C04c Attachment 2 Payette NF 1987 EA 1284LM26Q0090.pdf

c

PAYETTE NATIONAL FOREST

ENVIRONMENTAL

ASSESSMENT

1 PROJECT TITLE: The Payette National Forest 1 Noxious Weed and Poisonous Plant Control I Program II LOCATION: Payette National Forest T Idaho, Valley, Adams and Washington Counties 1 Idaho 1 .

RESPONSIBLE AGENCY:

RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT:

or

ABSTRACT:

USDA Forest Service Payette National Forest Box 1026, McCall, Id. 83638

Veto (Sonny) LaSalle, Forest Supervisor Payette National Forest McCall, Id.

Walter (Pete) Pierson, Range, Wildlife, Soils-Branch Chief Supervisor's Office Craig Nathe, Range Conservationist Council Ranger District

This Environmental Assessment further addresses the Regionwide Programatic Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for Noxious Weed and Poisonous Plant Control. This document tailors the Region wide Alternatives to the immediate area of consideration-the Payette National Forest.

RECEIVED

PAYETTE N.F.

COUNCIL R.D.

JUN261987

Info. Action fnit.

DFR O

TMA Q

FftOR sss

ENG

Decision Notice and

Finding of No Significant Impact for the

PAYETTE NATIONAL FOREST

An Environmental Assessment has been prepared that discusses three alternatives for Noxious Weed and Poisonous Plant Control on the Payette National Forest. The Environmental Assessment is available for public review in the Supervior's Office in McCall, Idaho.

Based on the analysis documented in the Environmental Assessment, it is my decision to implement the proposed action which is Alternative _2, Integrated Pest Management. This alternative requires the following:

Target plants would be treated with one or more of the following management techniques: biological agents, herbicide applications, cultural and manual techniques. The method or combination of methods selected would be determined using knowledge of target plant physiology and site specific considerations. Prevention is also an element of this alternative.

Alternative 2 provides the best combination of physical, social, economic and environmental benefits.

An Environmental Impact Statement for the Region has been provided.

I have determined that this is not a major Federal action that would r -'.'•',,L." '.','.'/ significantly affect the quality of this determination as exhibited by the following:

1. The proposed action was not found to be highly controversial.

2. Noxious weed and poisonous plant eradication has been occur ing for decades and is generally accepted as a valid resource management tool.

3. Applications of herbicides, biological and manual techniques will adhere to Federal, State, and local laws in addition to label directions and the mitigating measures listed in this document and the Intermountain Region Noxious Weed and Poisonous Plant Control Program FEIS.

4. There are no irreversilbe or irretrievable commitments of resources involved.

5. The chosen alternative achieves the desired level of quality management.

Project implementation will begin no less than 30 days after decision, date.

This decision is subject to administrative review (appeal) pursuant to 36

CFR 211.19.

Veto (Sonny,) LaSalle Date Forest Supervisor Payette National Forest

PREFACE

The following is a brief summary of each alternative considered.

Alternative 1 -No treatment (no action).

Target plant would not be treated. Current treatment programs would be halted. The following results would be experienced:

1. An uncontrolled spread of noxious weeds and seeds would occur on the Payette National Forest and on adjacent lands. No control would be obtained.

2. Available forage on big game winter ranges and range land for livestock may be reduced .

3. There would be limited treatments for poisonous plants and an incurred loss of livestock would be experienced by the permittees.

4. May reduce visitor use.

Alternative 2 -Integrated Pest Management.

Target plants would be treated with one or more of the following management techniques: biological agents, herbicide applications, cultural and manual techniques. The method or combination of methods selected would be determined using knowledge of target plant physiology and site specific considerations. Prevention is also an. element of this alternative. The following results would be experienced:

1. Visual quality of the Forest would improve since there would tend to be fewer occurrances of noxious weeds.

2. Noxious weed and poisonous plant infestations would be treated and thus prevent spreading to non-infested areas, however, complete control would be unlikely.

3. Enhancement of resource values (wildlife habitat) and saving revenues by reducing resource losses.

4. Livestock losses from poisonous plants would be reduced (in some areas losses would be halted).

Alternative 3 -Integrated Pest Management Without Herbicides.

Target plants would be treated with biological agents and/or manual techniques. The method or combination of methods selected would be determined using knowledge of target plant physiology and site specific considerations. Prevention is also an element of this alternative. The following results would be expierenced:

1. A continued increase of noxious weeds (creeping perennials less controllable by nonherbicide treatments) to adjacent land, would be experienced.

2, Where manual and biological measures fail to control noxious weeds, wildlife habitat would be reduced for some species in weed producing areas.

3, Loss of livestock would also be experienced from poisonous plants (greater losses incurred than under Alternative 1).

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Subject. Faj

I PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 1

A. Current Program , 1

II. DESCRIPTION AND COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES,

INCLUDING PROPOSED ACTION_ 1

A. Alternatives Eliminated From Detailed Study 1 B. Alternatives Considered In Detail 2 C. Weed Management Techniques 2

1. Prevention __ 2

2. Herbicide methods, manual methods, biological methods 2

D. Monitoring and Studies 2

1. Direction 2

2. Modified Treatment Areas 3

3. Safety Coordination ' 3

4. Accomplishments __ __3

E. Requirements for Environmental Coordination 4

1. Poisonous Plant Spray Projects 4

2. Organizational Coordination_

•CSSjc

III.

IV.

V.

VI.

VII.

