Appendix A2 San Gabriel Monument EA _Invasive_Plant_Treatment_Project_EA.pdf

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

September 2015

Environmental Assessment Angeles National Forest and San Gabriel Mountains National Monument

Plan for Invasive Plants

Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties, California

For Information Contact: Janet Nickerman Project Lead, Angeles National Forest

(626) 353-8439

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Environmental Assessment Invasive Plant Treatment Project iii

Table of Contents Chapter 1 - Introduction Chapter 2 - Alternatives, including the Proposed Action Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Human Health and Safety Invasive Plants and Native Vegetation Special Status Plants Wildlife Soils and Hydrology Special Land Designations (Wilderness and Research Natural Areas) Recreation and Scenic Resources Consequences Relative to Significance

Chapter 4 – List of agencies and persons consulted References Appendix A Summary of Public Comments Appendix B Additional Invasive Plant information Appendix C Potential Treatment Prescription Options Appendix D Monitoring Plan Appendix E Projects, Activities and Factors Considered in Cumulative Effects……………….128

List of Figures Figure 1. Project Area Map

List of Tables

Table 1. Summary of Proposed Treatment Methods Table 2. Priority Treatment Areas and Projects Table 3. Comparison of Alternatives…………………………………………………………….36 Table 4. Summary of hazard indicators and toxicity categories for pesticides…………… Table 5. Signal Word used for each acute toxicity category Table 6. Approximate acres by vegetation type within the project area ………….……….42 Table 7. Response to Comments……………………..……………………………….………….81 Table 8. Invasive plants known to occur in and near the project area Table 9. Some invasive species reproductive and dispersal mechanisms………………….…….90 Table 10. Potential Treatment Prescription Options..……………………………………….……94 Table 11.Projects, Activities and Factors Considered for Cumulative Effects………………….128 j

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION

Background _____________________________________ Executive Order 13112 defines invasive plants as “non-native plants whose introduction does, or is likely to, cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health” (http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/eos/eo13112.html). Some invasive plants can change ecosystem processes such as hydrology, fire regimes, and soil chemistry. These invasive plants have a competitive advantage because they are no longer controlled by their natural predators, and can quickly spread out of control. They spread with no consideration for land ownership boundaries.

Furthermore, invasive plants that grow along stream channels can easily and often increase their infestation because their seeds, effortlessly, are capable of traveling downstream. In California, approximately 3 percent of the plant species growing in the wild are considered invasive, but they inhabit a much greater proportion of the landscape (Cal-IPC).

The purpose of this environmental assessment is to assess the environmental effects of invasive weed treatment in Angeles National Forest and San Gabriel Mountains National Monument watersheds, both on and off Forest and Monument lands. This proposed action will address areas not previously covered by the Invasive Plant Treatment Project, Santa Clara Watershed, Santa Clara/Mojove River Ranger District (ANF 2013) or the Invasive Plant Treatment Project, San Gabriel District (ANF 2011). These decision documents have completed evaluation for invasive weed treatments on Forest Service lands in the Santa Clara Watershed: Gorman, Liebre Gulch, Piru, Castaic, Fish Canyon, Elizabeth Lake Canyon, San Francisquito, Bouquet, Mint Canyon, Agua Dulce, Sand Canyon, Arrastre, and Aliso. The Invasive Plant Treatment Project, San Gabriel District covers the majority of the main drainages on the San Gabriel River Ranger District and San Dimas Experimental Forest (i.e., San Gabriel, Big and Little Dalton, San Dimas drainages), 350ft to either side of the high-water mark.

If the invasive species are left unchecked, the ecosystems within the project area will dramatically change. Invasive plants create a host of adverse environmental effects, including displacement of native plants and reduction in habitat and forage for wildlife (including federally listed threatened and endangered, and Forest Service sensitive1 species); reduction in water quantity; potential reduction in soil productivity; and potential increase in the intensity and frequency of wildfires. After wildfires, non-native plant species typically re-establish more rapidly than native plants, suppressing the recovery of the native vegetation and allowing the invasive plants to expand their range. In addition, when wildfires occur too frequently (tamarisk and arundo-dominated communities experience higher fire frequencies than native riparian communities), some native vegetation loses the ability to recover, effectively converting high diversity native plant communities into low diversity non-native plant communities.

The Angeles National Forest Land Management Plan (Forest Plan) states, “….some of the greatest threats to riparian and aquatic habitats are from the invasion of non-native plant species, particularly tamarisk, arundo, and cape ivy within the stream channels….” (Forest Plan, part 1, p. 41; USFS 2005).

The Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 (7 USC 214), Section 15, requires federal land management agencies to develop and establish a management program for control of undesirable plants that are classified under state or federal law as undesirable, noxious, harmful, injurious or poisonous on federal lands under the agency’s jurisdiction (7 USC 2814[a]). The Act also requires the federal land management agencies to enter into cooperative agreements to coordinate the management of http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/eos/eo13112.html undesirable plant species on federal lands where similar programs are being implemented on state and private lands in the same area (7 U.S.C. 2814[c]).

