12443926Q0013 GWJeffNonnativeInvasivePlantDNandFONSI.pdf

USDA Forest Service

DECISION NOTICE AND

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

For

George Washington and Jefferson National Forests Forest-Wide Non-Native Invasive Plant Control

Including:

Amendment # 10 to the 1993 George Washington National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan and Amendment # 2 to the 2004 Jefferson National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management

Plan

George Washington National Forest Counties: Alleghany, Amherst, Augusta, Bath, Botetourt, Frederick, Highland, Nelson, Page, Rockbridge, Rockingham, Shenandoah and Warren Counties, Virginia;

Hampshire, Hardy, Monroe and Pendleton Counties, West Virginia

Jefferson National Forest Counties: Bedford, Bland, Botetourt, Carroll, Craig, Dickenson, Giles, Grayson, Lee, Montgomery, Pulaski, Roanoke, Rockbridge, Scott, Smyth, Tazewell, Washington, Wise, and Wythe Counties in Virginia; Monroe County, West Virginia; Letcher and Pike Counties, Kentucky.

INTRODUCTION

The Forest Service has identified the control of invasive species as a key objective in meeting the goal of restoring, sustaining and enhancing the nation’s forests and grasslands. Given the current distribution of non-native invasive plant (NNIP) infestation sites on the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests (Forest), there is a need to implement a comprehensive and integrated program of NNIP control to protect the integrity of natural plant communities. An Environmental Assessment (EA) evaluating a no action alternative and one action alternative for Non-Native Invasive Plant (NNIP) control in Threatened, Endangered or Sensitive Plant habitat, Special Biological Areas/Rare Communities/ Research Natural Areas, hot spots of NNIP infestation and new infestations of NNIP species, areas disturbed by fire, insect, disease, or storm damage, designated Wilderness, recommended Wilderness, roadsides and parking areas, trails and trailheads, riparian areas, wildlife openings, and other disturbed areas has been completed.

These locations are scattered throughout the entire 1.8 million acres of the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests.

The objectives of the proposed project are to protect native biological diversity and the integrity of biological communities, increase the effectiveness of NNIP species control through a multi-year integrated program, and improve the program’s safety and cost efficiency. Treatment and control of NNIP plants will also help prevent the Forest from becoming a source of infestation for surrounding lands, both public and private.

Alternatives examined in detail considered the control of NNIP species using a combination of methods including manual, mechanical, cultural, and herbicide treatments. The EA documents an analysis of these proposed actions and includes non-sigificant amendments to the George Washington and the Jefferson National Forest Plans that will facilitate control of NNIP. The EA is available for public review at the Supervisor’s Ranger’s Office in Roanoke, Virginia. This document summarizes the issues and addresses potential impacts of the alternatives. It was prepared by an interdisciplinary team of resource specialists, using the best available science. I considered this EA, the supporting documents, and my knowledge of the Forest management situation when making this decision.

DECISION

Based on the analysis discussed in the EA, I have selected Alternative 1 to implement resource management objectives identified by both Forests’ Land and Resource Management Plans. This decision is intended to allow the integrated use of manual, mechanical, chemical, and cultural methods for the treatment of invasive plant infestations. The treatments will begin in the spring of 2011 and are estimated to occur over a ten-year period. Although known priority sites will be treated initially, the intent of this proposal is to incorporate an adaptive management strategy, allowing for treatment of new locations of NNIP and treatment of newly recognized NNIP. The use of any method of treatment or herbicide that is not addressed in this EA will require a new decision.

Alternative 1 in the EA uses slightly different terminology from the proposal that was sent out for notice and comment. In an attempt to clarify the methods of application, the direct foliar method was modified to include boom spraying from the back of a vehicle (in cases where the NNIP infestation is nearly continuous, such as in fescue dominated fields being converted to warm season grasses).

Alternative 1 will result in the following activities:

1. Approximately 1,600 acres of manual, cultural, or mechanical treatments per year could occur. Treatment within designated Wilderness will be by non-mechanized, manual methods only. Approximately 50 acres of spot treatments with a propane weed torch per year could occur. Up to 12,000 acres of licensed herbicide application per year could occur.