VIII

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

A. Introduction B. Physical and Biological Characteristics C. Resource Elements

1. Recreation

2. Wilderness

3. Cultural Resources

4. Fish and Wildlife

5. Range

6. Timber

7. Watershed

8. Minerals

9. Lands

10. Facilities

11. Protection

D. Social and Economic Agricultural Setting

1. Adams, Boise, Gem, Idaho, Valley & Washington Counties

2. Malheur County

3. Effect of weeds and weed control activities on the agricultural economy

4. Social environment

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

A. Alternative 1 B. Alternative 2 C. Alternative 3

COMPARISON SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

LIST OF PREPARERS

A. Authors B. Interdisciplinary Team

CONSULTATION WITH OTHERS

.MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS AND CONSTRAINTS

A. All Methods B. Herbicidal Methods C. Broadcast Herbicidal Methods

. 6

D. Mitigation Measures_ . 19

IX. APPENDIX 20

A, Public Comments , 21

1. Letter from the OX Ranch, Bear, Idaho, John Dyer Mgr. 21

2. Letter from the USDC, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, Dale R. Evans __23 B, Intra-department comments: 24

1. The preliminary project proposal initiating E.A. process_24

C:.':;A PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

f I. The Payette National Forest, proposes a program to control noxious V weeds and poisonous plants on the Payette National Forest System Lands.

The two following definitions identify the primary targets addressed in this document:

Noxious Weed - A plant species that is highly injurious or destructive and has the greatest potential for economic impact on forage and crop production.

Poisonous Plant - A plant species that contains or produces substances that cause sickness, death, or a deviation from normal state of health of humans and animals.

The 1985 noxious weed inventory on National Forest Land in the Intermountin Region shows approximately 150,000 acres of land moderately to densely infested. Noxious weeds are spreading at an average annual rate of six percent under historical levels of treatment. The six percent estimated rate of spread is based on the period from 1976-1985 during which approximately 5,000 acres were treated annually. Without this level of treatment the rate of spread of noxious weeds would be substantially higher. Infestation can lead to establishment of a vegetation monotype in which the plant species present can reduce livestock and wildlife forage, ,,,-,;,v-,: limit recreation opportunities, and significantly cut production of crops 'ti$:..)\d desirable vegetation.

C The Forest Service will continue to cooperate with the state, county,, and federal land managers as well as private land owners in containing and controlling these plants. If effective weed management is to occur, the problem must be addressed on a broad scale with all af fected groups cooperating.

Noxious weed infestations also impact nonagricultural sites such as campgrounds, big game winter range, road rights-of-ways, timber harvest areas, and vacant land.

On the Payette National Forest logging activities, recreation stock, campers, hunters and the movement of livestock, wildlife and birds have caused noxious farm weeds and other undesirable species to become more prevalent. There are currently approximately 2000 acres of noxious weeds on the Payette National Forest. Control efforts are currently being done on all the Ranger Districts (which includes the Weiser, Council, New Meadows, McCall and Krassel Ranger Dis t r ic ts) .

A. Current Program

The Current programs are designed to control the spread of noxious weeds rather than eradicate them. However, eradication measures taken against

<,.> the initial start of new noxious or poisonous species to prevent establishment has been the priority.

Noxious farm weed control is currently being done on 30,0 acres annually with emphasis on the noxious weed species that have the most potential for damage. Other lower priorities are given to the weeds that are not as threatening damage wise. Some are widespread, such as Canada thistle. In this case control measures consist of spot treatment by ground application with approved herbicides such as Picloram, Glyphosate, Dicamba, and 2-4-D using water as the carrier. Other projects could be initiated as needed to control other species (i.e. sagebrush, mountain brush etc.).

II. DESCRIPTION AND COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING PROPOSED ACTION.

A . Alternatives Eliminated From Detailed Study

The FEIS (page 2-1) discusses alternatives that were considered but eliminated from detailed study.

B . Alternatives C_pns._i_d_er_ed_ In_. Pet ajj..

A detailed summary of the analysis for three alternatives is displayed in this environmental document. Alternative 2, Integrated Pest Management.

is t he preferred alt g rn a t iy e .

Alternative 1: No Action

Target plants would not be treated. Current treatment programs would be halted. No control would be obtained.

Al t r n a ti ve Pest jjanageinent

Target plants would be treated with one or more of the following management techniques: biological agents, herbicide applications ,cultural and manual techniques. The method or combination of methods selected would be determined using knowledge of target plant physiology and site specific considerations. Prevention is also an element of this alternative .

Alternative __3j _ Integrated JPest Management Without Herb ic ides

Target plants would be treated as in Alternative 2; however, herbicides would not be used. The FEIS (page 2-3) addresses a description of this alternative. The FEIS (pages 2-5 to 2-10) discusses management priorities and techniques available. The FEIS (page 2-11) also summarizes the impacts of each alternative which was considered in depth.

Weed Management Techniques

1. Prevention of initial start of new noxious weeds and poisonous plants so that it's establishment will be denied (see page 2-7 FEIS).

2. Herbicide, manual and biological methods of noxious weed and poisonous plant control (see pages 2-7 to 2-10 FEIS).

Monitoring and Studies

1. Direction Forest Service Manual 2210 and 2240 provide direction on evaluation techniques. Water quality monitoring will comply with Executive Orders 11514 (partially amended by 1191) and 12088, Sections 203 and 313 of the Clean Water Act and Forest Service Manual 2540.

Monitoring and evaluation of control efforts will be conducted in accordance with Forest Service Manual direction (including FSH 2243.03 and 2155.1). The Payette National Forest is directed to conduct post-treatment evaluation for all projects involving herbicides, except for housekeeping-type uses and field experiments (FSH 2109.11).

