Statement_of_Work_Attachment_1_-_DOI-BLM-NV-2010-2019-0053-EA.pdf

United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management

Finding of No Significant Impact

Decision Record

DOI-BLM-NV-S010-2019-0053-EA

Uplands Herbicide Use

PREPARING OFFICE

U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management 4701 N. Torrey Pines Drive Las Vegas, Nevada 89130

702-515-5000

Finding of No Significant Impact

Selected Alternative

Environmental Assessment (EA) DOI-BLM-NV-S0l0-2019-0053-EA analyzed the No Action Alternative and Proposed Action. The Proposed Action, as described in Chapter 2 of the EA, would provide for herbicide treatments in upland habitats to treat upland non-native and invasive weed species throughout the Las Vegas Field Office. This includes herbicide treatments within designated Wilderness consistent with applicable Wilderness Management Plan decisions.

Finding of No Significant Impact

The Southern Nevada District Office interdisciplinary review and analysis of EA DOI-BLM NV-S0l0-2019-0053-EA determined that the Proposed Action would not trigger significant impacts on the environment based on criteria established by regulations, policy and analysis.

Based on the findings discussed herein, I have dete1mined that the Proposed Action is not a major Federal action and will result in no significant impacts to the environment, individually or cumulatively with other actions in the general area. No environmental effects meet the definition of significance in context or intensity as defined in 40 CFR 1508.27 and do not exceed those effects described in applicable land use plans. Therefore, preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) to further analyze possible impacts is not required pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

Reviewed by: d.A../l./ I~ 7/J0/l't Lee Kirk Date Planning & Environmental Coordinator

Timothy Z. ith, District Manager Southern Nevada District Office

Decision Record Selected Action It is my decision to authorize the Proposed Action, as described in Chapter 2 of the Environmental Assessment (EA) DOI-BLM-NV-S010-2019-0053-EA would provide for herbicide treatments in upland habitats to treat upland non-native and invasive weed species throughout the Las Vegas Field Office. This includes herbicide treatments within designated Wilderness consistent with applicable Wilderness Management Plan decisions. The complete description of the Proposed Action can be found in Chapter 2 of the EA.

Mitigation Measures In addition to the Standard Operating Procedures described in the EA, the standard stipulations found in Appendix A of the EA, the following mitigation measures will be required:

Integrated Vegetation

All weed treatments will be coordinated with the BLM botanist to avoid or mitigate impacts to areas with sensitive plant species. This may include changing timing, type of herbicide, or treatment method to best accommodate sensitive plant areas.

Threatened Endangered or Candidate Animal Species

The section 7 consultation for this project is covered under the current Programmatic Biological Opinion (84320-2010-F-0365.R038) contingent on compliance with the terms and conditions.

Decision Rationale As explained in the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), the impacts of the Selected Action have been analyzed in the EA and determined not to result in significant impacts to the quality of the human environment, individually or cumulatively with other actions in the general area under NEPA.

Based on information in the EA and consultation with my staff, I have decided to approve the selected action as described in Chapter 2 of the EA as it was found this proposal conforms to the applicable land use plan and determined to result in no significant impacts.

Protest and/or Appeal Administrative remedies may be available to those who believe they will be adversely affected by this decision. This decision may be appealed to the Interior Board of Land Appeals, Office of the Secretary, in accordance with the regulations contained in 43 CFR, Part 4 and BLM Form 1842-1. If an appeal is taken, your notice of appeal must be filed in this office (at the above address) within 30 days from receipt of this decision. The appellant has the burden of showing that the decision appealed from is in error.

If you wish to file a petition (request) pursuant to the regulations at 43 CFR 4.21 for a stay (suspension) of the effectiveness of this decision during the time that your appeal is being reviewed by the Board, the petition for a stay must accompany your notice of appeal. A petition for a stay is required to show sufficient justification based on the standards listed below. Copies of the notice of appeal and petition for a stay must also be submitted to each party named in this decision and to the Interior Board of Land Appeals and to the appropriate Office of the Solicitor

(see 43 CFR 4.413) at the same time the original documents are filed with this office. If you request a stay, you have the burden of proof to demonstrate that a stay should be granted.

Standards for Obtaining a Stay

Except as otherwise provided by law or other pe1tinent regulation, a petition for a stay of a decision pending appeal shall show sufficient justification based on the following standards:

1) The relative harm to the pmties if the stay is granted or denied,

2) The likelihood of the appellant's success on the merits,

3) The likelihood of immediate and ineparable harm if the stay is not granted, and

4) Whether the public interest favors granting the stay.

Authorized Official

_,4$ Timothy Z. · 1th, District Manager Dat6 '

(see 43 CFR 4.413) at the same time the original documents are filed with this office. If you request a stay, you have the burden of proof to demonstrate that a stay should be granted.

Standards for Obtaining a Stay Except as otherwise provided by law or other pertinent regulation, a petition for a stay of a decision pending appeal shall show sufficient justification based on the following standards:

1) The relative harm to the parties if the stay is granted or denied,

2) The likelihood of the appellant's success on the merits,

3) The likelihood of immediate and irreparable harm if the stay is not granted, and

4) Whether the public interest favors granting the stay.

