New invasive species may not be listed as noxious on the statewide list; however, these plants are identified on statewide watch or EDRR lists.

To provide for EDRR, the SCNF will design a plan that allows treatment of invasive plant infestations located outside of currently identified infested areas. Infestations outside of currently identified areas may include new sites that arise in the future, or sites that currently exist, but have not been identified in SCNF inventories to date. The intent of EDRR is to allow timely control, so that new infestations can be treated when they are small, preventing establishment and spread, while reducing the costs and potential side effects of treatment.

Planning for EDRR includes analysis of the risk of new invasions associated with the characteristics of the species and areas in the SCNF where new invasions are likely to occur.

The proposed action, which incorporates EDRR, contains an adaptive management strategy to deal with invasive plant infestations that are constantly changing. An adaptive management strategy offers the means to describe and evaluate the consequences of changing or new invasive plant infestations and new treatment options. Provided that the result of treating new infestations and the impacts of new treatment methods remain within the effects described, then the results of this analysis remain valid. The adaptive management strategy consists of three principle components. Two are described below, and the third, monitoring, is discussed in the following section. The EDDR and Adaptive Management Decision Tree are presented in Figure 1.

In order to quickly and effectively treat newly discovered invasive plant infestations while still addressing other resource concerns, a flowchart based on infestation size, location, site characteristics, and consultation with specialists will be used to select treatment methods.

All new sites will be mapped and inventoried. Appropriate design criteria must be applied to any invasive plant treatment.

New technology, biological controls, herbicide formulations, and supplemental labels are likely to be developed within the lifetime of this project. These new treatments will be considered when their use will be consistent with or less than the effects of those analyzed in this process. The Adaptive Management Strategy will allow incorporation of these new treatment methods if they meet the following criteria:

The herbicide must have an U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved herbicide label.

A risk assessment must be completed for the herbicide by the Natural Resources

Conservation Service, USDA Agriculture Research Station, EPA, USFS, or other

Federal land management agency.

New biological agents must be approved by the USDA Animal, Plant Health Inspection

Service (APHIS) and the State of Idaho prior to their introduction. This approval indicates that the agent is determined to be detrimental to the target plants while at the same time being virtually harmless to native or desirable non-native plants.

Figure 1. EDRR and Adaptive Management Decision Tree.

1.3.3 Rehabilitation and Restoration

Rehabilitation and restoration are vital components of an adaptive IWM program. Rehabilitation is defined as short-term mitigation to ensure minimum site stability and functionality. Many invasive plant-infested plant communities are able to successfully reestablish without intervention after control efforts. However, sites that are severely damaged or at which few desirable species remain may not be able to recover without help. This may include site preparation and seeding of desirable non-native vegetation. Restoration is a long-term objective and involves returning sites to natural functions and native species.

Rehabilitation and restoration cultural actions will be designed and implemented based on the conditions found in and around infested areas. Both active and passive (allowing plants on site to fill in a treated area) revegetation will be considered. Rehabilitation techniques will be assessed and implemented in order to promote native plant communities that are resistant to infestation by invasive plants.

Natural revegetation is the preferred option whenever possible. Invasive plant-infested sites or areas of disturbance (e.g. wildfire) will be assessed to determine if the area is capable of natural recovery after weed control treatments. A determination will be made as to what mix of desirable or native grass and forb plants still occur on the site and if they are numerous and vigorous enough to be capable of spreading vegetatively or via seed production.

The following PDC are a subset of those described for the proposed action. For a complete list please refer to the BA and BA appendices. The following list includes only those measures specific to avoiding or minimizing potential effects of the proposed action on ESA-listed fish and their habitat, and pertinent to the analysis of this Opinion:

Assess erosion processes that may be affecting the site and the degree of severity of any soil erosion.

Use native plants in rehabilitation and restoration where practicable.

If it is determined that non-native species are the best choice for interim or permanent revegetation, be sure to select species that do not behave invasively under conditions similar to those at the site to be revegetated.

Purchase only certified invasive plant-seed free seed. Consider the use of site-adapted seed, if available and practicable.

When seeding, determine the need for site preparation and protective measures that may need to be taken to allow the seeding to establish successfully.

Plan revegetation activities for the optimal season and site conditions for successful establishment.

Design seed mixes, whether native or desirable species, that are adapted to site conditions (including soil type, precipitation patterns, plant hardiness zones, etc.).