To determine the effectiveness of administrative controls in reducing impacts on water quality and the aquatic environment, the Payette National Forest will monitor water quality and macroinvertebrates as appropriate to the actions implemented. As each annual treatment program is developed, the location of sensitive streams and areas that might require special attention, such as domestic water supplies, fish hatcheries, and groundwater recharge areas, will be identified to establish priority sampling areas. The Forest specialist responsible for water quality monitoring will select sites for sampling.

Monitoring schedules will be designed to sample when herbicide concentrations are most detectable. In addition, contingency plans will be prepared to permit sampling during any phase of the treatment program should a situation arise that requires a quick reaction.

Control samples will be taken before treatment, ideally within 24 hours of the treatment period. The sample should be taken from the same site as the other monitoring samples.

Any stream may be considered for water sampling, but all waters need not be sampled. Highest priority should be given to steams with major environmental impacts. The following are priorities for which monitoring is considered:

a. Municipal watersheds

b. Fish hatchery supply watersheds

c. Domestic and agricultural watersheds

d. Major fish-bearing streams

e. Unique situations

Monitoring should also be considered in the following situations:

f. The watershed is considered to be socially sensitive. Public interest is often much greater in some areas than others. Those streams with most public interest should be considered for water quality monitoring.

g. The stream flows into a marsh or lake within five miles downstream of the treatment area. Herbicides dissipate gradually in flowing water but accumulate in quiet areas such as lakes or marshes where they can kill or injure rooted or planktonic plants.

h. Thirty percent or more of a watershed is being treated in one year, especially during winter and spring when many small ephemeral and intermittent streams are flowing. If several areas in a watershed are treated, the potential for significant amounts of herbicides increases and the dilution effect is reduced.

2. Modified Treatment

a. Wilderness - see page 4-14, FEIS.

b. Special Areas - Anadromous Fisheries (see page D2, FEIS).

In special areas such as the main anadromous drainages (i.e. South Fork of the Salmon River) there would be no use of herbicides.

Treatment will consist of biological, manual, or cultural control.

3. Safety Coordination Due to the conclusions on page 4-26 (d. Dicamba), FEIS, no females will be allowed to apply dicamba.

V ' 4. Accomplishments

The Payette National Forest will accomplish it's annual treatment assignment (any quota assigned to the Payette from the Regional Office) of each approved method in the FEIS.

c

Requirements for ̂ Environmental Coordination (see page 2-12, FEIS)

1. Poisonous Plant Spray Projects Coordination will be executed in accordance with the Allotment Management Plan (AMP) and the grazing or special use permittee to avoid salt residues from attracting the livestock. Other coordination efforts would more appropriately be addressed in the AMP.

2. Organizational Coordination Federal, State, Local Governments, Private Landowners and Organizations should be contacted and/or worked with to smoothly execute a project. Coordination with affected individuals is very important (see pages 2-12-213 FEIS).

HI.AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

A. Introduction

This section describes the physical, biological, and social environment that would be affected by the alternatives.

B. Physical and Biological. Characteristics

The Payette National Forest stretches nearly across central Idaho (Adams, Idaho, Valley, and Washington counties). The private and BLM-administered lands of the Little Salmon River drainage divide the Forest into its east and west portions. Approximately 2,425,521 acres are in the National x-jiPŜ Forest System. As a result of exchange of administrative responsibilities the Forest administers approximately 2,403,975 acres of land. The Forest l̂l!̂ administers 769,957 acres of the Frank Church - River of No Return ( Wilderness.

Much of the Forest is underlain by the highly erodible soils of the Idaho Batholith, a granitic bedrock intrusion. The far western and south-eastern portions of the Forest are comprised of bedrock materials which are mostly volcanic in origin. Climate is variable, based upon the elevation. The Forest is characterized by a vegetation mosaic of mountain grasslands and forested areas including lodgepole pine, Engelmann spruce, Subalpine fir, Western larch, Douglas fir, Ponderosa pine, Grand fir, and Aspen.

The Forest supports a large number of wildlife species including deer, elk,bighorn sheep, mountain lion, bear, and three endangered species (the gray wolf, bald eagle and the peregrine falcon-as a migrant.).

Anadromous fish include steelhead trout, and chinook, coho, and sock-eye salmon. Other Forest fish species include trout, char, and several warm water fish.

The primary area of social and economic influence of the Forest are in Adams, Boise, Gem, Idaho, Valley, and Washington counties in Idaho, and Malheur County in Oregon. Eight social categories, or groups, are most likely to be affected by management policies of the Forest. These groups are loggers, ranchers/farmers, millworkers/laborers, miners, business people, government workers/educators, retired people, and young newcomers. Area people are interested in seeing the land developed in an orderly fashion, but remain concerned that the Forest retain high aesthetic and amenity values.

Resource Elements, (••'"<A

1. Recreation

C The Payette National Forest 's land base has a high intrinsic value and offers many recreation opportunities. The Forest supports sizeable big game herds, three downhill ski areas, and provides fishing, hunting, hiking, backpacking and camping, picnicking, sightseeing, horseback riding, off road vehicle (ORV) driving, and forest-product gathering.

The Forest manages 24 campgrounds, one picnic site, one boat ramp, seven visitor information sites, two National Recreation Trails, one small lodge and a small recreation summer home tract. The Forest is accessed by about 2,600 miles of roads and 2,125 miles of trails.

Recreation demand from the local Recreation Zone of Influence accounts for approximately 80 percent of the recreation use. Total recreation use at the end of the 50-year Planning Period could reach 1,430,000 Recreation Visitor Days (RVDs) annually.

2. Wilderness The Payette currently administers 769,957 wilderness acres, with a capacity for 2.34 million RVDs. The present wilderness use is 50,000 RVDs. Total wilderness use at the end of the 50-year Planning Period could reach 289,000 RVDs annually.