Authorized Official

Timothy Z. Smith, District Manager Date

United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management

Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-NV-S010-2019-0053-EA

Uplands Herbicide Use

LAS VEGAS FIELD OFFICE

U.S. Department of Interior

Bureau of Land Management 4701 N. Torrey Pines Drive Las Vegas, Nevada 89130

702-515-5000

Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-NV-S010-2019-0053-EA

Table of Contents Chapter 1 Introduction

Purpose and Need Decision to be Made Conformance Summary

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives No Action Alternative Proposed Action

Goals of the Proposed Action Priorities of the Proposed Action Timing of Treatments Size of Treatments Application Methods Application Rates Herbicide and Adjuvant Types Documentation Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Resource Evaluation Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Fuels and Fire Management Integrated Vegetation Livestock Grazing Threatened Endangered or Candidate Animal Species Wilderness Fish and Wildlife Excluding Federally Listed Species

Appendix A Standard Stipulations

7r w . ' ,, ,, NoV..WT� ,:y~ l'"'l�d. b~ :he BYr•au of Land /\l;,r .,~<11"\ H lc>lhoil>CCUf.CY, 'Cbtily, «cempleter,;,ss ol'Tlt$e & !~for ll(i.'oidur,ij ~seoraw-ea.1'e us,e \.i11otierdata

Uplands Herbicide Use - Las Vegas Field Office

Ar.ia Covtrl)C t,y Progr~rnm~,c EA

CjGo1<1ButteN!ll1<>t18 M~n~~ nt tzZl ACEC

D� s i gnation

~ Nationej Coo'$er,·a1:io1Aree.

BLM l'llld\::mcss

- 6LM Wildtlr..-1 StudyArH

F«est Sernce W ~ !Tle'!l,

- t~? ar~Wtk;..r n~so.

Bureau of rnbnMaH

Burc2uoflonc Mar,agcroort

Depar.mento1 ~ l emie

()o~ r.r-,on1,a1 ;,:oorgy

Forests«-rlce

~ PatkS81v1Ce

Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-NV-S010-2019-0053-EA

Chapter 1 Introduction

This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to disclose and analyze the environmental effects of the Proposed Action, which consists of herbicide treatments in upland habitats throughout the Las Vegas Field Office (LVFO). This EA will assist the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Las Vegas Field Office in project planning and ensuring compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and in making a determination as to whether any significant effects could result from the analyzed actions. Following the requirements of NEPA (40 CFR 1508.9 (a)), this EA describes the potential impacts of a No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action. If the BLM determines that the Proposed Action is not expected to have major effects, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) will be issued and a Decision Record will be prepared. If significant effects are anticipated, the BLM will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement or select the No Action Alternative.

Figure 1 Map of the Herbicide Treatment Area

Purpose and Need The purpose is to treat upland non-native and invasive weed species throughout the LVFO. The BLM would use herbicides approved in the 2007 Final Environmental Impact Statement on Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in Seventeen Western States and the 2016 Final Environmental Impact Statement on Vegetation Treatments Using Aminopyralid, Fluroxypyr, and Rimsulfuron on BLM Lands in Seventeen Western States.

The need for this action is to address weed management more programmatically in the LVFO as required by law.

The Noxious Weed Control and Eradication Act of 2004

Executive Order 13751 (Safeguarding the Nation from the Impacts of Invasive Species)

2008 Integrated Vegetation Management Handbook (H-1740-2; BLM 2008b)

Decision to be Made The BLM will decide whether or not to address weed management more programmatically or continue to address weed treatment on a cases-by-case basis through individual NEPA analysis each time.

Conformance Summary

Land Use Plan: Date Approved:

Las Vegas Resource Management Plan October 1998

The Proposed Action is in conformance with the Las Vegas Resource Management Plan (RMP), October 1998. The emphasis of the 1998 Las Vegas RMP is to protect unique habitats for threatened, endangered, and special status species while providing areas for community growth, recreation, mineral exploration and development, and other resource uses. The specific objectives and management directions that allow for the actions proposed can be found in Appendix A of the 1998 Las Vegas RMP Record of Decision.

Relationships to Statutes, Regulations, and Other Plans:

Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003

BLM Handbook H-4180-1, Rangeland Health Standards (2001)

Final Environmental Impact Statement on Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in Seventeen Western States (2007)

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Vegetation Treatments Using Aminopyralid, Fluroxypyr, and Rimsulfuron on BLM Lands in 17 Western States (2016)

The Proposed Action also conforms with the goals, objectives, and decisions of the following Wilderness Management Plans:

o South McCullough Wilderness and Wee Thump Joshua Tree Wilderness Final Wilderness Management Plan and Environmental Assessment (2005).

o Muddy Mountains Wilderness Final Wilderness Management Plan and Environmental Assessment (2007).

o Arrow Canyon Wilderness Final Wilderness Management Plan and Environmental Assessment (2013).

o Jumbo Springs Wilderness and Lime Canyon Wilderness Final Wilderness Management Plan and Environmental Assessment (2013).

o Jimbilnan, Pinto Valley, Black Canyon, Eldorado, Ireteba Peaks, Nellis Wash, Spirit Mountain, and Bridge Canyon Wilderness Areas Final Wilderness Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (2014).