2. Forest staff will consider the treatment protocols outlined in the EA to determine: 1) the priority of which NNIP infestations would be treated; 2) the priority of treatment locations; and 3) the treatment methods to be used. High priority treatment areas include:

• Threatened, Endangered or Sensitive Plant Species

• Special Biological Areas and Rare Communities

• Research Natural Areas

• Hot Spots of NNIP Infestation

• Infestations of New NNIP

• Designated Wilderness

• Recommended Wilderness

• Roadsides and Parking Areas (100’ buffer each side)

• Trails and Trailheads (50’ buffer each side)

• Riparian Areas (100’ buffer each side)

• Wildlife Openings (100’ buffer)

• Areas Disturbed by Fire, Insect, Disease or Storm Damage

• Other Disturbed Areas

While the above listed areas would receive high priority for treatment, all other areas on the Forest will be prioritized according to the following criteria: risk to federally threatened and endangered species, threat to rare species, threat to natural areas, NNIP species biology (including rate and mode of spread), location, practicality of control, and degree of infestation.

3. Methods that can be used include the following:

Mechanical Methods: Hand-pulling, cutting, digging, girdling, and mowing will be the principal mechanical methods employed. Examples of hand tools that might be used include shovels, saws, axes, loppers, hoes, or weed-wrenches. Motorized equipment could include string trimmers, chain saws, brush blades, mowers, bush hogs, and forestry brush cutters/mulchers.

Cultural Methods: Cultural methods may include the use of fire, mulch, or other inhibiting techniques such as weed cloths and plastic sheeting. Fire would be used in accordance with approved burn plans.

Spot Treatments Using Propane Weed Torch: A propane weed torch would be used to spot-burn targeted invasive plants. The weed torch would only be used during times of low fire danger. Its use would primarily be within plant communities that have a low potential to carry fire, such as bogs or rich cove forest communities.

Chemical (Herbicide) Methods: All herbicides will be used according to manufacturer’s label direction for rates, concentrations, exposure times, and application methods.

Applications will be done under the supervision of a certified applicator. Herbicides will be directly applied to the target plants, using cut surface, frill (or hack and squirt), basal stem (streamline), directed foliar, and injection application techniques. No herbicides would be applied aerially. Specific herbicides that could be used in the analysis area are listed below.

Clopyralid is a selective herbicide that controls broadleaf herbs, primarily composites, legumes, and smartweeds. Commercial brand-names include, but are not limited to Transline™. Typical application rate for Forest Service programs is

0.35 lb a.e./acre with a range of 0.1 to 0.5 lb a.e./acre.

Dicamba is a somewhat selective herbicide that controls most annual and perennial broadleaf herbs and some woody species. Commercial brand-names include, but are not limited to, Vanquish™ and Overdrive™. Typical application rate for Forest Service programs is 0.3 lb a.e./acre with a range of 0.25 to 2.0 lb a.e./acre.

Fosamine ammonium is a brush control agent that is diluted with water and applied as a foliar spray. Commercial brand-names include, but are not limited to Krenite™. Typical application rate for Forest Service programs is 7.8 lb a.e./acre with a range of 6.0 to 12.0 lb a.e./acre.

Glyphosate is a non-selective, broad spectrum herbicide that can be used to control many grasses, forbs, vines, shrubs, and tree species. Specific formulations of Glyphosate have been labeled for aquatic application. Commercial brand-names include, but are not limited to Accord™, Roundup™, and Rodeo™. Typical application rate for Forest Service programs is 2.0 lb a.e./acre with a range of 0.5 to

7.0 lb a.e./acre.

Hexazinone is a photosynthetic inhibitor selective to most hardwood tree species, shrubs and some grasses. Most southern yellow pines are resistant. It has been proven effective on lespedeza and privet. Commercial brand-names include, but are not limited to Velpar™ and Pronone™. Typical application rate for Forest Service programs is 2 lb a.e./acre with a range of 0.5 to 4.0 lb a.e./acre.

Imazapic is a selective herbicide that is used primarily in and around populations of native, warm season grasses. Warm season grasses, many wildflower species, and legumes are resistant, while many cool season grasses (including non-native species of Fescue) and broadleaf weeds are susceptible. Commercial brand-names include, but are not limited to Plateau™. Typical application rate for Forest Service programs is 0.1 lb a.e./acre with a range of 0.03125 to 0.1875 lb a.e./acre.

Imazapyr is a selective herbicide that is used primarily in the control of hardwood trees and some species of grasses. It has been proven effective in the control of tree of heaven, princess tree, mimosa, autumn olive, privet, and multiflora rose. Used in combination with Triclopyr or Glyphosate can increase target specificity.

Commercial brand-names include, but are not limited to Arsenal™ and Chopper™.