Uniform management direction is provided by the Frank Church - River of No Return Wilderness Management Plan. The Payette contains a portion of the Hells Canyon Wilderness which is wholly administered by the WaiIowa-Whitman National Forest.

Areas classified a wilderness may increase. RARE II identified 18 roadless areas and recommended two areas for wilderness totaling 145,770 acres. In the draft EIS, twenty-one roadless areas, totaling 944,751 acres were reevaluated for wilderness consideration.

3. Cultural Resources Evidence suggests human habitation occurred in this area 8,000 years ago. Euro-Americans arrived in the area in the early 1800s and Chinese immigrants worked in the area in the late 1800s. Over 800 historic and prehistoric sites have been recorded.

4. Fish and Wildlife The Forest's lakes, rivers, and streams support approximately 46 species of f ish. About 6,000 miles of perennial streams exist on the Forest with 3,000 miles occurring in anadromous fish drainages; 465 miles of these streams probably support anadroraous fish.

The Forest's current habitat capability for anadromous fish is 144,600 pounds of fish a year of commercial harvest and 32,400 WFUDs a year for recreational anadromous fishing. For anadromous fish, the maximum biological potential is 210,000 pounds of fish a year and 47,00 WFUDs a year.

The Forest currently improves about 100 acres of anadromous fish habitat a year. Hear natural habitat potential in the South Fork Salmon River could be achieved by decreasing existing erosion and sedimentation. Opportunities to reduce erosion are found on all existing open roads and in the watershed improvement needs inventory.

About 350 wildlife species on the Forest including mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians. The Forest supports populations of bighorn sheep, elk, moose, black bear, mule and whitetail deer, and mountain goat. The Gray Wolf, Bald Eagle and Peregrine Falcon are confirmed Threatened and Endangered species of the Payette National Forest.

Wildlife demand currently accounts for about 70,000 WFUDs per year.

Projected annual use varies from 86,000 WFUDs to 127,000 WFUDs, depending upon alternatives.

Range The Forest has 58 grazing allotments encompassing 757,848 acres of which 539,000 acres are suitable for grazing by domestic livestock.

The supply of forage produced will support the 102.0 thousand AUMs of permitted use. Currently only about 85 thousand AUMs are actually used each year due mainly to late entry, early removal, and nonuse.

Demand for cattle grazing is greater than supply, but demand for sheep grazing is less than the supply. Opportunities exist to increase the use of transitory range that occurs after timber harvest and replanting, to develop more range improvements such as fences and water supplies, and to control areas of undesirable brush and forb species .

Timber The Forest has 849,600 acres classified as tentatively suitable for commercial timber (according to the 1976 Timber Management Plan)-, Suitable commercial timber acres vary depending on each alternative's objectives. About 65 percent of the productive timberlands are mixed conifer composed mainly of ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and grand fir with some lodgepole pine, subalpine f i r , and spruce. Average volume sold between 1970 and 1984 was 71.3 MMBF. The Forest estimates that 74 MMBF of timber is necessary to maintain timber-dependent employment in local communities. Twelve sawmills exist within the Forest 's primary zone of influence.

Watershed The Forest contributes about 3.7 million acre feet of high quality water.

The Forest has detailed soil information on about 52,000 acres, and annually inventories about 10,000 additional acres. The Forest has identif"ied about 5,000 acres needing watershed improvement.

8. Minerals The Payette National Forest is rich in locatable minerals and has a long history of development and production of gold, silver, copper, antimony, and 6,000 on about 8 percent of the Forest.

Six oil and gas leases, covering 48,000 acres have been issued on the Weiser District. The U.S. Geological Survey designated two known geothermal resource areas near the Forest.

Demand for mineral activities is almost entirely dependent upon the base metal prices, which are currently depressed. If base metal prices increase, mining activities will probably also increase.

9. Lands About 165 long-term special use permits exist on the Forest; including canals, ditches, water developments, fences, powerlines, hydroelectric plants, airstrips, roads, electronic sites, and cabins. Four transportation and utility corridors exist on the Forest.

10. Facilities About 2,500 miles of Forest development roads exist. About 40 miles of road are constructed and about 60 mifes reconstructed each year.

Four Forest highways occur on the Forest: Council-Cuprum, Warren Wagon, McCall-Yellow Pine, and Riggins-Carey Creek.

About 200 Forest buildings exist. Many need plumbing, electrical, and structural reconstruction to meet current building codes.

11. Protection Lightning and human-caused fires play a role in the evolution of all major Forest vegetative types. An average 150 wildfires occur per year, including about 33 human caused, An average 450 acres are-burned annually from these fires. Wildfire risk and the potential for resource losses are high, due to normally dry summers, abundant fuels, and frequent thunderstorms. The Forest annually prescribe burns about 450 acres for wildlife and range habitat improvement, and another 2,000 to 3,000 acres for site preparation and slash disposal.

Air quality over the Forest is good. The main source of pollutants from Forest activities is smoke from wildfire and prescribed burning.

The Forest has three different class levels for airsheds, but only one Class I which includes the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area.

Mature and overmature timber comprise 62 percent of the standing timber inventory. Endemic populations of Engelmann spruce beetle occur in most spruce stands. Western pine beetle populations have reached high endemic levels in stagnated ponderosa pine stands.

Mountain pine beetle populations are high, causing significant mortality of lodgepole and ponderosa pine.

Public use of the Forest is expected to increase substantially in the years ahead. Theft and destruction of government property are the greatest law enforcement problems. Canabis growers are the greatest potenial threat to Forest Visitors and employees.