Sites where restoration and rehabilitation treatments have been applied may need to be protected from grazing use through temporary fencing, livestock exclusion or other method appropriate to the sites to allow seeded plant establishment.

Following establishment, continue to practice proper vegetation management to maintain a healthy, functioning plant community that is resilient to disturbance and resistant to invasive plant re-invasion.

Use only invasive plant seed-free mulches and other products for uses such as erosion control and improved seed germination.

Ensure that treatment tools and other equipment are free of invasive plant seed before moving to or using on the project site.

Minimize ground disturbing activities to the extent possible during reseeding efforts.

Conduct rehabilitation and restoration activities only in areas with slope gradients less than 45%.

Conduct rehabilitation and restoration activities only in areas with low or moderate land type erosion hazard ratings.

1.3.4. Monitoring

Monitoring is an integral part of implementing an adaptive IWM program. Monitoring provides the data for adaptive management. Information collected from monitoring may be used by managers to evaluate the efficacy of prevention, EDRR, treatment, and rehabilitation and restoration actions. There are two basic types of monitoring essential to an adaptive IWM plan:

implementation monitoring and effectiveness monitoring. Both quantitative and qualitative monitoring efforts are included in the overall monitoring program. Post-treatment reviews of monitoring data will occur on a sample basis to: (1) Determine whether treatments were effective; (2) the type and extent of damage which may have occurred to non-target species;

(3) whether PDC were applied correctly; and (4) if recovery occurred as expected.

Managers may use monitoring data from one site or set of sites to predict the effects of similar actions on other parts of the project area. This information can be used to promote the use of the most effective techniques for prevention, detection, treatment, and restoration, and avoid the use of ineffective methods.

1.3.4.1 Implementation Monitoring

Program elements and site-specific projects should include the following to accomplish implementation monitoring:

1. Develop a project work plan for herbicide use as described in Forest Service

Handbook (FSH) 2109.14.3. This plan will present organizational and operational details including treatment objectives, equipment, materials, and supplies needed;

herbicide application method and rate; field crew organization and lines of responsibility; and a description of any interagency coordination. The plan will also include a job hazard analysis to ensure applicator safety.

2. Conduct site visits during work periods to monitor compliance.

3. Initiate monitoring during implementation to ensure PDC are implemented as planned. Document daily field conditions, activities, accomplishments and/or difficulties. Use contract administration mechanisms to correct contractor performance deficiencies.

4. Document and report herbicide use and certified applicator information in the

National Pesticide Use Database, via the database of record to determine the amount, type and location of herbicide use annually.

5. For biological control releases, monitor a selection of biological control release sites annually, tracking agent establishment and target species’ response, to determine the efficacy of the release.

6. For mechanical treatments, monitor rehabilitative and restoration measures throughout the recovery process to quickly identify and correct any problems that may impede successful revegetation.

1.3.4.2 Effectiveness Monitoring

Effectiveness monitoring generates data that aids managers in assessing trends in infestation number, size, and density, the effect of noxious and invasive plant infestations on native vegetation, the effect of treatments on target and non-target species, and the effectiveness of treatments as implemented. Effectiveness monitoring must be done at multiple scales in order to provide the best insight into the effects of treatment actions. All treatment methods (manual, biological, and chemical) are subject to effectiveness monitoring.

Monitor size, density, and other biological characteristics of invasive plant infestations.

Maintain noxious and invasive plant inventory in the appropriate database of record.

Evaluate immediate and short-term impacts of treatment on target invasive plants and non-target vegetation.

Monitor and document observations of treated sites as practicable in accordance with established guidelines.

Evaluate long-term effects of treatment on target invasive plants and non-target vegetation.

Establish permanent monitoring plots for long-term site assessment.

Monitor survival, distribution, and effectiveness of biological control agents.

1.3.5 Control and Management

The proposed IWM strategy will facilitate the use of a variety of treatment options and combinations intended to minimize the effect of invasive plants and limit their spread. Proposed control methods will be based on integrated pest management principles and methods known to be effective for each target species. Areas infested by invasive plants on the SCNF may exhibit a wide range of site conditions. Effective control relies on a clear understanding of the target species: its biology, the ecosystem it has infested, associated introduction pathways, and effective control methods. Treatment methods will be based on the extent, location, type, and character of an infestation and will be implemented using PDC. They include, but are not limited to: (1) Mechanical techniques, such as mowing and pulling; (2) cultural practices, such as the use of certified noxious weed-free hay; (3) biological control agents, such as pathogens, insects; and (4) herbicides that target specific invasive plant species.

