siuslaw invasive plants project -...

1 Appendix A Project Design Criteria

Appendix A

Siuslaw Invasive Plants Project

Project Design Criteria

The following project design criteria (PDC) are intended to avoid or minimize the potential for adverse

effects associated with treating invasive plants. Project design criteria were developed to minimize

potential for substantial adverse effects, so that the character of the impacts can be predicted, and pose

low risk to people and the environment. The PDC’s are based on site-specific resource conditions within

the treatment areas, including (but not limited to) the current invasive plant inventory, the potential for

herbicide delivery to water, and the social environment. Implementation of the PDC’s ensures that

treatments would have effects within the scope of those disclosed in Chapter 3. All distances in the PDC

tables are slope distances.

The Project design criteria were updated in response to terms and conditions of the 2007 National Marine

fisheries Service (NMFS) Aquatic Restoration Biological Opinion. Treatments near water would be

restricted to EPA-registered aquatic formulations of the herbicide to protect aquatic organisms. Tables A-

1, A-2, and A-3 display restrictions that would apply for all chemicals considered for use under

Alternative 2.

Table A-1. Herbicide-use buffers for perennial and intermittent streams, wetlands, lakes, ponds, and high-water-table areas Application Method

Herbicide Broadcast (feet) Spot (feet) Hand/

Select (feet)

Clopyralid 100 15 Water’s edge Glyphosate 100 50 50 Glyphosate (aquatic) 50* No buffer* No buffer Imazapic 100 15 Water’s edge Imazapyr (aquatic) 50* No buffer* No buffer Imazapyr 100 50 Water’s edge Sethoxydim 100 50 50 Triclopyr-TEA (aquatic) None Allowed 15 No buffer

*If wetland, pond or lake is dry, there is no buffer. No buffer means that treatment may occur anywhere across the stream channel, where target vegetation exists, including backwater channels, braided streams, and floodplains.


Table A-2. Herbicide-use buffers for dry streams

Herbicide Perennial/flowing channels Dry intermittent and ephemeral channels, and ditches

Spot spray Hand/select Spot spray Hand/select

Clopyralid 15 feet from bankfull

bankfull bankfull allowed through channel/ditch

Glyphosate (aquatic) edge of water1 edge of water and emergent knotweed

allowed through channel/ditch


Imazapyr bankfull bankfull allowed through channel/ditch


Imazapyr (aquatic) edge of water1 edge of water and emergent knotweed



Sethoxydim 15 feet from bankfull


Triclopyr-TEA (aquatic)

15 feet from bankfull


¹Backpack sprayer to bankfull, hand-held sprayer within bankfull and emergent knotweed, flag iris, purple loosestrife.

Table A-3. Other project design criteria, purpose, and sources

PDC Reference Design Criteria Purpose of PDC Source of PDC

A Pre -Project Implementation A1 Conduct an annual survey for Kincaid’s lupine and

Nelson’s checker-mallow within treatment area BO-1 between May 1 and July 31. The survey will be personnel knowledgeable in the identification of the species. Survey results will be applied to invasive plant treatments that occur after survey completion until October 31 of the same year.

To ensure protection of Threatened plants.

Siuslaw Invasive Plant Biological Evaluation

B Coordination with Other Landowners/Agencies B1 Work with owners and managers of neighboring

lands to respond to invasive plants that straddle multiple ownerships. Coordinate treatments within 150 feet of Forest boundaries, including lands over which the Forest has right-of-way easements, with adjacent landowners.

To ensure that neighbors are fully informed about nearby herbicide use and to increase the effectiveness of treatments on multiple ownerships.

The distance of 150 feet was selected because it approximates the Aquatic Influence Zone for fish bearing streams.

B2 Coordinate herbicide use within 1000 feet (slope distance) of known water intakes with the water user or manager.

To ensure that neighbors are fully informed about nearby herbicide use.

The distance of 1000 feet was selected to respond to public concern. Herbicide use as proposed for this project would not contaminate drinking water supplies.



B3 Coordinate herbicide use with Municipal Water boards. Herbicide use or application method may be excluded or limited in some areas.