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

No Action Alternative The No Action alternative would result in the LVFO reverting to previous methods of creating multiple Environmental Assessments for individual areas, which do not address weed treatments programmatically. It would take longer to treat weed species of concern and treatments could be delayed to seasons that are not effective for treating weed species. Weeds would continue to be treated on a case-by-case basis and, where NEPA was not available to use herbicide, control by manual methods would be attempted when feasible. However, this approach will result in longer treatment delays for early detection and rapid response situations. Treatment of larger infestations would continue to require site-specific NEPA analysis prior to conducting the treatment.

Proposed Action Goals of the Proposed Action The Proposed Action is for the BLM to treat upland non-native and invasive weed species throughout upland areas of the Las Vegas Field Office (LVFO). Upland areas are any non-riparian areas throughout the district and are at least 200 meters away from standing water. These upland areas overlap with the following Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs):

Arrow Canyon Wilderness

Eldorado Wilderness

Ireteba Peaks Wilderness

Jumbo Springs Wilderness

Lime Canyon Wilderness

Muddy Mountains Wilderness

South McCullough Wilderness

Spirit Mountain Wilderness

Wee Thump Joshua Tree Wilderness

Million Hills WSA

Virgin Peak WSA Any portions of these Wilderness Areas not managed by the BLM are not included as part of the Proposed Action.

The objectives of this alternative are to maximize effective weed control, while minimizing negative environmental impacts and costs.

Herbicides proposed for use in the Proposed Action include aminopyralid, clopyralid, imazapyr, imazapic, glyphosate, metsulfuron methyl, and rimsulfuron (Table 2-1). These are herbicides the LVFO is authorized to use under the current Programmatic Biological Opinion for activities in LVFO (8430-2010-F-0365.R038). This subset of herbicides has been analyzed in two PEIS documents: the 2007 Final Environmental Impact Statement on Vegetation Treatments Using

Herbicides on BLM Lands in Seventeen Western States (2007 PEIS) and the 2016 Final Environmental Impact Statement on Vegetation Treatments Using Aminopyralid, Fluroxypyr, and Rimsulfuron on BLM Lands in Seventeen Western States (2016 PEIS).

The goals of this project are to 1) perform early detection and rapid response to new weed species or populations within LVFO; 2) to control weed species and populations (particularly in sensitive areas – desert tortoise habitat and sensitive plant habitat); 3) to restore habitat in degraded areas (after soil disturbance).

Determining the best method of treatment to use, when, and how often, would be based on, but not limited to, the following factors adopted from the 2007 PEIS:

growth characteristics of the target weeds seed longevity and germination infestation size proximity to other weed infestation sites proximity of the treatment area to sensitive areas, such as habitat for sensitive plants or animals, including federally listed species or designated critical habitat accessibility by people and/or equipment proximity to populated places treatment areas located within wilderness or WSAs effectiveness and cost of treatment methods

Priorities of the Proposed Action Treatments will be prioritized based on their effectiveness and likelihood to have minimal impacts on the environment, and to restore desirable vegetation on lands where necessary. The following would be used to prioritize weed treatments within the LVFO in order to focus efforts towards success.

Priority 1: New aggressive infestations in an uninfested area or small infestations in areas of special concern (e.g. Wilderness Areas, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs), National Monuments). Management Objective: Eradication.

Priority 2: Areas with designated critical habitat for Threatened and Endangered listed species, special status plant communities, and other areas of valuable wildlife habitat.

Management Objectives: Eradication and Control.

Priority 3: Areas of high traffic or sources of weed infestations with abundant weeds.

Management Objective: Control by eradicating high priority species and controlling others.

Priority 4: Areas of low traffic or controlled areas. Management Objective: Control high and medium priority species and monitor areas.

Priority 5: Existing large infestations or roadside infestations where spread can be checked or slowed, or where travel results in infestations being spread to new or priority management areas. Management Objective: Contain.

Invasive species have a large negative impact on a wide range of values in the LVFO. Weeds are detrimental to wildlife, and compete with native plants for limited space and water. They are often more flammable and grow in a more dense arrangement than desert plants, which promotes dangerous wildfires. Desert vegetation is long-lived and can take centuries to recover from wildfires. Urban areas around Las Vegas, including proliferations of roads and right-of-ways (ROW), contribute to introductions and spreading of weeds. Manual treatment is no longer a cost effective option for controlling most established weed species. Herbicide treatment is required to manage weeds, and this programmatic approach will allow new populations of weeds or new weed species to be quickly and efficiently treated (also known as early detection and rapid response – EDRR). It will also allow larger areas of weed-infested areas to be treated more efficiently, which primarily would be treatment of red brome and Sahara mustard in desert tortoise habitat. This project will benefit native plant communities, sensitive plant communities, wildlife habitat, and desert tortoise habitat.

Timing of Treatments All weather restrictions and mitigation measures described on the label and in the PEIS would be strictly adhered to. Treatments will be during biologically meaningful times – some herbicides are pre-emergents, which means that they are applied in the winter before any plants have emerged from the soil. Post-emergent herbicides are applied when the weed is identifiable, and will be applied, if at all feasible, before the plant has set seed. In the Mojave Desert, with a bimodal precipitation pattern and warm weather, treatments are most likely to occur from February 15-October 15, although treatments are not limited to this time period. Use of a boom or aerial application will only be considered during desert tortoise inactive season (November 15-February 28) and would typically only contain pre-emergent herbicides.