A variety of treatment options and combinations that could be applied to a wide range of site conditions are necessary so that flexibility is provided to increase effectiveness, reduce cost, and minimize potential for adverse effects from treatments. Control often requires repeat treatments and monitoring of control efficacy. As monitoring identifies the effectiveness of treatments, specific control measures are adjusted.

For purposes of this consultation, the proposed action is the integrated management of invasive weeds on the non-wilderness portions on the SCNF outside the FC-RONRW. Weed treatment objectives and their priorities for treatment are outlined below in Table 1.

The proposed action proposes the addition of three new herbicides for chemical treatment of invasive plant species. Aminopyralid is proposed for upland, riparian and aerial applications;

imazapyr is proposed for upland and riparian applications; and imazamox is proposed for riparian applications. No new adjuvants are proposed for use. Contingent upon funding levels, the maximum of 20,000 acres will be proposed for treatment annually; 2,000 acres each for biocontrol and manual/mechanical treatment, and 16,000 for chemical treatment. Ground based and aerial treatment totals will be limited to 8,000 acres for each treatment type (Table 2).

Management priority will be based on factors such as number and size of known infestations, proximity to vectors or susceptible habitat, and ability to outcompete desirable plant species.

The priority of species to be treated will vary based on these factors and could change over time.

These priorities will be used to guide selection of specific management activities for particular infestations.

Table 1. Invasive Plant Species Treatment Priorities

Priority Description Treatment Objective

Highest Infestations of species new to the project area (EDRR). Eradication of new species

Second

Priority

Infestations of species that occur rarely within the project area.

Infestations of species that occur rarely within a given zone.

Infestations that pose substantial risk of infestation to priority areas currently free of the invasive species.

Control by suppression to reduce existing infestations and reduce or eliminate new infestations of uncommon noxious weeds.

Third priority

Infestations in or near areas that experience disturbance due to human activity, such as designated travel routes, recreation sites, emergency staging areas, and gravel pits.

Infestations in or near areas that experience disturbance due to natural forces, such as those recently affected by wildfire.

Infestations with the potential to spread across ownership boundaries onto lands that are not currently infested.

Infestations for which treatment has a high probability of success.

Control by direct suppression. Utilize indirect suppression where practical for achieving control.

Fourth priority

Infestations in or near areas that contain desirable plant communities, such as intact native plant communities and sensitive, threatened, or endangered plant or animal habitat.

Infestations of established species occurring in an otherwise uninfested area.

Control by direct suppression

Fifth priority

Infestations in habitat susceptible to invasion by and spread of invasive plants.

Infestations of established invasive plants in generally infested areas.

Large infestations of established invasive plants.

Control by direct suppression when possible. Emphasis placed on indirect suppression.

Table 2. Maximum acres to be Treated Annually by Treatment Method.

Treatment Method Acres Treated

Biological Control 2,000 acres

Mechanical Control 2,000 acres

Herbicide Control 16,000 acres (total)

Ground Application 8,000 acres

Aerial Application 8,000 acres 1Excludes the FC-RONRW

The treatments will abide by PDC described later in this document, the purpose of which is to reduce or eliminate the potential adverse impacts of the various invasive plant treatments. PDC have been identified for each treatment type in the following treatment methods discussions; are a set of required implementation features applied to projects to ensure that the projects are conducted according to environmental standards and that adverse effects are within predicted levels. Implementation of the PDC is mandatory.

1.3.6 Treatment Methods

The proposed adaptive IWM program will utilize a variety of tools, used alone or in combination, to treat invasive plants on the SCNF. Proposed treatment methods include the following:

Biological control through the use of predators, parasites, and pathogens.

Mechanical and manual methods, such as hand pulling, mowing, cutting, or torching.

Rehabilitation and restoration methods such as seeding sites to improve competition or prevent establishment of non-native invasive plant species.

Herbicide control using ground-based application methods.

Herbicide control using helicopter aerial application methods.

1.3.6.1 Biological Control

Biological weed control consists of using biological agents such as insects and plant pathogens to attack, weaken, and kill a targeted weeds species and reduce its competitive or reproductive capacity. The SCNF also uses biological control agents to supplement herbicide control in larger infestations where treatment cannot be accomplished regularly due to the cost of treatment.