To ensure that neighbors are fully informed about nearby herbicide use and standards for municipal watersheds are met.

C To Prevent the Spread of Invasive Plants During Treatment Activities C1 Ensure vehicles and equipment (including personal

protective clothing) do not transport invasive plant materials.

To prevent the spread of invasive plants during treatment activities

Common measure.

D Wilderness D1 No motorized equipment would be used in

Wilderness areas. To maintain Wilderness character and meet environmental

Wilderness Act, 1964 SNF Plan

D2 Choose minimum impact treatment methods. To maintain Wilderness character and meet environmental

Wilderness Act, 1964 SNF Plan

E There are no Design Criteria under “E”.

F Herbicide Applications F1 Herbicides would be used in accordance with label

instructions, except where more restrictive measures are required as described below. Herbicide applications would only treat the minimum area necessary to meet site objectives. Herbicide formulations would be limited to those containing one or more of the following 6 active ingredients: clopyralid, glyphosate, imazapic, imazapyr, sethoxydim, and triclopyr. Herbicide application methods include wicking, wiping, injection, spot, and broadcast, as permitted by the product label and these Project Design Criteria. The use of triclopyr is limited to spot and hand/selective methods. Herbicide carriers (solvents) are limited to water and/or specifically labeled vegetable oil.

To limit potential adverse effects on people and the environment.

Standard 16, 2005 R6 ROD; Pesticide Use Handbook 2109.14

F2 Herbicide use would comply with standards in the Pacific Northwest Regional Invasive Plant Program – Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants FEIS (2005), including standards on herbicide selection, restrictions on broadcast use of some herbicides, tank mixing, licensed applicators, and use of adjuvants, surfactants and other additives.

To limit potential adverse effects on people and the environment.

2005 R6 ROD Treatment Standards (see Chapter 1) 2007 NMFS Aquatic Restoration Biological Opinion (ARBO).

F3 Lowest effective label rates would be used for each given situation. In no case would broadcast applications of herbicide or surfactant exceed typical label rates. In no case would imazapyr exceed 0.70 lbs.

To eliminate possible herbicide or surfactant exposures of concern to human health, wildlife, and/or fish.

SERA Risks Assessments, Appendix Q of the R6 2005 FEIS



F4 Use only LI-700, Agri-Dex, or an equivalent when adding surfactants to formulations.

To eliminate possible Surfactant exposures of concern to wildlife and/or fish.

2007 NMFS Aquatic Restoration Biological Opinion (ARBO)

F5 Herbicide applications would occur when wind velocity is between two and eight miles per hour. No applications would occur if rain is likely within 24 hours. During application, weather conditions would be monitored periodically by trained personnel.

To ensure proper application of herbicide and reduce drift and runoff.

These restrictions are typical so that herbicide use is avoided during inversions, windy or wet conditions.

2007 NMFS Aquatic Restoration Biological Opinion (ARBO).

F6 To minimize herbicide application drift during broadcast operations, use low nozzle pressure; apply as a coarse spray, and use nozzles designed for herbicide application that do not produce a fine droplet spray, e.g., nozzle diameter to produce a median droplet diameter of 500-800 microns.

To ensure proper application of herbicide and reduce drift.

These are typical measures to reduce drift. The minimum droplet size of 500 microns was selected because this size is modeled to eliminate adverse effects to non-target vegetation 100 feet or further from broadcast sites (see Chapter 3 of Siuslaw National Forest EA for details).

F7 Apply sethoxydim (Poast) when air temperature is greater than 60˚F.

To ensure proper application of herbicide.

2008 NMFS Aquatic RestorationBiological Opinion (ARBO).

G Herbicide Transportation and Handling Safety/Spill Prevention and Containment



G1 An Herbicide Transportation and Handling Safety/Spill Response Plan would be the responsibility of the herbicide applicator. At a minimum the plan would:

Address spill prevention and containment.

Estimate and limit the daily quantity of herbicides to be transported to treatment sites to that needed.

Require that impervious material be placed beneath mixing areas in such a manner as to contain small spills associated with mixing/spilling.