The Wyden Amendment (Public Law 105-277, Section 323 as amended by Public Law 109-54, Section 434) authorizes the Forest Service to enter into cooperative agreements to benefit resources within watersheds on National Forest System lands. Agreements may be with willing federal, tribal, state, and local governments, private and nonprofit entities, and landowners to conduct activities on public or private lands for the protection, restoration, and enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat and other resources; reduction of risk for natural disaster where public safety is threatened; or a combination of both.

Executive Order 13112 of February 3, 1999, Invasive Species, is intended to prevent the introduction of invasive species, provide for their control, and to minimize the economic, ecological, and human health impacts that invasive species cause. Agencies shall identify which actions could affect the status of invasive species; use an integrated weed management approach to managing invasive species; and not authorize, fund, or carry out actions that would likely cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species unless it can be shown the actions clearly outweigh the potential harm caused by invasive species.

The National Fire Plan 10-year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan (USFS 2001) includes an action to eradicate or minimize the rate of spread of invasive species that negatively impact natural fire cycles and fire-adapted ecosystems.

Forest Service National Strategic Plan (USFS 2013) includes objectives to reduce adverse impacts from invasive and native species, pests, and diseases, and restore and maintain healthy watersheds and diverse habitats.

The Forest Plan (USFS 2005) has goals to reverse the trend of increasing loss of natural resource values due to invasive species (Goal 2.1), retain a natural evolving character within wilderness (Goal 3.2), improve watershed conditions through cooperative management (Goal 5.1), improve riparian conditions (Goal 5.2), and provide ecological conditions to sustain viable populations of native and desired non-native species (Goal 6.2). The Forest Plan Weed Management Strategy (appendix M in the Forest Plan, part 3) includes coordinating with the Los Angeles Weed Management Area (WMA) to continue controlling and/or removing tree-of-heaven, tamarisk, and arundo in San Gabriel, Big and Little Dalton, and San Dimas canyons. In the Forest Plan, Environmental Impact Statement, Table 463 prioritized the invasive weeds known to occur on the ANF. However, this table was only accurate until 2005. Surveys have shown new invasive species have been found and populations have grown over the last 10 years. Invasive species populations have changed so much that Table 463 is no longer helpful as a management tool.

The desired conditions for the project area are to have structure, function, and composition of plant communities and wildlife habitat unimpaired by the presence of invasive non-native plants (Forest Plan, part 1, p. 32; USFS 2005); to have the watercourses functioning properly with riparian vegetation consisting primarily of native species, with minimal or no presence of invasive non-native plants (Forest Plan, part 1, p. 41; USFS 2005); and to reduce and control exotic species over time to restore healthy riparian systems (Forest Plan, part 2, pp. 42, 66; USFS 2005).

Purpose and Need for Action _______________________ Based on national, agency, and forest direction, the needs for this project are to:

• Eradicate, control, contain or suppress existing invasive plant species through a combination of manual and herbicide removal in the Angeles National Forest and San Gabriel Mountains National Monument.

• Provide for aggressive treatment of new and existing infestations of invasive plants (in terms of new areas and new species) to allow for rapid treatment and containment of small infestations before they become established.

• Cooperate with state and county agencies and private landowners interested in managing invasive plants within the project area.

In meeting the needs for action, the following purposes (objectives) must be achieved:

• Improve riparian habitat, aquatic conditions, and the overall quality and quantity of water.

• Eradicate, control, contain, or suppress highly flammable and fire-adapted invasive plants as well as those negatively affecting ecosystems. Highly flammable and fire-adapted invasive plants can increase fire severity and increase the frequency in occurrence of damaging wildfires in these drainages. Invasive which damage ecosystems can permanently alter functional systems.

• Reduce adverse impacts from the project to populations of threatened, endangered, and/or Forest Service sensitive plant and wildlife species.

• Reduce adverse impacts to the native riparian vegetation within the project area.

• Provide for health and safety during implementation of the project to nearby residents, forest visitors, and project implementers.

Challenges in meeting the above direction given the current conditions:

• 375, 820 acres of the ANF do not have NEPA coverage for invasive species removal.

That’s 53.6% of the Forest.

• In some areas, manual removal is completed through the roadside maintenance CE. This is costly with higher land impacts for internal crews and external partners.

• The Santa Clara Watershed and parts of the San Gabriel Watershed have complete NEPA.

Linear projects must start and stop depending on the project boundaries.

• Exclusive manual removal is difficult because is it physically demanding. Expensive because repeated trip are needed since mortality will take repeated removal efforts. This means more vehicle trips, more volunteer and staff time.

• It isn’t possible to treat new infestations without current NEPA.

• It is problematic for our Cooperators such as Cal-Trans and LA County Public Works.