Typical application rate for Forest Service programs is 0.45 lb a.e./acre with a range of 0.125 to 1.25 lb a.e./acre.

Metsulfuron methyl is a systemic herbicide that is selective to woody species, broadleaf weed species, and many annual grasses. It has been proven to be effective in the control of lespedeza, Japanese honeysuckle, kudzu, and multiflora rose.

Commercial brand-names include, but are not limited to Escort™. Typical application rate for Forest Service programs is 0.03 lb a.e./acre with a range of

0.0125 to 0.15 lb a.e./acre.

Triclopyr is a selective herbicide that controls many species of herbaceous and woody broadleaf weeds, but has little to no effect on grasses. Specific formulations of Triclopyr have been labeled for aquatic application. Commercial brand-names include, but are not limited to Garlon 3A™, Garlon 4™. Typical application rate for Forest Service programs is 1.0 lb a.e./acre with a range of 0.05 to 10.0 lb a.e./acre.

4. A site-specific Implementation Checklist of Required Reviews (Appendix A) will be used to ensure that potential environmental impacts are within the scope of the impacts disclosed in the EA before a specific treatment would occur.

5. Sites will be monitored, as required by regional policy, to ensure that control of NNIP populations has been accomplished.

6. A Forest Plan amendment to the 1993 Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) for the George Washington National Forest and the 2004 LRMP for the Jefferson National Forest to accomplish the objectives of the proposed action, specifically the need to protect rare, sensitive habitats and threatened, endangered, or sensitive (TES) plants from NNIP (Appendix B). Standards 118 and 119 of the George Washington National Forest LRMP and Standard FW-102 of the Jefferson National Forest LRMP will be replaced by the following standard: “When applying herbicide, protect non-target vegetation, especially threatened, endangered, proposed, or sensitive plants by employing a physical barrier between them and the area being treated. The physical barrier must be sufficient to protect the non-target vegetation from herbicide drift and flow.”

Mitigation Measures and Plan Standards The standard practices and mitigation measures in the EA (EA, pages 23 to 30) are also a part of this decision.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

I have chosen Alternative 1 for the following reasons:

1. This alternative protects native biological diversity and the integrity of biological communities, resulting in a greater variety of native forest conditions, structure and function than will exist otherwise.

2. The vegetative management of NNIP in Alternative 1 best meets the direction for non-native invasive species set forth in the Jefferson National Forest Plan and does so with minimal environmental impact. The Forest Plan states: “These species can cause forest health problems. The Forest will strive to minimize negative effects of non-native invasive species and control such species where feasible and necessary to protect national forest resources” (Jefferson LRMP, p 2-23).

The vegetative management of NNIP in Alternative 1 best meets the direction for non-native invasive species set forth in the George Washington National Forest Plan Standard 291: ”Weeds are managed under directions specified in FSM 2080.1-2082 describing noxious weed management” (specifically to develop and coordinate a management program for control of undesirable plants which are noxious, harmful, injurious, poisonous, or toxic on Federal lands under the agency's jurisdiction and to use an integrated weed management approach to control and contain the spread of noxious weeds on National Forest System lands and from National Forest System lands to adjacent lands) (George Washington LRMP, p3-157).

3. Alternative 1 is the best alternative to maintain managed openings because it does this more efficiently and effectively than either Alternative 2 or the Manual/Mechanical/Cultural Treatments Only Alternative. Herbicides greatly inhibit or eliminate root systems. Without a root system, the NNIP species and unwanted woody vegetation must reseed an area since they cannot sprout new growth. It takes longer to reseed an area, so Alternative 1 increases the chance that managers will be able to keep up with maintenance needs and it reduces maintenance costs. Most importantly, these cost savings and reduced maintenance return intervals can be implemented in an environmentally sound manner, while protecting visuals, aquatic resources, rare species/communities, soils, water quality, and other resources.

4. This decision is intended to be adaptive in nature, treating both currently known sites, and allowing for the future treatment of undocumented NNIP infestations that are rapidly evolving and spreading on the Forest.

OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

In addition to the selected alternative and the No Action Alternative, the EA considered one other alternative, but not in detail. The following is a brief description of this alternative and the reasons for non-selection.