Size of Treatments The size of treatment units would vary depending on the degree of infestation and opportunity for the spread of weeds. Most treatment units would likely be less than one-acre. Aerial spraying (to control or eradicate red brome [Bromus rubens], for example) may involve several hundred acres in a treatment unit.

Because treatment areas involving several hundred acres were not addressed in the Wilderness Management Plans listed above, a minimum decision, minimum tool process would be followed, and additional public notification and NEPA may be required for any large scale treatment within Wilderness Areas.

Application Methods Application methods that would be used under the Proposed Action would include spraying from backpack, horse, ATV, UTV, truck, helicopter or fixed wing aircraft. Aerial herbicide application would be considered for use on a project-by-project basis as needed. All application rates, procedures, and restrictions would be within label rates and according to direction in the PEIS. Application rates depend on the target pest, time of year, and soil texture. Herbicide labels and Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) are available at a county agriculture department, farm advisor's office, or the LVFO. As part of the Proposed Action, monitoring of application may be done by adding dye to the tank mix. The dye is approved for use with herbicide and would help obtain a uniform coverage. This dye is water soluble, breaks down in sunlight, and washes away easily with water. Using dye would reduce the chance of under and over application and would help detect and manage drift. Use of dye would also reduce the risk to non-target species as a result of over application of herbicide and assure treatment of target species. Dye would not be used in aerial application of herbicide.

Applications methods within Wilderness and WSAs would include hand pulling and spraying from backpack or horse consistent with Wilderness Management Plan direction. Aerial treatment may be allowed consistent with the approved Wilderness Management Plans listed above.

To address concerns regarding herbicide drift, the BLM prohibits the aerial application of dicamba+diflufenzopyr, hexazinone+sulfometuron methyl, imazapyr+ sulfometuron methyl+metsulfuron methyl, sulfometuron methyl, sulfometuron methyl+chlorsulfuron, and sulfometuron methyl+metsulfuron methyl. All vehicles, personnel, and equipment would be cleaned of seed and root fragments before leaving infested areas to prevent spread.

Herbicides control plants by interfering with specific botanical biochemical pathways.

Herbicides are chemicals that are derived from plants or manufactured synthetically and used to damage or kill plants. Herbicides are categorized by their mode of action, i.e., the sequence of events from absorption into the plant, movement in the plant, metabolism of the herbicide, and the plant response. Herbicides may affect plants in multiple ways. Mode-of-action categories include growth regulators and root and shoot inhibitors, in addition to other mechanisms that interfere with plant metabolism. A more detailed description of how herbicides work is presented in the 2007 and 2016 PEIS.

Foliar application method would direct the herbicide mixture onto the leaves of the target vegetation, which would be most effective on smaller vegetation, between 0 and 5 feet tall, and would be used on vegetation up to 10 feet tall. This technique would typically be applied where high-density stands or thickets of incompatible vegetation are present. The frequency of foliar treatments would depend on the amount and size of incompatible vegetation and regrowth. An initial treatment would typically occur one to two growing seasons after manual/mechanical treatments, and a second treatment would occur one to two growing seasons after the initial herbicide application.

Cut-stump application treatment would be used on the stumps of woody species that normally resprout after being cut. Any trees that would need to be cut would typically be cut by a chainsaw or a handsaw, depending on the size of the tree. Chainsaws will not be used in Wilderness Areas. Because of the way it works on the tree’s metabolism, cut-stump treatment is most successful when applied immediately after the trunk is cut (typically within 15 minutes to an hour). Herbicides would be applied on the exposed cambium (living inner bark) of the stump and on exposed roots. This treatment relies on translocation (movement of the herbicide within the plant) to the root system through the inner bark. Outer bark and heartwood would not be treated because these are not living tissue. The cut-stump technique would most typically be used for localized treatment of small groups of trees or clumps of brush (e.g. tamarisk).

Basal application method would combine the herbicide with an oil- or wax-based adjuvant. The herbicide would be applied directly to the lower 12 to 18 inches of the bark of the trunk (along all sides) of a standing tree, encircling stems, and root collars. This application would be most effective on trees less than six inches in diameter with smooth bark. The oil carrier penetrates the bark, carrying the herbicide into the plant. Basal applications can be made any time of the year but would be most effective during the growing season when plants are actively transporting nutrients into the roots. This method would typically be used where vegetation is too tall to effectively use foliar application methods or when an incompatible plant is adjacent to, or surrounded by, compatible vegetation. The basal application method would rarely be used as part of routine vegetation management.

Pre-emergence application method would be used to prevent emergence of weeds, typically invasive annual grasses. Herbicides specifically labeled for soil applications would be used to prevent the germination of seeds of weeds. Pre-emergent herbicides are generally applied when there is predictable rainfall within 30-60 days of application, in order to minimize the potential for photodegradation of the herbicide before it has had a chance of moving into the germination zone of the soil.