They can’t use all tools to remove invasive species unless they complete NEPA. This still requires FS staff time and can be a lengthy process.

Proposed Action _________________________________ The proposed action includes the treatment of existing and new infestations of invasive plant species.

The project area is outside the San Gabriel and Santa Clara projects. Specifically, treatment areas are

1) outside the Santa Clara Drainage and 2) above the high water mark in San Gabriel, San Dimas, Big and Little Dalton canyon drainages from the Forest boundary to their headwaters. For purposes of this document, treatment area is above 100 to 350 feet from the edge of the high water mark. Treatment areas would include non-National Forest System or non-National Monument lands if the landowners/managers would like to enter into an agreement authorized under the Wyden Amendment.

Each site will be adaptively managed for treatment effectiveness, design criteria compliance, and review of new information. These reviews will be conducted on an annual basis. Our prescriptions will follow the Forest Service Invasive Weed Framework (2013), of (1) prevention, (2) detection, (3) control and management, and (4) rehabilitation and restoration. All four criteria will follow the Preventing the Spread of Invasive Plants: Best Management Practices for Land Managers 3rd Edition, California Invasive Plant Council. The project incorporates an adaptive management strategy that allows treatment areas to be modified based on invasive plant expansion, new infestations of invasive plants in the project area, and new and more effective treatment methods.

Design features for prevention of invasive weed expansion are currently incorporated into many projects, including techniques including vehicle washing, certified weed-free hay, and public education. And, design features for prevention will continue to be incorporated into projects and operating plans, as much as possible. As part of this document, new projects will follow, Cal Ipc’s Check List E: Inspection and Cleaning checklist found in the Preventing the Spread of Invasive Plants: Best Management Practices for Land Managers 3rd Edition, California Invasive Plant Council.

Detection of invasive weeds is currently implemented with these actions: (1) Invasive species risk assessments are conducted for every project; (2) Plant surveys are conducted prior to implementation of projects; (3) Whenever possible, education of personnel and partners for detection of invasive weeds will be conducted. Proposed actions for detection (1) Include invasive weed information at pre-work meetings, whenever possible. (2) Evaluate areas and survey areas for high potential for invasive weeds, e.g., wilderness, Inventoried Roadless Areas, etc., as part of the program of work. Then, prescribe treatments for those surveyed sites. Areas will be targeted for survey and prescription during the annual review.

Control and management of invasive species will continue to concentrate on project areas and other sites with high-priority species, contingent upon funding. At a minimum, invasive weeds will be treated according to assigned annual targets for the Forest or Monument.

Prescriptions for treatment would follow integrated weed management (IWM) for each treatment site.

Proposed treatment methods include manual/mechanical, fire-wilting, and herbicide. Depending on the size of the treated material (invasive plants), additional treatment of this activity-generated material (biomass) could be required.

Monitoring of rehabilitation and restoration are also key components to the proposed action. There would be two main types of monitoring: implementation monitoring and effectiveness monitoring. All monitoring would be similar to the information already compiled through Forest Service Activity Tracking System (FACTS) and National Resource Information System (NRIS) data collection.

Monitoring is intended to compare baseline information with post treatment information, determine the effectiveness of treatment, and possibly provide adaptive management based on unanticipated effects, and monitor the restoration of treated sites. To ensure treated areas are not re-colonized with invasive plant species, restoration activities may be required. All surveys/monitoring would be documented.

No new permanent or temporary roads are being proposed with this action. Any access would be by foot or by vehicles using existing roads. Helicopters may be used for transportation in remote areas where access is difficult, including possibly the wilderness with the appropriate authorization.

A more detailed description of this proposal can be found in Chapter 2, Alternative 2 Proposed Action found in this document.

Decision Framework ________________________________ The Angeles National Forest, Forest Supervisor, is the Responsible Official for this project. The Forest Supervisor will decide whether to approve the proposed action, approve a modification to the proposed action, or take no action on treating the vegetation related to this project at this time.

Public Involvement _______________________________ The project manager has scoped this action with the Weed Management Area for Los Angeles County during four meetings throughout 2013 and 2014. This group is composed of concerned citizens, County representatives, USDI Park Service personnel, various State agency representatives, City representatives, and fire agencies. The project manager received comments regarding concerns about this proposed action at these meetings. The project manager met with representatives of tribes in a meeting on August 16, 2014. Internal scoping within the Forest Service was conducted as well.

The project is listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) on the Angeles National Forest internet webpage. Scoping and public notification were conducted to inform the public of the proposal and provide them an opportunity to raise any issues associated with this invasive plant treatment proposal. A scoping notice and request for comments on the draft EA were included in the same request. More than 1000 notices were mailed to agencies, groups, and individuals on April 20, 2015. The mailing included the link to the project file and draft EA (http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=46486). Also stated is the number to call to receive a printed copy of the draft EA sent via US Postal Service. Comments from past invasive projects on the ANF and other Forest Service projects comments were also considered in guiding this

EA.