Alternative 2 - (No Action) Non-native invasive species control methods would not be implemented. Existing weed populations would continue to spread and new infestations would become established and spread unchecked. This would result in a reduction of native biological diversity and integrity of biological communities. It could also increase the potential for the Forest to become a source of infestation for surrounding lands, both public and private

Manual/Mechanical/Cultural Treatments Only Alternative would treat the same areas as Alternative 1 but would do so without the use of herbicides. Control would be done only with manual, mechanical or cultural means.

The Manual/Mechanical/Cultural Treatments Only Alternative was not selected because the cost of doing this work would be much greater than Alternative 1 which can be implemented with minimal impact. Both Alternative 1 and the Manual/Mechanical/Cultural Treatments Only Alternative could satisfy the primary purpose of controlling non-native invasive species.

However, areas would need to be treated more often to keep the non-native species under control under this alternative because the NNIP species are simply cut off and the remaining root systems would sprout and reestablish these plants. Herbicide greatly inhibits or eliminates root systems with the result that reseeding is required to reestablish the NNIP. In addition to the reduced cost and increased effectiveness of Alternative 1 over the Manual/Mechanical/Cultural Treatments Only Alternative, the Manual/Mechanical/Cultural Treatments Only Alternative would result in greater risk to employees conducting treatment since mechanical treatments would rely on chainsaws, mowers, and bladed hand tools. If the Manual/Mechanical/Cultural Treatments Only Alternative were selected NNIP control would be reduced Forest-wide due to the greatly reduced effectiveness of only using mechanical treatments and the increased cost of having to repeat mechanical treatments. Existing weed populations would continue to spread and new infestations would become established and spread.

Alternative 1 provides the best cost efficiency. Given the present and past budgets and the potential future budgets, Alternative 1 offers the best opportunity to achieve the desired conditions called for in the Forest Plan as it treats the most areas for the least cost per area over time. It maintains more areas than the Manual/Mechanical/Cultural Treatments Only Alternative and with reasonable costs. Alternative 1 maintains the same areas as the Manual/Mechanical/Cultural Treatments Only Alternative but at a much lower cost. Managing the invasive species and openings with mechanical treatments alone would significantly reduce effectiveness, create more hazards for employees conducting treatments, and increase costs.

SCOPING AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

The proposal was first listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) on October 1, 2009. A scoping letter explaining the project proposal was mailed to 333 interested and affected parties on December 16, 2009. In addition, a legal notice for public comment was published in the Roanoke Times on January 6, 2010. Comments were received from 13 individuals and organizations, all of which supported the proposed action. Based on these comments the interdisciplinary team identified no significant issues but did consider the comments in the final development of the EA. The EA summarizes the comments to the proposed actions in Appendix D. A determination of the significance of issues from the comments received is provided in the project file.

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

It is my determination that the proposed actions for Alternative 1 of the Forest-wide Non-native Invasive Plant Control EA are not major federal actions. These actions will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment individually or cumulatively. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement is not needed. This finding includes consideration of the following factors concerning the context and intensity of the expected impacts of the alternative

(40 CFR 1508.27).

CONTEXT

The physical and biological effects of this action vary according to the resource area analyzed.

These impacts are primarily limited to the immediate areas impacted by NNIP species. Both beneficial and adverse impacts of this project have been considered and these activities will not cause a significant effect to the quality of human environment (EA, pages 32 through 50).

INTENSITY/SEVERITY

1. Both beneficial and adverse impacts of this project have been considered and these activities will not cause a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Forest Plan standard practices and project–specific mitigation measures (found on pages 23 - 30 of the EA) will be implemented to avoid or minimize environmental effects. Based on the discussions in the EA, there are no known significant irreversible resource commitments or irretrievable loss of soil production; water quality; vegetation; wildlife habitat; fish and aquatic habitat; threatened, endangered, and sensitive species; scenery and recreational opportunities; and cultural resources (EA, pages 32 through 50).

2. There will be no effect on public health or safety with the implementation of the standard practices and mitigation measures. Effects and associated risks of all herbicides, except fosamine ammonium (USDA Forest Service 1989), proposed for use have been assessed by Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. (SERA 2003a, 2003b, 2004a, 2004b, 2004c, 2004d, 2004e, 2005). The complete text of these documents can also be found at:

http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/risk.shtml.

3. The unique characteristics of the geographic area (historic or cultural resources, wetlands, floodplains, and ecologically critical areas, etc.) will not be significantly affected. Only formulations approved for aquatic-use would be applied in or within 30 feet of lakes, wetlands, perennial, or intermittent springs, and streams, in accordance with label directions.