Social and EC Gnomic Agr j.cu11ural Sett ing

The communities adjacent to the Payette National Forest are very resource dependant. Tables E-l and E-2 indicate to what degree. E-l summarizes the 6 Idaho Counties (Adams, Boise, Gem, Idaho, Valley and Washington) and E-2 summarizes Malheur County, Oregon.

1. IDAHO COUNTIES

Adams, Boise, Gem, Idaho, Valley and Washington

Table III-E-1 Ecomomic Indicators

Past Trends and Baseline Projections^ (1978 dollars inflated to 1982 dollars)

I Past Trends ? Baseline* 1

II 1959 1967 1977 1979 1 1985 1990 1995 1

1J <j II If II V IT II Population 39,253 1 38,397 1 43,816 ? 46,687 1 51,398 \6 1 58,886 H H 1! 1 1 \ 1 1 H(Persons) 1 1 1 ? 1 \9 11 192,479

K 11 HEmployment (Per sons ) H ii ^Agriculture n KManufacturing 1( including sawmills n HServices and Retail UTrade ^Payments under 125% Fund (M$)** H

If H 4,192 H 2,711

)1I \1 2,581

H K 473.2 11 . .

1 254,761 t 290,532 H 316,59911 347,551

1 1 1 1 H H V 3,282 K V H H 3,668 1[ K 1i H 1 1 3,256 t 'I H (N H

11 3,003.11 11 11 1 1

3,110 H

3,731 11

If u

3,513 1 K H

907. 9K

2,56311 3,111

3,88711 3,955

H

3,92111 4,297 <S If

789. 4H 1,196.0 J

'j €l <J <J U If If 'J (,i

BJ

fj 'J- 'J

378,504 K

If 1,659 1

4,224 1

K t|

4,674 K «f

1,234.0 1 H \ See Socio-Economic Overview, page 38, Analysis of Management Situation, available for review at the Forest Supervisor's Off ice McCall , Idaho.

* Based on linear trends.

** 25 percent of all monies received during any fiscal year from the Payette National Forest shall be paid, at the end of such year, by the Secretary of the Treasury to the State of Idaho. They may be expended as the Idaho State Legislature prescribes for the benefit of the public schools and public roads of the counties in which the Payette is located.

2. Malheur County

Agriculture is the largest employer in Malheur County, Oregon. Agricultural processing increased during the 1970's and is now a stable and very beneficial industry. The remainder of the county's manufacturing sector is diverse and includes a small lumber and wood products industry, though very little of the county is forested. The Payette contributes no sawtimber and no Payette land is located in Malheur County.

The Payette contributes to agricultural employment by issuing grazing permits.

Currently, three sheep permittees graze 17,335 head of sheep (about 94 percent of the county sheep industry).

. \n 1980, construction fell off slightly from the 1978-79 levels. Despite this vvy.%/-' drop, the construction work force still averaged 330 jobs in 1980. Residentialc building declined substantially in 1980, mainly due to high interest rates .

Wages in transportation, communication, and utilities are by far , the highest in the county.

Whole sale and retail trade have increased over the past several years, particularly in the retail trade sector. Expanding incomes helped the country's restaurants and bars.

Table nII-E-2 Malheur County, Oregon

Economic Indiators Past Trends and Baseline Projections

(1978 dollars inflated to 1982 dollars)

H Past Trends 1 Baseline H

I 1959 1967 1977 1979 1 1985 1990 1995 If

II II II

^Population 22,811 1i 23,083 If 25,602 11 26,544 H 28,700 11 30,000 1 31,890 K K(Persons) I 1! 1 H 1 \ II 1 H 1f If V If If s llncome (M$) 193,961 II 191,037 If 207,955 If 226,520 11253,478 H 264,960 ? 281,741 1 } K - If II 11 U K If V

1 HEmployment (Persons) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 1 ^Agriculture II 2,060 II 1,950 1 2,080 1 2,31511 2,419 II 2,572 If H 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 UManufacturing 1 59 H 40 11 50 1 55H 58 1 61 1 1(including sawmills) V II 1 1 1 11 1 1

1 K 11 II 1 11 11 11

IServices and Retail II 1,887 II 2,118 II 2,251 1 2,39211 2,500 II 2,658C,I 1 Trade 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 J 1 J 5 S 3 i

3. Effect of weeds and weed control activities on the Agricultural Economy (see pages 3-16 to 3-17 FEIS).

4. Social Environment (see pages 3-17 to 3-19, FEIS).

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

ALTERNATIVE 1 - No Treatment (No Action)

Resource 1 Evaluation 5 Environmental Consequences are _discu.ss_ect_ar_e_.d_i_scus_sed below s Visual H Hoxious weeds would increase in acreage and would create an 1 asthetically unpleasant visit.

Riperian 1 Under this alternative there would be no possible adverse Vegetation andU effect to water quality from pesticides and herbicides.

Fisheries II

Land Use

Rangelands

Threatened & Endangered Species

Wildlife

Timber

Economics

Social

Legal

Herbicides

Resource Evaluation

Visual

Cultural and other non-chemical practices to control noxious weeds could effectively influence only a small percentage of the percentage of the problem; therefore, given the level of timber harvest-access disturbance the spread of noxious weeds downstream to agricultural land would undoubtedly occur.

Acres of noxious weeds would substantially increase, causing decreased productivity. On larkspur infested allotments there could be up to a 2% death loss increase. This percentage is of the entire figure of permitted animals on an allotment and not of the current animal death loss figure.

1 No adverse effects .

1 No possible adverse effects from herbicides.

K Cultural and silvicultural practices are effective to control f endemic infestations.

H This alternative would cost the least in terms of dollars spent 1 to control (no money would be spent); however, resource losses from '] noxious weeds as a result of implementing this alternative are 1 impossible to calculate (potential losses of millions of dollars).