Biological controls will be used when the target species occupies extensive portions of the landscape, other methods of control are prohibitive based on cost and location, and an effective biological control regime exists. Biological control activities typically include the release of parasitic and “host specific'' insects, mites, nematodes, and pathogens. Biological treatments do not eradicate the target species, but rather reduce target plant densities and competition with desired plant species for space, water, and nutrients. Biological control treatments are not consistent with an eradication objective, but are an integral part of an IWM approach.

The APHIS and the State of Idaho have approved invertebrate plant feeders and plant pathogens that are proven natural control agents that suppress, inhibit, or control specific target invasive plant species. Biological control activities include collection of invertebrate plant feeders and pathogens, development of insectaries for collection, transportation, and transplantation of parasitic invertebrate plant feeders and pathogens, and supplemental stocking of populations. Biological control agents are transported in containers that safely enclose the agent until release. Releases can be ground-based or aerial. Each release is equivalent to treating approximately five acres. The treated areas will continue to be inventoried and monitored to determine the success of the treatments and when the released bio-control agents have reached equilibrium with the target species. Repeat visits may need to be made several times a season and over a series of years to determine if additional releases are needed or if a different agent needs to be released.

The use of biological control treatment usually results in delayed effectiveness, often requiring

5 to 10 years for successful reduction of target invasive plant infestations. However, simultaneous increase of native vegetation often eliminates the need for restoration. Biological control is the preferred method in remote areas where access is limited, on high density extensive populations where other control methods may not be appropriate, on species where biological control agents are available and proven effective, and in conjunction with other control methods to reduce density of the target species. In addition, weeds often continue to spread while the biological controls become established.

1.3.6.2 Mechanical and Manual Treatment

The term “manual” defines treatments such as hand pulling or using hand tools, such as hand clippers, hoes, rakes, shovels, etc., to remove plants or cut off seed heads. The term

“mechanical” refers to the use of equipment and power tools, including actions like mowing, torching (using a propane burner to kill invasive plants with heat), and weed whipping.

Mechanical and manual treatments are used to physically destroy, disrupt growth, or interfere with the reproduction of noxious and invasive non-native weeds. This component of the noxious weed control program includes the use of hand-operated power and hand tools in the manual control of noxious weeds. Treatments can be accomplished by hand, hand tool, or power tool;

and may include pulling, grubbing, digging, hoeing, tilling, cutting, mowing, and mulching of weeds. In manual treatments, workers primarily cut plants off above the ground level and may also pull, grub, or dig out plant root systems. Mechanical treatment also could include burning weeds with a propane torch. No proposed SCNF mechanical control methods dig or till the ground. The SCNF does not currently use or propose to use chaining or disking as a method to control non-native invasive plant species.

Mechanical treatments will be used on a limited basis, primarily to control individual plants or very small, isolated infestations of weeds. Larger infestations of weeds are very difficult to control with mechanical treatment. Furthermore, steep slopes and rocky soils prohibit or limit the use of many mechanical treatment activities.

The following PDC are a subset of those described for the proposed action. For a complete list please refer to Section 6.6.1 of the BA. The following list includes only those measures specific to avoiding or minimizing potential effects of the proposed action on ESA-listed fish and their habitat, and pertinent to the analysis of this Opinion:

PDC for Manual and Mechanical Treatment Methods

Obtain necessary state and Federal permits, when and where required.

Prior to any burning invasive species using a torching device, a prescribed burn plan will be completed and compliant with Forest Service Manual (FSM) 5140 and the

Interagency Prescribed Fire Planning and Implementation Procedures Guide, Publication Management System (PMS) 484.

Minimize soil disturbance as much as possible to minimize germination of invasive plant seeds and bare soil.

Avoid non-target species damage to the extent practicable. Select mechanical methods to effectively control the target species (e.g., grubbing/hoeing is inappropriate for rhizomatous species and may increase the density of the invasive plant population as root fragments sprout and become new plants).

Apply mechanical treatments at the proper stage of plant growth when treatment will be most effective at controlling the target invasive plant.

Thoroughly inspect and clean all equipment and clothing to remove invasive plant seeds or vegetative propagules to prevent the movement of the invasive plant to another site.

To the extent practicable, conduct clipping and removal of seed stalks prior to seed maturity to reduce inputs to the seed bank or when seeds are easily picked up and transported by vectors such wind, humans or animals.