Require a spill cleanup kit be readily available for herbicide transportation, storage, and application (minimum FOSS Spill Tote Universal or equivalent.

Outline reporting procedures, including reporting spills to the appropriate regulatory agency.

Ensure applicators are trained in the safe handling and transportation procedures and spill cleanup.

Require that equipment used in herbicide storage, transportation and handling are maintained in a leak-proof condition.

To reduce likelihood of spills and contain any spills


G1 Address transportation routes so that traffic, domestic water sources, and blind curves are avoided to the extent possible.

Specify conditions under which guide vehicles would be required.

Specify mixing and loading locations away from water bodies so that accidental spills do not contaminate surface waters.

Require that spray tanks be mixed or washed further than 150 feet of surface water.

Ensure safe disposal if herbicide containers.

Identify sites that may only be reached by water travel and limit the amount of herbicide that may be transported by watercraft.

To reduce likelihood of spills and contain any spills.


H Soils, Water and Aquatic Ecosystems



H1 Herbicide use buffers have been established for perennial and wet intermittent steams; dry streams; and lakes and wetlands. These buffers are depicted in tables 2-6 through 2-8. Buffers vary by herbicide ingredient and application method. Tank mixtures would apply the largest buffer as indicated for any of the herbicides in the mixture.

To reduce the likelihood that herbicides would enter surface waters in concentrations of concern.

Comply with R6 2005ROD Standards 19 and 20.

Buffers are based on label advisories, SERA Risk Assessments and 2007 NMFS Aquatic Restoration Biological Opinion (ARBO).

H2 Within each 6th field HUC containing listed aquatic species, no more than 10% of the total riparian area, measured as adjacent stream length, will be treated within any one year period.

To reduce the likelihood that herbicides would enter surface waters in concentrations of concern.


H3 No broadcast of any herbicide on roadside treatment areas that have a high risk of herbicide delivery to surface waters.

To ensure herbicide is not delivered to streams in concentrations that exceed levels of concern.

SERA Risk Assessments, R6 2005 FEIS Fisheries Biological Assessment.

H4 Treatment of emergent vegetation (knotweed, flag iris, purple loosestrife) is restricted to aquatic labeled glyphosate and imazapyr using stem injection, wicking/wiping or hand-held spray bottle. Emergent knotweed greater than 0.75 inch in diameter will be injected with up to 100% concentration of aquatic formulation glyphosate.



H5 Aquatic labeled glyphosate and imazapyr only would be applied using spot or hand/selective methods from within 15 feet of the water’s edge and for treatments of target vegetation emerging out of the wet roadside ditches.


SERA Risk Assessments R6 2005 FEIS and Fisheries 2007 NMFS Aquatic Restoration Biological Opinion (ARBO).

H6 Vehicles (including all terrain vehicles) used to access or implement invasive plant projects, would remain on roadways, trails, parking areas or other previously disturbed areas to prevent damage to riparian vegetation and soil, and potential degradation of water quality and aquatic habitat.

To protect riparian and aquatic habitats.

H7 Avoid use of clopyralid on high-porosity soils (coarser than loamy sand).

To avoid leaching/ground water contamination.

Label advisory.



H 8 Lakes and Ponds – No more than half the perimeter or 50 percent of the vegetative cover or 10 contiguous acres around a lake or pond would be treated with herbicides in any 30-day period.

To reduce exposure to herbicides by providing some untreated areas for some organisms to use.

SERA Risk Asessments. Based on quantitative estimate of risk from worst-case scenario and uncertainty regarding effects to reptiles and amphibians.

H 9 Wetland vegetation would be treated when soils are driest. Favor hand/selective treatment methods where effective and practical.

To reduce exposure to herbicides by providing some untreated areas for some organisms to use.

SERA Risk Assessments. Reduces exposure to herbicides by providing untreated areas for organisms to use. Abates risks associated with worst- case models for treatment of emergent vegetation.

H-10 Broadcast spraying would not occur within 50 feet of wells. Follow label guidance relative to water contamination.

Safe drinking water.

Label advisories and state drinking water regulations.