H For "Social and Economic Setting" and "Economic Conditions" see 1 FEIS-pages "3-13 thru 3-19" and "4-14 thru 4-18" respectively.

The quality of the recreational opportunities may decreas-e.

(Example - White River National Forest) .

II

1 Alternative 1 does not meet the intent of the laws that 1 authorize and regulate Forest pest management activities (FSM 1 2130.1) namely:

1 1. National Forest Management Act 1976.

I H 2. Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974.

? 3. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

? 4. Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978.

t Not Applicable

ALTERATIVE 2 - Integrated Pest and Vegetation Management

PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE

S Environmental Cpn_se.quences_ a_r_e_ dj.s_cu_s_sed_be_lpw_.

There would be fewer occurrences of noxious weeds vs. Alternative A. This would tend to increase the visual quality of the Forest environment.

Riparian Vegetation and Fisheries

Land Uses

Rangelands

Roads and Trails

Threatened Endangered Species

Wildlife

'] Herbicides that have been approved for use in these areas will be ? carefully applied in water-influential areas so injury to nontarget 1 plants would be minimized. Impacts, if any, on fish and fish H habitat from herbicide treatment would be slight and short lived If because treatment sites are widely distributed, only a small amount K of surface disturbance is proposed, only insignificant amounts of 1 herbicides would enter streams, and mitigation measures would be f extensively used. Mitigation would consist of thorough T preparation, training, and layout of project before project is H executed. This would involve the safeguarded transportation of 1 herbicide and insure proper application. There will be no effect on 1 anadromous fish stocks.

H The probability of noxious weeds spreading into adjacent ? agricultural lands would be reduced by controlling the spread on t Forest Service lands.

K 5 The spread of noxious weeds into non-infested areas would be fl checked, maintaining the current grazing capacity of rangelands.

U The introduction of new species of noxious weeds would be H eliminated or controled. Livestock losses could be decreased by 1! chemical control to tall larkspur.

? New infestations of noxious weeds would be treated preventing If establishment.

1 Mo herbicide treatment will occur in areas where an impact is K likely to occur on federally designated threatened or endangered H species. If a "may effect" determination made on any specific 1 project, the Forest Service would initiate Section 7 consultation 1 procedures (see FEIS).

There would be little effect on wildlife due the limited area involved in controlling the noxious weeds.

ALTERNATIVE 2 (Continued)

C Resource

\n

Economics

Timber

EnvironmentaX Consequences_are_discussed below v':.1 '.''X

C

Employment

Income

Social

Legal

Herbicides

For "Social and Economic Setting" and "Economic Conditions" see FEIS pages "3-13 thru 3-19" and "4-14 thru 4-18" respectively.

The quality and quantity of silvicultural management is complimented with the use of pesticides. Management efforts to control the spruce beetle, mountain beetle, spruce budworm and other insects plus the containment and/or eradication efforts towards any silvicultural diseases are also greatly enhanced. Any work done in this particular area of consideration would require a site specific E.A. and any further consideration here is beyond the scope of the Intermountain Region Noxious Weed and Poisonous Plant FEIS and this document.

Ongoing employment levels would be maintained.

The optimum balance of harvesting and utilizing resource values in relation to cost of control.

Recreation values would be maintained at present levels by control measures. All methods of control to produce the favorable effects.

Meets the intent of the laws described in FSM 2140.1.

1. National Forest Management Act of 1976.

2. Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974.

3. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

4. Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1908.

For general information, Toxicology, Environmental Fate, and Exposure and Hazard see FEIS pages E-l thru E17.

Susceptibility Chart

The following table in Appendix F lists the effects of phenoxy and some other systemic herbicides when applied as sprays on the foliage of primary target plant species. These comparisons are based on an application rate of 1 pound active equivalent per acre for 2,4-D, dicamba, and picloram and 1.5 pounds active ingredient per acre for glyphosate.

The control ratings for the herbicides are as follows:

Excellent (E)_._ Over 95 percent of the plant species population is killed by a single treatment. Plant is highly susceptible to the chemical.

Good (G), One treatment per year maintains 85 to 94 percent suppression of top growth, or more than 95 percent of the plant species population is killed by two or three treatments. Plant is susceptible to the chemical.

Fair (F). From 60 to 85 percent of the plant species population is killed by a single t reatment , or two or three treatments per year maintain 85 to 94 percent suppression of top growth. Plant is moderately resistant to the chemical .

Poor (P) From 10 to 59 percent of the plant species population is killed by one treatment, or two or three treatments per year maintain 60-84 percent suppression of top growth. Plant is moderately resistant to the chemical.

None ( N ) . Little or no effect id gained from treatments, the chemical.

Plant is resistant to

Insufficient Data ( I ) . Insufficient data exist to determine effect iveness .

The types of plants are shown as follows:

A = Annual PN = Perennial

B = Biennial W = Woody

Most plants, once they have become established, require more than one treatment, if the desire is to eradicate or establish an economic control level of the plant.