Using the comments from the public and internal resource specialists concerns (see Issues section in this Chapter, below), the interdisciplinary team recommended a list of issues to be addressed.

Issues __________________________________________ The Forest Service received and reviewed comments from individuals/groups, both orally and in writing. The Forest analyzed past and current comments to determine what the issues were related to this project proposal. Issues are points of discussion, dispute, or debate about the environmental effects of proposed actions. Issues were separated into two groups: key or major issues, and those that are not. Key issues are defined as having a cause and effect relationship with the proposed action; are within the scope of the analysis; have not been decided by law, regulation, or previous decision; and produce conflicts that cannot be resolved through mitigation. Issues that were not determined to be key issues were identified as those that are outside the scope of the purpose and need; already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; irrelevant to the decision to be made;

conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence; or could be resolved through mitigation. A list of issues and reasons regarding their categorization are noted in appendix A in this document.

After careful analysis, two key issues that will be addressed in the analysis:

1. Herbicides are highly toxic to humans, including carcinogenicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity, neurotoxicity, and acute toxicity. (Measurement indicator is the threshold of concern for each herbicide proposed. Threshold of concern for humans is expressed as reference dose [RfD]).

2. Herbicides are toxic to aquatic organisms, mammals, and birds, including carcinogenicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity, neurotoxicity, and acute toxicity.

In addition, this document addresses the effects from this project for the following resources: invasive plants, special status plant and animal species (i.e., species protected under the Endangered Species Act and Forest Service sensitive), hydrology, special land designation areas (i.e., wilderness and research natural areas), recreation, and scenic resources.

CHAPTER 2 - ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE

PROPOSED ACTION

This Chapter describes the alternatives considered to achieve the purpose and need discussed in Chapter 1 of this document. Alternative 1 is the no action; Alternative 2 is the proposed action; and Alternative 3 was developed in response to the issues identified during scoping and noted above (i.e., herbicide toxicity). In addition, design features (protection measures) are incorporated into the alternative descriptions and are included in this chapter. The intent of these design features is to decrease potential adverse effects to people and the environment. This chapter also acknowledges alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed analysis. A table at the end of this chapter presents the alternatives in comparative form, defining the differences between the three alternatives and providing a basis for choice among options by the decision makers and the public.

Alternatives _____________________________________ Alternative 1, No Action Under the no action alternative, none of the activities proposed from the action alternatives would be implemented. The no action alternative would not preclude invasive plant treatment activities from project areas as analyzed in separate documents. This alternative represents the existing condition and expected future conditions (in the absence of this project), against which the other alternatives are compared.

Alternative 2, Proposed Action

Proposed Action The Angeles National Forest is proposing to treat invasive plant species. This includes treatment of existing and new infestations of invasive plant species. The treatment area is all of the Angeles National Forest and National Monument (drainages to uplands) not previously covered by the Invasive Plant Treatment Project, Santa Clara Watershed, Santa Clara/Mojave River Ranger District (ANF 2013) or the Invasive Plant Treatment Project, San Gabriel District (ANF 2011). Areas covered by these two documents will not be addressed because they are already covered. Treatment areas (Figure 1 and 2) would include non-National Forest System and non-National Monument lands if the landowners/managers would like to enter into a cost-share agreement authorized under the Wyden Amendment or some other available authority. San Gabriel, Sheep Mountain, Pleasant View Ridge, Cucuamonga, Magic Mountain Wildernesses and Falls Canyon Research Natural Area are also included in the project area. The project would be a long-term commitment for invasive plant management in the project area due to new species entering into the project area, re-colonization of treated species, and expansion of existing populations. The term of this project would be 15 years with the intent to review the project record periodically and if needed, update the project effects analysis and possibly purpose and need after 15 years of implementation. Fifteen years is the minimum amount of time needed for a consistent invasive species management program. However, this EA and specifically the effects analysis would be revisited if there is any new information.

Presently, invasive plant species known to exist within the project area include a large variety of species. Many of these species are quick invaders to new areas, including yellow-star thistle and tamarisk. It is anticipated even with early treatments, tamarisk and other invasive plants will continue to expand in the project area due to the proliferation of seed and seed dispersal by wind and water, or in the case of arundo, through rhizomes or stem segments. Expansion of invasive plants will vary depending on species, amount and proximity of vectors (e.g. roads, trails, flowing water) and amount of existing disturbance. It is anticipated invasive plants in the project area would generally expand at a rate of approximately one to five percent annually but could easily range from one to 15 percent (Asher and Dewey 2005).