H11 Plan and schedule project activities to avoid disturbance of spawning fish or damage to redds.

Minimize adverse impacts within waterbodies.

H 12 Limit the numbers of people on any one site at any one time while treating areas within 150 feet of creeks.

To minimize trampling and protect riparian and aquatic habitats.

The distance of 150 feet wasselected because it approximates the Aquatic Influence Zone for fish bearing streams.

H 14 Transport only daily fuel supply for gas powered equipment to the project site.

Do not fuel gas-powered equipment within 100 feet of water.

To protect riparian and aquatic habitats.

2007NMFS Aquatic Restoration Biological Opinion (ARBO).

I Vascular and non-vascular plant and fungi special status species

I1 Kincaid’s lupine (Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii) and Nelson’s checker-mallow (Sidalcea nelsoniana).

I1a Between May 1 and August 15 herbicide application within 50 feet of known plants will be limited to the cut-stump application method.

To ensure protection of Threatened plants while controlling invasive plants.


I1b Between August 15 and October 31 herbicide application within 50 feet of plants can use the spot spray and cut-stump application methods. During this period use 5 gallon buckets, shielding material, tree protection tubes, or other means to protect Nelson’s checker-mallow plants that have not senesced from herbicide contact. Coverings will be removed immediately after the treatment is completed.





I1c Monitor all Kincaid’s lupine and Nelson’s checker-mallow plants 1-2 weeks following herbicide application to validate whether project design criteria are effective in protecting plants.



I2 Bristly-stemmed checkermallow (Sidalcea hirtipes)

I2a Apply herbicide by spot and hand/select methods only when winds are less than 5 mph within 10 feet of checkermallow plants.

To ensure protection of individual checkermallow plants.


J

Wildlife Species of Local Interest

J1 Marbled Murrelet

J1a

Follow the most current letter of concurrence or biological opinion associated with activities that may disturb marbled murrelets.

To minimize disturbance to nesting marbled murrelets.

Currently-programmatic consultation for activities with potential to disturb marbled murrelets (Brachyramphus marmoratus) within the North Coast Planning Province for FY 2010-2013 (13420-2009-I-0152)

J1b During the April 1-September 15 nesting season motorized activities will be limited to 2 hours after sunrise to 2 hours before sunset.

To minimize disturbance to nesting marbled murrelets.

Currently-programmatic consultation for activities with potential to disturb marbled murrelets (Brachyramphus marmoratus) within the North Coast Planning Province for FY 2010-2013 (13420-2009-I-0152)

J2 Spotted Owl

J2a Follow the most current letter of concurrence or biological opinion associated with activities that may disturb northern spotted owls.

To minimize disturbance to nesting spotted owls and protect eggs and nestlings

Currently-programmatic consultation for activities with potential to disturb spotted owls (Strix occidentalis caurina) within the North Coast Planning Province for FY 2010-2013 (13420-2009-I-0152)

J3 Western Snowy Plover

J3a At sites FI-3, FI-4, GO-1, GO-2 and GO-3 coordinate access routes and work areas near snowy plover habitat with plover biologists.

To avoid entering nesting areas.

J3b Keep all employees and contractors outside of plover nesting areas during rest or lunch breaks.

To avoid entering nesting areas.



J3c Require all employees and contractors to keep food items and garbage out of view and remove from the worksite every day.

To reduce attraction of crows and ravens to the work area.

K Public Notification K1 High use areas, including administrative sites,

developed campgrounds, visitor centers, and trailheads would be posted in advance of herbicide application or closed. Areas of potential conflict would be prominently marked on the ground or otherwise posted. Postings would indicate the date of treatments, the herbicide used, and when the areas are expected to be clear of herbicide residue.

To ensure that no inadvertent public contact with herbicide occurs.

These are common measures to reduce conflicts.

K2 The public would be notified about upcoming herbicide treatments via the local newspaper or individual notification, fliers, and posting signs. Forest Service and other websites may also be used for public notification.

To ensure that no inadvertent public contact with herbicide occurs.

R6 2005 ROD Standard 23 (see table 1).