Application Rates Application rates would be limited to those specified on the pesticide label and in the PEIS (whichever is lesser). Dye would be added to help applicators determine which plants have already been treated. Volume of herbicide used per acre would remain within the limits as described on the herbicide labels and in the PEIS. All personnel including, county, state, private contractors and federal employees applying restricted use herbicides would be a Certified Pesticide Applicator or be under the direct supervision of one.

Herbicide and Adjuvant Types Herbicides proposed for use in the Proposed Action would include the list of BLM-approved herbicide active ingredients provided in Table 2-1. These are also herbicides the LVFO is authorized to use under the current Programmatic Biological Opinion for activities in LVFO (8430-2010-F-0365.R038). Details on the ingredients of the herbicides selected for use in the Proposed Action are provided in the BLM Herbicide 2007 PEIS (2-9 to 2-15) and BLM Herbicide 2016 PEIS (2-1 to 2-6). Various manufacturers offer multiple products under various trade names that include the active ingredients listed in Table 2-1. The risk assessments developed by BLM apply to these active ingredients. Other herbicide active ingredients may be used in the future, after they are evaluated and approved by BLM (refer to Section 2.3.9).

Herbicide treatments would follow BLM procedures outlined in BLM Handbook H-9011-1, Chemical Pest Control (1988), and in BLM Manual Section 1112, Safety (2000); Section 9011, Chemical Pest Control (2013b); and Section 9015, Integrated Weed Management (1992b).

Herbicides would be applied according to product label directions, which are reviewed and approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The BLM would comply with changes in label directions that may occur in the future, as well as with federal and state requirements. Generic herbicides with the same chemical properties under a different name could be used; therefore, the products or trade names listed in Table 2-1 are examples. Herbicides are categorized as selective or non-selective where selective herbicides kill only a specific type of plant and nonselective herbicides kill all types of plants. The selectivity category of the herbicides in the Proposed Action is provided in the use descriptions in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1. BLM-Approved Herbicides with Vegetation Treatment Application and Use Descriptions

Herbicide Active

Ingredient

Foliar Application

Cut Stump Application

Basal Application

Pre- Emergent

Application

Anticipated Use

Frequency

Herbicide Use Description

Aminopyralid X X X X Moderate Selective herbicide used for control of broadleaf weeds.

Clopyralid X X X Moderate Selective herbicide used for control of broadleaf weeds, thistles, and clovers.

Glyphosate X X X X Frequent Provides broad spectrum (non-selective) control and has an aquatic label.

Imazapic X X Frequent Selective herbicide for weed control in natural areas. Not a broad spectrum herbicide.

Imazapyr X X X X Moderate Broad spectrum (non-selective) herbicide for control of a range of weeds including annual and perennial grasses, broadleaved, woody species, and riparian and emergent aquatic species. Often used for control of invasive species.

Metsulfuron methyl

X X Rare Selective herbicide used to control noxious weeds, brush and problem broadleaves with excellent grass tolerance.

Rimsulfuron X Rare Selective pre and post-emergent systemic;

inhibits annual grasses and some perennial grasses and broadleaf forbs.

Adaptive management and managerial flexibility are tools that allow decision-makers to take advantage of new information that becomes available after a decision has been made. It is possible that new or improved herbicide products could become available during implementation of the Proposed Action. If new or improved products are made available, the new herbicide product could be considered for use without further NEPA analysis (however, if the product formulation was different from what is analyzed here, consultation with the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service would be necessary). This would be the case only if the new or improved product fits within the same effects-analysis disclosure as herbicides proposed in this EA. An analysis would be done to determine the similarities of effects and whether the decision would be adapted to include that herbicide product.

An adjuvant is any substance in an herbicide formulation or added to the spray tank to improve herbicidal activity or application characteristics. The list of adjuvants that will be used in herbicide treatment is included in Table 2-2. Surfactants primarily reduce the surface tension between the spray droplet and the leaf surface. Crop oil concentrates increase herbicide penetration and reduce surface tension. Vegetable oil concentrates serve the same function as crop oil concentrates but are derived from vegetable-based oil. Adjuvant selection will be based on several factors including what the pesticide calls for and availability of adjuvants. The primary source in deciding whether an adjuvant is necessary and the type of adjuvant used should come from the pesticide label. Best Management Practices (BMP) will include: If both oil concentrate (crop or vegetable oil) and non-ionic surfactant are listed, then nonionic surfactant will be used under normal weather conditions when weeds are small and well within label guidelines. Oil concentrate will be used if weeds are stressed due to dry weather or with more mature weeds. If labeled, oil concentrate will be included in the tank mix for control of grasses.