Adaptive Management Strategy Invasive plant infestations constantly change and evolve, as do the infestations of individual invasive plant species and treatment methods, including herbicide use (i.e., concentrations of herbicide and application methods). For example, an invasive plant species that does not currently occur in the project area may be introduced and need to be treated at some future date. Also, an invasive species that may not be a current priority may become a priority in the future. Early detection and rapid eradication of invasive plants is the most efficient method for controlling their spread. Individual projects trying to address these changes could take a year or more for a decision. The adaptive management strategy addresses these types of changes over the life of this project to allow for a rapid response for control and/or containment. New treatment methods (including change in concentrations or application methods of approved herbicides analyzed and approved for use by the US Environmental Protection Agency and/or California Department of Pesticide Regulations), treatment of new species, and/or treatment of new areas within the project area would be part of the proposed action as long as the scope of the treatment and the effects are within those already addressed in this document.

Any new information would be reviewed by an appropriate interdisciplinary team; documented; and approved by the Forest Supervisor through a letter to the file. The documentation would be included in the project record available for public review.

New herbicides and treatment methods can be used but may require new analyses, public involvement, risk analysis, Hazard Quotient worksheets and documentation.

Annual Implementation Review Process As part of the adaptive management strategy, the Forest will have an annual Invasive Species Management Implementation Review Meeting/Workshop. At this time, the proposed plan of work for the upcoming year will be reviewed, and any lessons learned from previous monitoring and implementation would be incorporated into the annual program of work.

Treatment Prescriptions Prescriptions for treatment would follow integrated weed management (IWM) for each treatment site.

No single management technique is perfect for all invasive plant treatment situations. Multiple management actions are required for effective treatment. Integrated weed management includes an approach for selecting methods for eradicating, containing, controlling, and/or suppressing invasive plants in coordination with other resource management activities to achieve optimum management goals and objectives. This approach uses a combination of treatment methods, that when taken together, would eradicate, contain, control, or suppress a particular invasive plant species or infestation efficiently and effectively, with minimum adverse impacts to non-target organisms. This approach contrasts with the traditional approach of using a single treatment type, such as applying herbicides, to treat all invasive plant problems. Herbicides are one useful technique, but they are not the only method to control invasive plants and may not always be the most effective. In addition, there are multiple herbicides that can treat a given invasive plant species. Integrated weed management is species-specific, tailored to exploit the weaknesses of a particular invasive plant species, site-specific, and designed to be practical with minimal risk to the organisms and their habitats (Colorado Natural Areas Program 2000).

Treatment Methods Proposed treatment methods include manual/mechanical, fire wilting, and herbicide. These treatment methods are divided up further into specific types of treatment methods and are summarized in Table

1. The timing of herbicide treatments would be dependent on the invasive plant species, location of the population, temperature extremes, restrictions for species protection, as well as wind and rain restrictions (which vary by herbicide). The Regional Forester must pre-approve any herbicide treatment in any wilderness area (FSM 2150; FSH 2109.14, 13.4; USFS 1994a; FSM 2323.04c; USFS 2007b).

Removal and/or treatment of cut vegetation (biomass) will include placement of material away from stream channels and outside the area where there is potential for it to be introduced to the stream during high water flows. Treatment could include pile and burning adjacent to or at the treatment site (at a minimum, outside the 25-year floodplain), drag and remove off site (if vehicle access is adjacent to treatment area), or helicopter sling load material out of the treatment area for disposal off site (e.g.

if the access is poor and pile and burning in place is not an option). Chipping and mowing are an option but will be used only if resprouting vegetation and seed head removal are part of the treatment plan. If the biomass material is minimal, the material could be scattered above the high waterline to dry and decompose. Sites where tamarisk plants receive herbicide treatment, biomass would not be burned, and treated plants would not be cut for two growing seasons after initial treatment because disturbing the treated plants can induce some to resprout.

The selection of treatment method would be dependent on time of year; severity of infestation;

presence of sensitive resources (e.g. native plant and wildlife species, including protected species), degree of intermixing of invasive species with sensitive native habitats, access, proximity to surface water and budget.

Table 1. Summary of Proposed Treatment Methods.

Method Description Manual/Mechanical Methods

Hand Pulling Pulling or uprooting plants can be effective against some shrubs, tree saplings, and herbaceous invasive plants. Annuals and tap-rooted plants are particularly susceptible to control by hand pulling. It is not as effective against many perennial invasive plants with deep underground stems and roots that are often left behind to resprout.

The advantages of pulling include its initial small ecological impact, minimal damage to neighboring plants, and little (or no) cost for equipment or supplies. Normally effective with small populations and/or where a large pool of volunteer labor is available. The key to effective hand pulling is to remove as much of the root as possible while minimizing soil disturbance. For many species, any root fragments left behind have the potential to re-sprout, and pulling is not effective on plants with deep and/or easily broken roots.

Disadvantages are that this method is labor and time intensive. Often times there are low mortality rates, which require repeated re-treatments to be effective, which could increase the project cost and frequency of disturbance to the treatment area.