L Heritage Resources L1 Three recorded archaeological properties

(35LA18N, 35LA18S and 35LA19) within the gorse treatment area (Map Site GO-1) will be re-vegetated with effective ground stabilizing species as soon as possible following gorse treatment. Location of these sites will be identified on a need-to-know basis. Following re-vegetation, these areas will be monitored by an archaeologist or trained cultural specialist to assess the effectiveness of site stabilization.

To protect known cultural resources from adverse wind deflation. To identify any further action needed to protect or stabilize cultural resources from adverse wind deflation.

National Historic Preservation Act, Sections 106 and 110.

L2 Treatment areas CL-5, FL-3, FL-4 and GO-2 will be monitored following applications to assess any impacts to known or potential historic properties.

To protect known cultural resources from adverse wind deflation. To identify any further action needed to protect or stabilize cultural resources from adverse wind deflation.

National Historic Preservation Act, Sections 106 and 110.

Aquatic Influence Zone Figure 1 illustrates how the Aquatic Influence Zone restricts application methods and herbicides to only

those approved for use in aquatic areas. “Aquatic Influence Zone” is not equal to the “buffer widths”

listed in the tables A1 – A3 above. The Aquatic Influence Zone is defined by the innermost half of the

Riparian Reserve, as defined by the Northwest Forest Plan. For example, a 300-foot Riparian Reserve


would have an Aquatic Influence Zone of 150 feet. Establishing buffer widths reduces the potential for

herbicides to come in contact with water via drift, leaching, and runoff at or near concentrations of

concern.

Figure 1. Aquatic influence zone

Appendix BTreatment Sites and Prescriptions

1 Appendix B Treatment Sites

Map Site no.

Target Species

Treatment Acres1

Invasive Objective

Restoration Strategy

General Site Description (e.g., road prism, disturbed

site)

Proposed Treatment (rates are per/year) Period Method Other

BO-1 Multiple 132.0 Control Passive Meadow

1.0 lb a.i./ac triclopyr (Garlon 3A), 2.0 lbs a.i./ac, glyphosate (Aquamaster), 0.35 lb a.i./ac

clorpyralid (Transline).

June-Sept.Hand-held or backpack spot, ATV or truck-mounted spot or

broadcast. Mowing.

Follow PDC A1 and I1a-c for Kincaid lupine and Nelson checker-mallow.

CL-1 Clematis 0.3 Eradicate Passive Forest 2 lbs a.i./ac glyphosate (Aquamaster). Manual. June-July

Cut aerial stems at ground-level. Backpack spot or wipe on cut

stems.



stems.



stems.

CL-4 Clematis 0.2 Eradicate Passive Riparian 2 lbs a.i./ac glyphosate (Aquamaster). Manual. June-July


stems.

CL-5 Clematis 0.1 Eradicate Passive Forest 2 lbs a.i./ac glyphosate (Aquamaster) June-July


stems.

Monitor cultural resources as per PDC L2.



stems.

CT-1 Canada thistle 10.5 Eradicate Passive dry meadow

0.35 lbs a.i./ac chlorpyralid (Transline). Within 100 feet of water 2 lbs a.i./ac glyphosate

(Aquamaster) only.

May-July Backpack spot. Follow PDC I2 for bristly checker-mallow.

CT-2 Canada thistle 55.9 Control Passive wet meadow 2 lbs a.i./ac glyphosate (Aquamaster) May-July Backpack spot.

EB-1 European beachgrass 90.1 Control Passive Dunes

2 lbs a.i./ac glyphosate (Aquamaster), 0.3 lbs a.i./ ac

sethoxydim (Poast). April -Oct. Backpack spot.

EP-1 Everlasting pea 67.2 Eradicate Passive Road prism, adjacent disturbed areas

2 lbs a.i./ac glyphosate (Aquamaster). May-June-July

Hand-held or backpack spot, ATV or truck-mounted spot or

broadcast. Hand grubbing, mowing.