Difference in herbicide residual is an important factor in determining the rate of application, period of time of treatment and number of applications of herbicides required to eradicate or control the plant. This table is to be considered as a reference as to the susceptibility of the herbicides considered for use in this EA. Target species shall include but are not limited to the following:

Plant Name

••\S WEEDS

Type of _ _Plaiit_ __ .2.a 4-D Dicamba Pic lor am Glyphosate

Black henbane B (Hyoscyanus niger)

Canada thistle PN (_Cir__s ium arvense)

Dalmation toadflax PN (Linaria dalmatic a)

Diffuse knapweed A ,B ,PN (Centaurea d i f f u s a )

Dyers woad PN (Isatis tinctoria)

Giant (tall) whitetop PN (Lepidlum lat ifolium)

Leafy spurge PN (Euphorbia ejnjtJjO

G -

Musk thistle (Carduus Uieormer i )

Plumeless thistle (Carduus acanthoides)

Rush skeletonweed PH F G E I (Chondrilla iuncea)

:,\n knapweed PN P G G G (Centaurea repents)

Scotch thistle B G G G G (Qnopordum acanthium)

Spotted knapweed PN F I E I (Centaurea macuj.psa)

Tansy ragwort PN G I E I (Senecio jacobjiea)

Yellow star thistle A G G E E (Centaurea solstitialis)

Yellow toadflax PN N F G G (Linaria vulgaris)

POISONOUS PLAHTS

Crazyweed PN F G E I (Oxytropis lambertii)

Death camas PN G I I I (Zigadenus paniculatus)

Milkvetch PN E G E E (Astragalus cj._cer)

Lupine PN G I I I (Lupinus caudatus)

Larkspur PN N I E I (Delphinium pcc.i_denta_le.)

Poison hemlock B G E E G (Coniutn maculatum)

Water hemlock PN G E E G (Cicuta macuJLjita)

Poison ivy W F G E G (Tpxicodendron radicans^)

Tebuthiuron, atrazine, and hexazinone are primarily used as apre-emergence treatment to inhibit establishment of weed seedlings.

Amitrole is primarily used as a treatment for low whitetop and biennials in the flowering stage.

.;;:"/:•% Total combined usage of the tebuthiuron, atrazine, hexazinone, and amitrole > represent less than 5 percent of the estimated annual application of herbicides.

jfe&>'̂

ALTERNATIVE 3 - Environmental Management Without the Use of Chemicals.

Resource 1 Evaluation *l Environmental Consequence^ are dj.scussed below

Visual Some control but continued increase and spread of noxious weeds.

Riparian H Under this alternative there would be no possible adverse effect to Vegetation & H to water quality from herbicides.

Fisheries 1!

Land Use 1 Cultural and other non-chemical practices to control noxious weeds

1 could effectively influence only a small percentage of the problem;

H therefore, given the level of timber harvest-access disturbance the K spread of noxious weeds downstream to agricultural land would H undoubtedly occur.

Rangelands H Where manual and biological measures fa i l , acres of noxious weeds H would substantially increase, causing decreased productivity.

H There would be increased cattle losses over what is presently 1 occurring due to tall larkspur.

f

Threatened H Ko adverse effects.

& Endangered H Species H

Wildlife & Fish

Timber

Economics

Social

Legal

Herbicides

1 No possible adverse effects from herbicides.

H Cultural and silvicultural practices are effective to control 1 endemic infestations.

Ĥ Resource losses from noxious weeds as a result of implementing this H alternative are impossible to calculate. For "Social and Economic H Setting" and "Economic Conditions" see FEIS pages "3-13 thru 3-19" f and "4-14 thru 4-18" respectively.

V The quality of the recreational opportunities may decrease.

1 (Example - White River National Forest).

II

H Alternative 3 does not meet the intent of the laws that authorize S and regulate Forest pest management activities (FSM 2130.1) namely:

If 1. National Forest Management Act 1976.

1 2. Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974.

K 3. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

H 4. Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978.

1 Not Applicable

V. Comparison Summary of Impacts

Existing Situation Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

, ' Air Quality KflKsV* J

Generally good to excellent except for localized urban areas

No change from existing environment.

Virtually no change No change from from existing environment, existing environment.

Soils In good condition except for minor areas needing improvement.

No change from.

existiog environment

No significant change.

Some persistence of herbicides in soils, more likely in arid areas.

No change from.

existing environment

Water Generally no Resources detectable levels of herbicides in streams and groundwater.

No change from existing environment

Some detectable levels of herbicides may enter streams from, drift; short-term impact may result from spraying in ephemeral stream channels; overall impact to water resource is insignificant; no impact to groundwater expected.

expected.

No change from existing environment.

Vegetation Treatment programs producing control in some areas, continuing spread of noxious weeds in others.

Uhcontroiled spread of weeds in the Inter-mountain Region and adjacent private and other lands. No treatment of poisonous plants. Significant spread of noxious weed seeds of adjacent land.

Increased production of grasses, some loss of individual nontarget plants. Native plant communities essentially remain intact. Continued spread from established infestation.

Some degree of control of target plants but continued increase of some plants (creeping perennials less con-trollable by nonherb-cide treatments).

Significant spread of noxious weed seeds to to-adjacent land.

Animals Livestock Wild Horses Wildlife

In weed infested areas, noxious weeds and poisonous plants reduce forage pro-duction for some livestock, wild horses, and certain wildlife species, mainly big game. Loss of livestock from ingesting poisonous plants. Weed spread is not significantly affecting wildlife populations.

In weed producing areas, production would be reduced for livestock, wild horses, and certain wildlife species, mainly big game. Loss of livestock from ingesting poison-ous plants. No major effects on populations.

Potentially significant impact by noxious weeds on individual key big game winter ranges with severe infestations.

Nbntarget vegetation may be killed or damaged.

This would be a significant impact on large treatment sites (100 acres), espacially big game winter range.

There would be beneficial effects for livestock, wild horses, and wildlife where weeds are replaced by desirable vegetation.

Reduced loss of livestock from ingesting poisonous plants. Doses of herb-icides planned for use would not affect wildlife

Where manual and bio-logical measures fail to control weeds and forage, wildlife hab-itat, mainly big game, would be reduced for some species in weed producing areas. Loss of livestock from ingesting poisonous plants. No population effects.

Fish Mjst habitat in fair to satisfactory condition.

Habitat and fish populations would _r_gnain unchanged.