Pulling Using Tools

Most plant-pulling tools are designed to grip the plant stem and provide the leverage necessary to pull its roots out. Tools vary in their size, weight, and the size of the invasive plant they can extract. The Root Talon is inexpensive and lightweight, but may not be durable or effective as the all-steel Weed Wrench, which is available in a variety of sizes.

Both work best on firm ground as opposed to soft, sandy, or muddy substrates and in small areas with easy access.

Advantages are initial small ecological impact and minimal damage to neighboring plants.

Normally effective with small populations and/or where a large pool of volunteer labor is available. Disadvantages include both tools can be cumbersome and difficult to carry to remote sites, this method can be labor and time intensive, often requires repeated re-treatments to be effective, which could increase the project cost and frequency of disturbance to the treatment area. Could spread invasive plants to other sites if equipment is not cleaned before leaving an infected site.

Clipping and Cutting

“Clipping and Cutting” requires cutting a portion of the invasive plant stem, generally cutting the bole of the tree/plant with cutting tools such as chainsaws, weed wacker/whip/eater.

Advantages and disadvantages are similar to the “pulling using tools” method as noted above. Another disadvantage is that many species can resprout from the base.

Girdling For trees (e.g. tamarisk), the main trunk of the trees would be stripped of the bark (consisting of secondary phloem tissue, cork cambium, and cork) around a tree’s outer circumference, causing its death. Death occurs from the inability of the leaves to transport sugars (primarily sucrose) to the roots.

Advantages to this treatment method are minimal ground disturbance and effective in killing larger sized trees. A disadvantage is that it takes time for the tree to die and during that time the tree can still produce seed. Another disadvantage is that some species can resprout from the base.

Tarping Invasive plants would be cut back within inches of the ground and opaque thick tarps or pond liners would be staked or weighed down over the treatment area. The tarp(s) would be applied in late spring/early summer and remain for up to 5 months, usually from June to November. This treatment is best used in small areas (less than 0.25 acres) where there is not an intermix of native plants.

Advantages to this treatment method are minimal ground disturbance and it has been known to be effective in small areas. Disadvantages are limited size of treatment area, could damage soil microorganisms, and high monitoring needs in high public use areas to ensure the tarp is left in place.

Fire-wilting Method Flaming Weed Torch

The weed torch is a treatment method that utilizes a propane torch to kill individuals but not ignite them This treatment is known as flaming, wilting, or blanching and the equipment can be carried by an indiviudal. The weed torch would only be used during times of low fire danger and in areas where there is low potential to carry fire. The most effective application is for the control of small diameter woody vegetation (one inch in diameter or less) such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucrose http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root

Method Description French broom, other broom species and gorse, seedlings, and nonwoody grasses and forbs. To reduce potential for wildfire, ‘flaming’ is typically only undertaken when vegetation is very wet- either during or immediately after a rain event, or when vegetation is damp from fog and on low wind days (less than 5 mph is preferable).

An advantage to this form of treatment is that it has very minimal environmental impact. A disadvantage is the limited window of opportunity for treatment.

Herbicide Methods Hand/Selective Treatment of individual plants to avoid spraying other desirable plants. There is a low likelihood of drift or delivery of herbicides away from treatment sites. This method is used in sensitive areas, such as near water, to avoid getting any herbicide on the soil or in the water. Specific methods include:

a) Foliar Application – These methods apply herbicide directly to the leaves. An adjuvant or surfactant is often needed to enable the herbicide to penetrate the plant cuticle, a thick, waxy layer present on leaves and stems of most plants.

These applicators range from backpack sprayer, to hand-pumped spray or squirt bottles, which can target very small plants or parts of plants.

b) Spot spraying – Spot spraying is similar to foliar spraying but would be for larger sized plants and/or population of plants. The focus still is on treating individual plants (instead of broadcast spraying) but over a larger area. Applicators would typically be backpack sprayers. Because of the potential to treat larger areas and larger sized vegetation, this method has a slightly higher potential for drift.

c) Frill or Hack and Squirt – The frill method, also called the “hack and Squirt” treatment, is often used to treat woody species with large, thick trunks. The tree is cut using a sharp knife, saw, or ax, or drilled with a power drill or other device.