Specific to aquatic invasive plants, hand-pulling and/or smothering may be used when an infestation is very limited in extent and occurs close to the shoreline of a water body, but has not yet infested deeper waters.

Mechanical treatments should not occur on any slopes where excessive erosion to waterbodies (e.g., slope fall lines to lakes, streams, etc.) and resource damage will occur. Proper erosion control techniques will be utilized on steep slopes to prevent excessive erosion and resource damage from occurring.

1.3.6.3 Chemical Control

Herbicides. This method involves the use of herbicides and associated adjuvants at certain stages of plant growth to kill weed species. Ground-based or aerial application of herbicides will be used based on: (1) Treatment objective and priority of the target invasive plant species;

(2) accessibility, topography, and the size of treatment area; and (3) the expected efficiency and effectiveness of the method selected. The SCNF has used ground-based application of herbicides in its IWM program since at least 1989 and strictly complies with all label requirements governing herbicide use and application.

Three types of herbicide application will be used:

Spot spraying – This method targets individual plants and the immediate area around them. Most spot spraying is usually done with a backpack sprayer. However, spot spraying may also be applied using a hose from a truck-mounted or off-highway vehicle (OHV) mounted tank, or tanks mounted on pack animals. This is the most common herbicide application method.

Broadcast – Herbicide is applied to cover an area of ground rather than individual plants. This method may employ a spray system mounted on a truck or OHV.

Broadcast applications are used in areas where invasive plants occupy a large percentage of plant cover on the site, making spot spraying impractical.

Aerial application - This method will be used in areas where physical features, such as topography, restricted access, size and/or rate of spread of infestation, personnel safety, or other factors such as prohibitive unit cost of ground application occur. Invasive plants will be treated aerially with herbicides through the use of helicopters only.

The BA proposes use of 13 different active ingredients plus inert ingredients and adjuvants used in specified herbicide formulations. The 13 active ingredients proposed for use are included on the list of approved herbicides for use on USFS lands (Table 3).

Table 3. Active Ingredients and End-Use Products that May be Used by the SCNF for

Noxious Weed Control Activities and Ground and Aerial Herbicide Application

Buffers

Herbicide

(Active Ingredient) End-Use Product1/2 General Application

Ground Application

Buffer

Aerial

Application

Buffer From

Water

2,4-D amine Weedar 64, Weedestroy, DMA 4

Upland-Riparian Water Edge 3 n/a

Aminopyralid Milestone Upland-Riparian-Aerial Water Edge 4 300 ft

Chlorsulfuron Telar XP Upland-Riparian-Aerial Water Edge 4 300 ft

Clopyralid Transline Upland-Riparian-Aerial Water Edge 4 300 ft

Dicamba Banvel

Vanquish Upland

Outside riparian vegetation OR 50 feet from water’s edge, whichever is greater.4/ 5 n/a

Glyphosate

Rodeo

AquaMaster

AquaNeet

Upland-Riparian

Water Edge 4 n/a

Imazamox Clearcast Riparian Water Edge 4 n/a

Imazapic Plateau Upland-Riparian-Aerial A level, well-maintained vegetative 300 ft

Herbicide

(Active Ingredient) End-Use Product1/2 General Application

Ground Application

Buffer

Aerial

Application

Buffer From

Water buffer strip between areas to which this product is applied and surface water 4

Imazapyr Habitat Upland-Riparian Water Edge 4 n/a

Metsulfuron-methyl Escort XP Upland-Riparian-Aerial Water Edge 4 300 ft

Picloram Tordon 22K Upland Aerial

Outside riparian vegetation OR 50 feet from water’s edge, whichever is greater.

300 ft

Sulfometuron methyl Oust XP Upland-Riparian 15 ft 6 300 ft

Triclopyr TEA Garlon 3A Upland-Riparian Water Edge 3 n/a 1 Aquatic formulations of 2,4-D amine, glyphosate, imazamox, imazapyr, and triclopyr TEA shall be used.

2 Other product brands of identical or “substantially similar” formulation may be added or substituted in the future. (reference to

EPA Pesticide Registration Manual and 40 CFR 152.113) as described above.

3 No broadcast application of herbicides will be conducted within riparian areas.

4 Per label direction: Do not apply directly to water or areas where surface water is present, or to intertidal areas below the mean high water mark 5 No applications will be made within riparian areas.

6 Per label direction: All handheld spot treatment applications – 15 feet.

The proposed action suggests that combinations of herbicides may be the most appropriate treatment where several species of…