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alterative 1.

Cultural Resources

No damage No damage Low probability of damage.

Low probalility of damage.

Comparison Sunmary of Impacts Continued

Existing Situation Alternatiye Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Visual Resources and Recreation

Continued control of target plants in recreation areas.

Some loss of scenic values on uncontroll-ed areas.

Adverse impacts by target plants. Reduced visitor use.

Low problability of scenic Low probalility of degradation. Visitor use scenic degradation, increase. Slight visior use increase.

Wilderness and Special Areas

Control in special areas.

Degradation to native plant communities by noxious weeds.

Control of Noxious Slight loss or injury of individual nontarget plants.

Some control; some de-gradation to native plant communities;

slight loss or injury of individual nontarget

Economic Conditions

Positive impact to local economies through local ex-expenditures. Live-stock losses from toxic plants.

No positive impact to Maximum beneficial impact local economies through to local economies. Mini-local expenditures. mizes livestock loss.

Highest level of live-stock loss.

Greater beneficial im-pact to local economies than Alternative 1, less benefits than under Alternative 2. Live-stock losses less than under Alternative 1, more than under Alt-emative 2.

Social Environment

Unacceptable to those vtio oppose herbicide control measures.

Mixed response from agricultural community.

Generally acceptable to those who oppose herbicide/aerial cont-rol measures. Negative response from agricult-ultural community.

Unacceptable to those \&o oppose herbicide control measures.

Positive response from agricultural cormunity.

Acceptable to those whe oppose herbicide control measures.

Uhacceptalbe to agricultural

_ community.

Human Health

No known adverse im- No risk of adverse im- No adverse impacts expect- Impacts similar to pacts from use of proposed herbicides.

Toxic plants cause minor impacts to humans.

pacts from use of pro-posed herbicides.

Toxic plants cause minor impacts to humans.

ed from use of proposed herbicides. Low probabil-ity of increased cancer risk, (see Appendix

Alternative 1, ( VI. LIST OF PREPARERSi j

A. Author^

Walter Pierson - Branch Chief, Payette National Forest Craig Nathe - Range Conservationist, Council Ranger District

B. In_terd_j.sic_ipl_inary. Team

Larry Gould - Wildlife Jim Arp - Recreation Randy Zuniga - Soils and Hydrology Glenn Jacobson - Silviculture and Timber Donna Heagy - Fisheries

VII. CONSULTATION WITH OTHERS

Adams County OX Ranch New Meadows and Weiser Ranger Districts.

See pages 8-1 to 8-148 FEIS

VIII. MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS AND CONSTRAINTS

A. All Methods

\. Follow all applicable Federal, State, and local environmental laws ' and regulations in conducting eradication operations.

2. Instruct workers on use of equipment, materials, and procedures, and supervise to ensure that procedures are followed properly.

B. Herbicidal Methods (Application Requirements-FEIS pages D-2 and D-3)

1. Consult with the U . S . Fish and Wildlife Service regarding potential impacts on endangered and threatened species prior to implementing State cooperative agreements. Do not apply herbicides if federally listed or proposed species could be affected by eradication operations.

2. Strictly follow all EPA- and State-approved herbicide labels.

3. Allow herbicides to be applied only by certified applicators (in the case of restricted use herbicides) or under the direct gupervis ipn of certifies applicators as required by law.

4. Carefully monitor weather conditions (that is, windspeed, precipitation, precipitation probablility, temperature inver atmospheric s tabil i ty, humidity) before and during herbicide applications to prevent drift, volitization, leaching, or su viinnf-F f\f nnnlipH hprhirl'HpR.runoff of applied herbicides.

inve r s ion s icide or surface

5. Strictly observe all label instructions for handling, storage, and disposal of herbicides and herbicide containers.

6. Inspect site prior to herbicide application for presence of domestic animals if the herbicide label restricts grazing. Notify landowners of the restriction on livestock grazing in treated areas. Areas treated with glyphosate may not be grazed for 8 weeks following application.

7. Use nontoxic herbicide carriers to minimizes hazards to wildlife (small birds and mammals, in particular).

8. Do not apply herbicides where water table is high, where leaching or surface runoff is likely or when precipitation is expected.

9. Use lowest application rate possible for effective kill. Spray coverage should be uniform and complete. Plants should not be sprayed to the point of runoff.

10. Conduct mixing, loading, and equipment cleaning operations in an area where an accidental spill will not contaminate a stream or body of water.

11. Require State and local officials to devise spill management procedures that satisfy the requirements of Federal and other applicable law.

12. Maintain appropriate buffer strips to protect drinking water supplies and desirable nontarget vegetation. Keep herbicide out of lakes, streams, or ponds. Do not contaminate irrigation ditches or water used for irrigation or domestic purposes.

13. Dispose of all containers as required by law.

C. Broadcast and/or Mechanical Hgrbj.cj.daj._Method_s_

1. Install temporary project area signs at points of common public access that identify the herbicide used, data applied, purpose of application, and telephone number of the local enforcement office.

Certain restricted-use herbicides may require the posting of additional information described on the label as a condition of use.

2. Keep people off treated areas during spray operations until spray solution has dried.

3. Before spraying, inspect the site for the presence of people (for example, hunters, hikers, berrypickers). Take all reasonable steps to notify everyone (including residents) within a one-quarter mile radius at least one-half hour before spraying.

5, Avoid use of glyphosate on soils lacking clay minerals, such as pure sand, peat, or muck, to prevent damage to emerging nontarget vegetation.

6, Recognize the effects of various chemicals on different tree species and apply desired herbicides to control noxious weeds without damage to tree seedlings.

7. Where mechanical control is to be used in areas of high or moderate…