Table 2-2. Adjuvants to be used to Increase the Effectiveness of Herbicide Treatments

Adjuvant Trade Name Type Label Rate Typical Rate

Methylated Spray Oil Concentrate Methylated Seed Oil 32 oz/a 16-32 oz/a

Kinetic Silicone based 64 oz/100 gal 6-32 oz/ 100 gal

Optima Non-ionic surfactant 128 oz/100 gal 32-128 oz/ 100 gal

Activator 90 Surfactant 16-64 oz/ 100 gal 16-64 oz/ 100 gal

Mark It Dye 12-32 oz/ 100 gal 16-32 oz/ 100 gal

Red River NIS Non-ionic surfactant 8-32 oz/ 100 gal 8-32 oz/ 100 gal

Highlight Dye N/A 1 quart/ 100 gal

JLB Crop Oil N/A N/A

Induce Non-ionic surfactant 8-48 oz/ 100 gal 8-48 oz/ 100 gal

Red River 90 Non-ionic surfactant 64 oz/ 100 gal 16-64 oz/ 100 gal

Alligare 90 Non-ionic surfactant N/A 16-64 oz/ 100 gal

Alligare Surface Non-ionic surfactant N/A 16-64 oz/ 100 gal

Documentation All herbicide application will be tracked with a GPS unit and submitted through BLM’s reporting systems (currently, weed management is tracked through NISIMS).

Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) General:

Use herbicides after considering the effectiveness of all potential methods or in combination with other methods or controls.

Prepare operational and spill contingency plan in advance of treatment.

Select the herbicide that is least damaging to the environment while providing the desired results.

Apply the least amount of herbicide needed to achieve the desired result.

Minimize the size of application area, when feasible.

Select herbicide products carefully to minimize additional impacts from degradates, adjuvants, inert ingredients, and tank mixtures.

Follow herbicide product label for use and storage.

Have licensed applicator present when applying herbicides.

Use personal protective equipment as directed by the herbicide product label.

Follow the closed chain-of-custody method for herbicide shipping, distribution, storage, and mixing.

Use only BLM-approved herbicides and follow product label directions and advisory statements.

Review, understand, and conform to the “Environmental Hazards” section on the herbicide product label. This section warns of known risks to the environment and provides practical ways to avoid harm to organisms or to the environment.

Comply with herbicide-free buffer zones, if appropriate.

Where appropriate, post treated areas with manufacturers’ guidelines and resources for additional information in accordance with BLM requirements and as listed on the herbicide product label.

Notify relevant landowners prior to treatment, if determined appropriate by the BLM.

Keep a copy of the safety data sheets at work sites.

Keep records of each application, including the active ingredient, formulation, application rate, date, time, and location.

Avoid direct spray and spill conditions to minimize risks to resources.

Use drift control agents and low volatile formulations.

Use drift control agents, as appropriate, to reduce the drift hazard to non-target species, food, and water sources.

Consider site characteristics, environmental conditions, and application equipment in order to minimize damage to non-target vegetation.

Consider climate, soil type, slope, and vegetation type when developing herbicide treatment programs.

Before herbicide application, consider the effects of wind, humidity, temperature inversions, and heavy rainfall on herbicide effectiveness and risks.

Take into account the different types of application equipment and methods, where possible, to reduce the probability of contamination of non-target species, food, and water sources.

Select proper application equipment (e.g., spray equipment that produces 200- to 800-micron-diameter droplets [spray droplets of 100 microns and less are most prone to drift]).

Select proper application methods (e.g., set maximum spray heights, use appropriate buffer distances between spray sites and non-target resources).

If there is a high probability (80 percent chance) of local, moderate rain (0.25 inch or less within 24 hours), then applications should only occur when it is anticipated that there shall be sufficient time (at least four hours) for the application to dry before rainfall occurs.

Soil

Herbicide treatments would be minimized in areas where herbicide runoff is likely, such as steep slopes when heavy rainfall is expected.

Herbicide treatments would be minimized in areas that have high soil mobility, particularly in areas where soil properties increase the potential for mobility.

Granular herbicides would not be used on slopes of more than 15 percent where there is the possibility of runoff carrying the granules into non-target areas.

Pre-emergent herbicides would be selected carefully and be applied with care to sandy soils.

Pollinators

Design vegetation treatment projects so that nectar and pollen sources for important pollinators and resources are treated in patches rather than in one single treatment.

Minimize herbicide application rates. Use typical rather than maximum rates where there are important pollinator resources.

General Vegetation

Native vegetation will be avoided whenever possible. Aerial or boom application of herbicides will be timed to minimize impacts to native vegetation.

Wildlife

Use herbicides of low toxicity to wildlife, where feasible.

A qualified biologist or resource specialist would provide maintenance crew members with training on migratory bird nest reporting and nest avoidance: crews are to report active nests that occur on vegetation or on the ground internally per BLM’s avian reporting procedures. Do not conduct herbicide treatments on the vegetation containing the nest and vegetation adjacent to ground nesting birds until after nesting is complete.

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species

Consider effects on special-status species when designing herbicide treatment programs, if appropriate.

Use an appropriately labeled herbicide and backpack sprayer to minimize risks to special-status plants.

Avoid treating vegetation during time-sensitive periods (e.g., nesting and migration, sensitive life stages) for special-status species in area to be treated.

See the Programmatic Biological Opinion for a complete list of conservation measures specific to threatened, endangered, and sensitive species.

Livestock

The BLM would coordinate with permittees to treat weeds within active grazing allotments, and notify grazing permittees a minimum of 30 calendar days prior to herbicide treatments, when the removal of grazing animals is directed by the herbicide product label.

Cultural Resources

Follow standard procedures for compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA

Visual Resources

Minimize off-site drift and mobility of herbicides to contain visual changes to the intended treatment area.