Herbicide is then immediately applied to the cut with a backpack sprayer, squirt bottle, syringe, or similar equipment.

d) Cut-Stump – This method is often used on woody species that normally resprout after being cut. Cut down the tree or shrub, and immediately spray or squirt herbicide on the exposed cambium (living inner bark) of the stump. The herbicide must be applied to the entire inner bark (cambium) within minutes after the trunk is cut. The outer bark and heartwood do not need to be treated since these tissues are not alive, although they support and protect the tree’s living tissues. The cut stump treatment allows for a great deal of control over the site of herbicide application; therefore, has a low probability of affecting non-target species or contaminating the environment. It also requires only a small amount of herbicide to be effective.

e) Cut, Resprout, and Spray or Paint/Daub – Cut 1-2 months prior to spraying. Apply herbicide when resprouts are 2-4 feet tall, but most effective in early fall through winter when plant chlorophyll is transferred to roots. Herbicide should be applied on dry days and during low winds.

f) Stem Injection – Herbicides can be injected into stems using a needle, syringe, or special cutting tools, such as basal injectors or breast height injectors.

g) Basal Bark Treatment - Herbicide is applied to the base of individual woody plants or stems - individual plant treatment. The herbicide penetrates through the bark to the cambium, where it translocates to roots and stems for complete control. Used for trees less than 6 inches in diameter and trees that are too tall for foliar application.

h) Wicking application - applying a herbicide consists of a wick or rope soaked in herbicide from a reservoir attached to a handle. The wetted wick is used to wipe or brush herbicide over the weed.

Advantages include little soil disturbance, highly selective and effective with little risk of drift of herbicide onto non-target species. Disadvantages include labor intensive and weather conditions must be suitable for herbicide application (and for stem injections, equipment could be expensive). For immediate herbicide treatment after cutting, coordinating cutting and herbicide application in a timely fashion would be difficult.

Depending on the invasive plant species, over time, the amount and concentration of herbicide needed would likely decrease and the amount of manual treatment could increase as the project enters into a monitoring and management phase with only small pockets or individual scattered plants needing treatment.

Herbicide Treatment Method Herbicides will be used as part of this proposed action. Over a 15 year period it’s difficult to know which herbicides will be used because it is impossible to predict what invasive plant species may invade and what new herbicides will become available. Before a new herbicide is used in the proposed area, a risk assessment and effects analysis must be completed and added to the project file.

A review of the BE/BA will be completed to ensure that any potential effects associated with the new herbicide are within the scope of what has already been analyzed. If necessary, an amendment to the BE/BA will be completed. Additional consultation with Fish and Wildlife Service may be necessary.

Six herbicides are currently considered as treatment options in the proposed action include:

aminopyralid, chlorsulfuron, glyphosate, imazapyr, triclopyr and fluazifop-p-butyl. However any legally registered herbicide can be used if risk assessments, Pesticide Use Proposal forms, Hazard Quotient worksheet and NEPA analysis are completed.

Herbicide Range of Application Rate (pounds of acid equivalent/acre [lb. a.e./acre])

Typical application rate (lbs a.e./acre)

Aminopyralid 0.03 to 0.11 0.078

Chlorsulfuron 0.0059 to 0.83 0.056

Glyphosate 0.5 to 8 3

Imazapyr 0.03 to 4 0.45

Triclopyr 0.05 to 10 3

Fluazifop .25 to .375 .375

Treatment Areas For analysis, planning and reporting purposes, the project area includes all areas of the Angeles National Forest/San Gabriel Mountains National Monument not included in the San Gabriel and Santa Clara Watershed Projects.

It is likely many of these areas would need multiple treatments to control invasive species from that site. It is anticipated 95 percent of the treatment acres would need annual retreatment until the invasive plant species are eradicated, controlled, contained, or suppressed. Depending on the method (e.g. “cut, resprout, and spray,” manual/mechanical) treatments could require a minimum of two entries in any given year. Treatments should only be implemented under circumstances where future retreatments are feasible.

Project Area Map

Table 2. Treatment Areas

Location and total number of acres in the Project Area

Species Found on Site Reason for Concern Anticipated Treatment Areas

New Infestations:

Locations and # of acres are unknown at this time.

Unknown at this time. Treating new infestations are the cheapest and easiest way to control invasive species. If a new infestation is eradicated through repeated treatment, it won’t spread into a larger problem.

Immediately upon discovery.

Unknown number of acres.

Ongoing project areas that may cause land disturbance.

All possible species (currently on forest and not found yet)

Project implementation will generally cause disturbance and bring new equipment on Forest lands. This creates an ideal situation for invasive species introduction and/or spread.

There are always ongoing projects so invasive treatment will be ongoing.

Estimate is 300 acres.

Big Tujunga Canyon (Riparian and Uplands) and tributaries

21,745 acres Lower Big Tujunga

25,366 acres Upper Big Tujunga

Arundo, Tree of Heaven, Tamarisk, Spanish Broom, and Scotch Broom are dominant but others may be present.

Big Tujunga is heavily infested with invasive species but it also has one Federal Endangered toad (Arroyo Toad), one Federal Threatened fish (Santa Ana Sucker) and multiple Forest Service Sensitive fish, wildlife and plant species.

Grant funding and Partnerships have been secured for treatment of this area. Treatment will begin Summer of 2015.

Approximately 1000 acres.

Little Tujunga Canyon (Riparian and Uplands) and tributaries

12,588 acres

Arundo, Tree of Heaven, Tamarisk, Spanish Broom and Yellow Star Thistle are dominant but others may be present.