Since the project will not have any soil disturbance there would be no disturbance to cultural resources (EA, pages 14, 32 to 49).

4. The effects on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be highly controversial.

Disclosure of environmental impacts is based upon widely accepted principles resulting from sound scientific research (EA, pages 32 through 50).

5. The project does not involve highly uncertain, unique, or unknown environmental risks. The herbicides and their application methods have a known history; subsequent results are predictable (EA, pages 32 through 50).

6. The proposed actions will not establish a precedent influencing approval of future actions with significant effects nor does it represent a decision in principle about a future consideration. The scope of this decision is limited to the NNIP treatment methods and acres shown on pages 2 through 4 of the Decision Notice (also see EA, page 13)

7. In relation to other actions with individually insignificant impacts, it will not be cumulatively significant (EA, pages 32 through 50, Cumulative Effects Analysis for each resource).

8. There are no effects to any cultural resources listed, eligible for listing, or potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. No earth disturbing activities are planned (EA, pages 48).

9. Because it will follow Plan Standards and Guidelines and Mitigation Measures, including the

Implementation Checklist, the proposed action will have no effect to species listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. A Biological Evaluation has been completed for this action (EA, pages 40 and 41 and the Biological Evaluation, Appendix A).

Regarding the Indiana bat, an endangered species, there is no critical habitat on the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests (GWJNF). Actions conducted under this EA will comply with the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s Biological Opinion.

10. The proposed action does not threaten a violation of any Federal, State, or local laws or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment (EA, pages 1 through 53).

FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS

Forest Plan Consistency

This action is consistent with the Forest Plan Standards pertaining to the Management Prescriptions that pertain to the 1993 Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) for the George Washington National Forest and the 2004 LRMP for the Jefferson National Forest.

George Washington, except for the following standards:

Standard 118. No herbicide is aerially applied within 300 feet, nor ground-applied within 60 feet, of any known threatened, endangered, proposed, or sensitive plant. Buffers are clearly marked before treatment so applicators can easily see and avoid them. (GWNF LRMP p. 3-136)

Standard 119. No soil-active herbicide is applied within 30 feet of the drip line of non-target vegetation (e.g., den trees, hardwood inclusions, adjacent stands) within or next to the treated area. Side pruning is allowed, but movement of herbicide to the root systems on non-target plants must be avoided. Buffers are clearly marked before treatment so applicators can easily see and avoid them. (GWNF LRMP p. 3-136)

Standard FW-102. No soil-active herbicide is applied within 30 feet of the drip line of reserved vegetation (e.g. den trees of hardwood inclusions) or within 30 feet of the drip line of vegetation adjacent to the treated area. (JNF LRMP p.2-29)

Due to the current conditions, NNIPs are already within or immediately adjacent to these habitats and individual TES species. We could not meet the objective of protecting these plants and habitats without treating NNIPs inside the limits of the current Plan standards. Therefore, a Non-significant Forest Plan Amendment to both Forest Plans is required to implement this decision.

Plan Amendment Not Significant

Regulations permit amendments that may result in either significant or non-significant changes to the Land and Resource Management Plan (1982 Regulations at 36 CFR 219.10 (e) (f). I have determined that the amendment is not significant. The amendment is project-specific and not applicable in scope or timing to scheduled plan revisions. The amendment does not alter the multiple-use goals and objectives for long-term land and resource management across the entire Forest, or alter planned resource outputs. It does not change management prescriptions and does not apply to future decisions in the planning area.

This decision complies with all other laws and implementing regulations.

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION AND APPEAL RIGHTS

This decision is subject to administrative appeal pursuant to Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR Part 215. Any written notice of appeal of this decision, including attachments, must be postmarked or received within 45 days after the date this notice is published in the Roanoke Times. Attachments received after the 45 day appeal period will not be considered. The publication date in the Roanoke Times, newspaper of record, is the exclusive means for calculating the time to file an appeal. Those wishing to appeal this decision should not rely upon dates or timeframe information provide by any other source. The Notice of Appeal must be filed (regular mail, fax, email, hand delivery, or express delivery) with the USDA Forest Service, Appeals Deciding Officer, 1720 Peachtree Rd NW, Suite 811N, Atlanta, Georgia 30309-9102.

Appeals may be faxed to (404) 347-5401.