Recreation

If appropriate, schedule treatments to avoid recreational events, while taking into account the optimum management period for the targeted species.

The BLM will notify the public of treatment methods, hazards, times, and nearby alternative recreation areas, if necessary.

Use herbicides during periods of low human use, where feasible.

Social and Economic Values

The BLM to notify grazing permittees of livestock feeding restrictions in treated areas, if necessary, per herbicide product label instructions.

Provide public educational information on the need for vegetation treatments and the use of herbicides, if appropriate.

Human Health and Safety

Establish a buffer between treatment areas and human residences based on guidance given in the Human Health Risk Assessment, in accordance with the label, with a minimum buffer of 100 feet for ground applications, unless a written waiver is granted.

Wilderness and WSAs

Complete a Minimum Requirements Decision Guide for treatments in Wilderness.

Actions that require a use prohibited in Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act and that are not fully described and analyzed in the Wilderness Management Plans will require a 30 day public notification, and appropriate NEPA.

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis Alternatives that have been evaluated but not carried forward for analysis include mechanical treatment (this creates more soil disturbance in the desert, which leads to greater weed infestations), manual treatment (this is used already but is not effective on the scale required), and livestock treatment (this is not cost effective given the level of management that would be required in a remote desert setting).

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Resource Evaluation The BLM Southern Nevada District Office resource specialists reviewed the Proposed Action and found the resources to be present with potential for impact, present with no potential for impact, or not present.

The following table is a list of all resources considered in the evaluation of the Proposed Action and alternative(s). The resources found that may be affected by this proposal have been carried forward for analysis and are discussed further in this chapter. The resources that are not present or found to not be impacted by the Proposed Action because they would be completely mitigated with the implementation of standard stipulations will not be discussed further.

Table 3-1. Resources Considered in the Evaluation of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

Resource

May be Impacted

(carry forward for analysis)

Present and Not Impacted or Not Present

Rationale for Not Impacted Digital

Signature & Date

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

(ACEC)

X Carried forward for analysis. Janyne Pringle 04/09/2019

Air Quality X No issues.

Lisa

Christianson 05/29/2019

National Monuments and Conservation Areas X

The herbicide treatments will benefit the Gold Butte National Monument objects and values by treating upland non-native and invasive weed species.

Lee Kirk 06/11/2019

Cultural Resources X

According to Appendix A.1 in the Nevada State Protocol Agreement, Revised December 22, 2014, this action is an Exemption from Inventory Requirement due to no ground disturbance.

Justin DeMaio 04/26/2019

Resource

May be Impacted

(carry forward for analysis)

Present and Not Impacted or Not Present

Rationale for Not Impacted Digital

Signature & Date

Environmental Justice and Socioeconomics X

The Proposed Action will not adversely or disproportionally impact minority populations, low-income communities, or Tribes (see Section 3.19 and EO 12898, Environmental Justice). The Proposed Action would not have a disproportionately high or adverse effect that would place socioeconomic burdens on the citizens of Clark County and nearby cities due to the limited context and intensity of the proposal. No group of people, including racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic group would bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from the Proposed Action.

Lee Kirk 06/11/2019

Fish and Wildlife Excluding Federally Listed Species X Carried forward for analysis. Janyne Pringle

04/09/2019

Floodplains X This project will not take place within riparian areas and will have positive downstream impacts on floodplains by improving vegetation condition in the uplands.

Lara Kobelt 05/31/2019

Forestry X Carried forward for analysis. See Integrated Vegetation section.

Lara Kobelt 04/03/2019

Fuels and Fire Management X Carried forward for analysis. Lara Kobelt 05/31/2019

Geology/Mineral Resources X The Proposed Action, as described, will not adversely or disproportionally impact mineral resources.

Lorri Dee Dukes 05/31/2019

May be Impacted

(carry forward for analysis)

Present and Not Impacted or Not Present

Rationale for Not Impacted Digital

Signature & Date

Green House Gas/Climate Change X

Currently, there are no emission limits for suspected greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, for this project, and no technically defensible method for predicting potential climate change contributions from GHG emissions during construction of the Proposed Action. However, there are, and would continue to be, several efforts to address GHG emissions from federal activities, including BLM authorized uses in future planning documents.

Lisa Christianson 05/29/2019

Hydrologic Conditions X The Proposed Action includes minimal surface disturbance, there should be no impacts to hydrologic conditions.

Lara Kobelt 05/31/2019

Invasive Species/Noxious Weeds X Carried forward for analysis. See Integrated Vegetation section.

Lara Kobelt 04/03/2019

Lands and Realty X No issues. Virginia Morales 06/27/2019

Livestock Grazing X Carried forward for analysis. Lara Kobelt 04/03/2019

Migratory Birds X The project does not have the potential to impact migratory birds in the area.

Evan Myers 04/09/2019

Native American Concerns X There have not been any areas of religious cultural concerns identified in previous relevant consultations and coordination.

Justin DeMaio 04/26/2019

May be Impacted

(carry forward for analysis)

Present and Not Impacted or Not Present

Rationale for Not Impacted Digital

Signature & Date

Paleontological Resources X The Proposed Action will not impact the potential fossil content.