Arundo is the most dominant species. Federal Listed Critical Habitat for Willow Flycatcher and multiple Forest Service Sensitive wildlife and plant species.

Grant funding and partnerships have been secured for treatment of this area.

Approximately 500 acres.

Lower Little Rock and Tributaries

20,788 acres

Tamarisk is dominant but others may be present.

Tamarisk can easily spread and become dominant in the desert ecosystems. The canyons contains three Federal

No current plans due to lack of funding.

Endangered species (Arroyo Toad, Mountain Yellow Legged Frog and Least Bell’s Vireo) and multiple Forest Service Sensitive wildlife and plant species.

Big Rock Creek and tributaries

17,153. Acres

Tamarisk and Spanish Broom are dominant but others may be present.

Big Rock Creek is mostly free of invasive species.

With a few years of minor treatment, invasive species could be removed before they become a problem.

The canyons contain one Federal Listed Endangered species (Mountain Yellow Legged Frog) and multiple Forest Service Sensitive wildlife and plant species.

No current plans

Pacoima Canyon and tributaries

18,149 acres Upper

3237 acres Lower

Tamarisk and Spanish Broom are dominant but others may be present.

Pacoima is a remote canyon with a heavily flowing river. Multiple Forest Service Sensitive wildlife and plant species.

No current plans due to lack of funding.

Arroyo Seco tributaries

14,308 acres

German and English Ivy and Spanish Broom are dominant but others may be present.

German and English Ivy are growing into trees and slowly killing them by shading them out.

Multiple Forest Service Sensitive wildlife and plant species.

No current plans due to lack of funding.

Big Santa Anita Canyon and Tributaries

21,320. acres

Tree Euphorbia, German, English Ivy and Spanish Broom are dominant but others may be present.

German and English Ivy are growing into trees and slowly killing them by shading them out.

Multiple Forest Service Sensitive wildlife and plant species. Tree Euphorbia is the most serious concern because they are new infestations.

No current plans due to lack of funding.

Restoration To ensure invasive plant species within treated areas do not become re-established, restoration activities may be required. Restoration is a critical component to invasive weed management (Masters et al. 1996, Masters and Shelly 2001, Brooks et al. 2004), especially upland treatment areas where gaps and bare soil would be open and vulnerable to re-colonization of the same or other invasive plant species with no additional work. In addition, invasive plant removal on steep slopes without native species recovery or restoration could decrease slope stability.

Where invasive plant treatment occurs within the high water mark along the drainages, it is unlikely active restoration work would be required. Riparian vegetation, when given an opportunity, appears to re-establish in these areas without any additional work. Areas where flood waters do not exist, or where receding flood flows do not occur when short-lived riparian plant seed are produced, active restoration may be necessary. This could include seeding (with local native weed-free seed), planting (where the native plant seed or cuttings would be collected from a local source), and/or mulching (with weed-free material). Minimal site preparation would be expected (e.g. with seeding, use of a hand rake or similar tool would be used). Weed-free straw or other mulching may be applied. Any live vegetation would be planted with hand tools.

Restoration Strategies Considered There are three major strategies for restoration of sites after treating invasive plant species (Polster 2004):

1. Successional advancement or assisted succession: This is a strategy where later successional species are planted (e.g. conifers, oaks, shrubs) to develop an adequate canopy cover to reduce light resources for invasive species and would likely require planting containerized plants or cuttings. This strategy is not likely to be successful with species like tree-of-heaven, English ivy and bigleaf periwinkle which are tolerant of shadier environments.

2. Modifying disturbance regimes: This strategy may be effective where the existing disturbance regime may be facilitating perpetuation of a specific species. This strategy could be useful with species like tamarisk which is observed in large numbers around reservoirs. Changing the flooding frequency may be enough of a change in disturbance regimes to eliminate it.

This strategy is considered but changing the flooding frequency is dependent on outside agencies and may not be feasible.

3. Encouraging competition: The strategy is when desired native species are encouraged, through seeding, planting, or repeated treatment of an invasive plant species, the native seedbank or species already present will outcompete the invasive plant population. Seeding or planting desired native species is more successful in sites that have high levels of disturbance, and have little native cover remaining. Repeated removal of invasives at sites that still have a native component can facilitate release of the native seedbank or suppressed native plants.

The decision on which restoration strategy would be used on a given site would be dependent on site specific conditions (e.g. the location, size of area treated, invasive plant species treated). Monitoring would occur whether the restoration is active or passive and modifications made as needed. The proposed detailed Restoration Strategy is included in Appendix E.

Monitoring Monitoring is an important aspect of Integrated Weed Management. Annual monitoring reports would be completed for the treatment sites (e.g. location [using a GPS], size of treatment area, method of treatment, season of treatment, and if herbicides were used, the name of the herbicide and the amount used in that treatment site). Treated sites would be reviewed annually to determine if re-treatment and/or restoration activities would be necessary.