The office business hours for those submitting hand-delivered appeals are: 8:00 A.M. to 4:30 P.M. Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Electronic appeals must be submitted in a format such as an email message, plain text (.txt.), rich text format (.rtf), and Word (.doc) toappeals-southern@fs.fed.us. In cases where no identifiable name is attached to an electronic message, a verification of identity will be required. A scanned signature is one way to provide verification.

Individuals or organizations that submitted substantive comments during the comment period specified at 215.6 may appeal this decision. The notice of appeal must meet the appeal content requirements of 36 CFR 215.14. For additional information concerning this decision or the appeal process, contact the Karen Overcash at the Supervisors Office, 5162 Valleypointe Parkway, Roanoke, VA 24019, and phone (540) 265-5175.

If no appeals are filed within the 45-day time period, implementation of this decision may occur on, but not before, 5 business days from the close of the appeal filing period. When appeals are filed, implementation may occur on, but not before, the 15th business day following the date of the last appeal disposition.

__/s/ Maureen T. Hyzer___________ ___12/14/2010___________________ MAUREEN T. HYZER Date

Forest Supervisor Appendix A

Implementation Checklist for the Treatment of NNIP Species

NRIS Site ID:______________________________ Species name:___________________________________ Lat/Long in decimal degrees: N_____________ W_________________ GIS Acres:_____________(calculated from GIS) Percent of site infested___________% Data Collected by:_______________________ Infested adjacent (non NFS) land?

YES / NO

List other NNIP species present at site:

Treatment method proposed: (list methods, chemicals used, date to be treated, by whom, etc.)

Botanist Review: (Describe any special circumstances including the presence of TES species and rare or unique communities. List all recommended mitigations below.)

Wildlife Biologist Review: (Describe any special circumstances including potential impacts to forage and wildlife investments. List all recommended mitigations below.)

Aquatic Biologist Review (Only required when treating sites within riparian areas):

(Describe any special circumstances including the presence of aquatic TES species. List all recommended mitigations below.)

Hydrologist/Soils Review: (Describe any special circumstances regarding potential impacts to water quality. List all recommended mitigations below.)

Recreation Specialist Review: (Describe any special circumstances regarding recreation activities in the area that may be affected. List all required mitigations below.)

Archaeologist Review (Only required if treatment involves ground disturbance): (Describe any special circumstances regarding historical or cultural significance. List all recommended mitigations below.)

Signatures and Date:

Botanist/Ecologist Wildlife Biologist Aquatic Biologist

Hydrologist Archaeologist Recreation Specialist

*If adjacent non NFS land is infested with NNIP species consider the use of a Wyden Amendment to treat.

Treatments on adjacent land would only occur if consistent with Wyden Amendment.

Appendix B AMENDMENT # 10

1993 GEORGE WASHINGTON NATIONAL FOREST REVISED LAND AND RESOURCE

MANAGEMENT PLAN

The following project-specific change is made to the Forest Plan through this amendment.

Standard 118. No herbicide is aerially applied within 300 feet, nor ground-applied within 60 feet, of any known threatened, endangered, proposed, or sensitive plant.

Buffers are clearly marked before treatment so applicators can easily see and avoid them.

Standard 119. No soil-active herbicide is applied within 30 feet of the drip line of non-target vegetation (e.g., den trees, hardwood inclusions, adjacent stands) within or next to the treated area. Side pruning is allowed, but movement of herbicide to the root systems on non-target plants must be avoided. Buffers are clearly marked before treatment so applicators can easily see and avoid them.

The above standards are replaced with the following standard:

“When applying herbicide, protect non-target vegetation, especially threatened, endangered, proposed, or sensitive plants by employing a physical barrier between them and the area being treated. The physical barrier must be sufficient to protect the non-target vegetation from herbicide drift and flow.”

AMENDMENT # 2

2004 JEFFERSON NATIONAL FOREST REVISED LAND AND RESOURCE

MANAGEMENT PLAN

The following project specific change is made to the Forest Plan through this amendment.

Standard FW-102. No soil-active herbicide is applied within 30 feet of the drip line of reserved vegetation (e.g. den trees of hardwood inclusions) or within 30 feet of the drip line of vegetation adjacent to the treated area.

The above standard are replaced with the following standard:

“When applying herbicide, protect non-target vegetation, especially threatened, endangered, proposed, or sensitive plants by employing a physical barrier between them and the area being treated. The physical barrier must be sufficient to protect the non-target vegetation from herbicide drift and flow.”

__/s/ Maureen T. Hyzer_______________ _12/14/2010_________________ MAUREEN T. HYZER Date Forest Supervisor