Mary Ellis 04/23/2019

Recreation/Travel/Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSR) X

The Proposed Action will have minimal impact to recreation and travel as long as the standard operating procedures are followed. WSR not present.

Kenny Kendrick 06/19/2019

Soils X The Proposed Action will help restore natural degradation and aggradation cycles. No issues.

Lara Kobelt 05/31/2019

Threatened Endangered or Candidate Animal Species X Carried forward for analysis. Evan Myers

04/09/2019

Threatened Endangered or Candidate Plant Species X Resource not present. Lara Kobelt

04/03/2019

Transmission Corridors No Issues. The Proposed Action is considered a compatible use for designated transmission utility corridors.

Jamie Moeini 06/25/2019

Vegetation X Carried forward for analysis. See Integrated Vegetation section.

Lara Kobelt 04/03/2019

Visual Resources X There would be no adverse impact to visual resources as a result of the Proposed Action. Following treatments, a more natural appearing landscape may enhance visual resources.

Steve Leslie 07/22/2019

May be Impacted

(carry forward for analysis)

Present and Not Impacted or Not Present

Rationale for Not Impacted Digital

Signature & Date

Wastes (hazardous or solid) X

Present, but not impacted; however, do include standard stipulations into the final grant document(s). Ensure compliance with all federal, state and local solid and hazardous waste regulations.

Lisa Christianson 05/29/2019

Water Resources X

The Proposed Action includes minimal surface disturbance.

The Proposed Action will improve water resources by stabilizing soil in upland environments (through the removal of invasive species). There will only be beneficial impacts to water resources/quality.

Lara Kobelt 05/31/2019

Wetlands and Riparian Areas X This EA excludes wetlands and riparian areas. Lara Kobelt 05/31/2019

Wild Horse and Burros X

The Proposed Action involves none or minimal habitat disturbance and will ultimately benefit the habitat quality.

Wild horses and burros may be temporarily displaced or disturbed due to treatment activities but will move back into the areas after the disturbance leaves. The treatments will improve the quality of the forage available and will remove many invasive species that compete with their key forage species. The potential negative impacts that can be associated with the ingestion of the treatments is minimal and should have little to no impact on wild horse and burro populations.

Tabitha Romero 05/01/2019

Wilderness X Carried forward for analysis. Steve Leslie 07/22/2019

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Affected Environment ACECs are defined as areas where special management attention is required to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish and wildlife resources or other natural systems or processes, or to protect human life and safety from natural hazards.

Environmental Effects of the No Action Alternative The spread of weeds would continue in ACECs and would continue to negatively impact the values these areas were designed to protect.

Indirect impacts from the continued increase of weed infestations could be increased hazardous fuel loads and altered fire regimes. Weed infestations contributing to hazardous fuel loads could increase the potential for more frequent, intense wildfires that could consume more plant materials than historical wildfires that occurred under lower fuel load conditions. Wildfires could remove large tracts of vegetation within special area designations, degrading values these areas were designed to protect. The extent of adverse impacts from a wildfire would depend on the intensity and size of the wildfire.

Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action Weed treatments have the potential to impair values (e.g., cultural, wildlife, scenic, recreational) for which special management areas were designated or determined eligible. For example, weed treatments could temporarily displace wildlife within and near the treatment areas due to noise and vegetation removal. In the long-term, weed treatments would be beneficial as removal of invasive vegetation would protect and enhance the values for which special management areas were designated, such as rare and sensitive plant species and pristine vegetation communities.

Furthermore, the overall health of special management areas would be improved, increasing activities that occur on them, increasing the quality and quantity of habitat and forage for wildlife and livestock, improving soil productivity, reducing the potential for soil erosion and adverse impacts on water quality, and improving riparian area function and values. All treatments would follow the SOPs to minimize potential impacts to special management areas.

Herbicide treatments could have short-term adverse impacts due to potential killing of non-target native vegetation through imprecise application and/or drift and altering habitat in small areas.

The degree of potential effect would depend on the application method. Adhering to the SOPs, herbicide application would primarily be applied using ground-based tools, including backpack pumps, hand sprayers, and pumps mounted on pack and saddle stock. These spot applications would be less likely to cause adverse impacts than aerial applications. Indirect, long-term impacts would be beneficial and include the removal/control of weeds, reducing potential wildfire risks, and enhancing/restoring the native plant communities in portions of the ACECs.

Cumulative Impacts of the Proposed Action There would be short-term, localized, adverse impacts as well as long-term beneficial impacts to ACECs through implementation of the integrated weed management tools. The long-term improvement in ecosystem functions in ACECs could offset the short-term, localized, adverse impacts.

Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures have been identified beyond the SOPs.

Residual Impacts Residual impacts would include non-target impacts to native plants and sensitive plants, both of which are part of the Relevance and Importance Values for some ACECs. However, mitigation measures will sufficiently minimize these impacts.

Fuels and Fire Management Affected Environment See Integrated Vegetation Affected Environment.

Environmental Effects of the No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, small weed infestations of one acre or less would continue to be treated using manual hand pulling. Weeds would likely continue to expand at a faster rate than could be treated. This could result in changes in species composition and density of native plant communities.