FB-1 (A,B,C,D,

E,F,G)False brome 86.9 Eradicate Seeding Road prism, adjacent

disturbed areas

0.3 lbs a.i./ac sethoxydim (Poast), 0.13 lbs a.i./ac

imazapic (Plateau). Within 100 feet of water 2 lbs a.i. glyphosate (Aquamaster) only. Manual, mechanical.

June-September



FB-2 (A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H)

False brome 96.1 Eradicate Seeding Road prism, adjacent disturbed areas



June-September





Map Site no.

Target Species

Treatment Acres1

Invasive Objective



site)


FB 3 (A,B,C,D) False brome 44.4 Eradicate Seeding Road prism, adjacent

disturbed areas.


imazapic (Plateau). Within 100 feet of water 2 lbs a.i. glyphosate (Aquamaster)

only. Manual, mechanical.

June-September



FB-4 (A,B,C,D,

E,F,G)False brome 87.4 Eradicate Seeding Road prism; adjacent

disturbed areas



only. Manual, mechanical.

June-September



No herbicide treatment within 1000 feet of municipal water intake without prior agreement by City of Corvallis intake as per PDC B2 and B3.

FB-5 (A,B,C) False brome 43.1 Eradicate Seeding Road prism, adjacent

disturbed areas.



June-September



FB-6 False brome 27.9 Eradicate Seeding Road prism; adjacent open areas


imazapic (Plateau), 2 lbs a.i. glyphosate (Aquamaster).

Manual, mechanical.

June-September




disturbed areas


imazapic (Plateau), 2 lbs a.i. glyphosate (Aquamaster) only

within 100 feet of water. Manual, mechanical.

June-September



FB-8 False brome 1.9 Eradicate Passive Road prism, adjacent disturbed areas



June-September



FB-9 False brome 33.2 Eradicate Seeding Road prism, adjacent disturbed areas



June-September




disturbed areas



June-September



FB-11 (A,B) False brome 35.5 Eradicate Seeding Road prism, adjacent

disturbed areas



June-September





Map Site no.

Target Species

Treatment Acres1

Invasive Objective



site)


FB-12 (A,B,C,D,

E)False brome 127.6 Eradicate Passive Trail in forested habitat.



June-September Hand-held or backpack spot. Hand grubbing.

FB-13 False brome 86.7 Eradicate Passive Road prism, adjacent disturbed areas



only.

June-September Hand-held or backpack spot. Hand grubbing, mowing.

FI-1 Flag iris 0.8 Eradicate Passive Riparian2 lbs a.i./ac glyphosate (Aquamaster), manual,

mechanical.Sept.-Oct

Hand digging, machine excavating, hand-held or backpack spot or wiping,

injection.

FI-2 Flag iris 2.4 Eradicate Passive Riparian 2 lbs a.i./ac glyphosate (Aquamaster), manual. Sept.-Oct

Hand digging, hand-held or backpack spot or wiping,

injection.



injection.

Consult with wildlife biologist as per PDC J3a prior to treatment. Monitor cultural resources as per PDC L2.



injection.

Consult with wildlife biologist as per PDC J3a prior to treatment. No access from the beach during plover nesting season. Monitor cultural resources as per PDC L2.

FI-5 Flag Iris 0.2 Eradicate Passive Meadow 2 lbs a.i./ac glyphosate (Aquamaster), manual. Sept.-Oct Hand-held or backpack spot or

wiping, injection.

FI-6 Flag iris 18.9 Eradicate Passive Riparian 2 lbs a.i./ac glyphosate (Aquamaster), manual. Sept.-Oct Hand-held or backpack spot or

wiping, injection.

GK-1 Giant knotweed 2.9 Eradicate Passive Riparian

2 lbs a.i./ac glyphosate (Aquamaster),1.5 lbs a.i./ac

imazapyr (Habitat).Aug.-Oct. Hand-held and backpack spot

and wiping, injection.


2 lbs a.i./ac glyphosate (Aquamaster), 1.5 lbs a.i./ac







GK-4 Giant knotweed 0.2 Contain Passive Riparian







and wiping.Coordinate with adjacent landowner as per PDC B1.



imazapyr (Habitat).Aug.-Oct.. Hand-held and backpack spot




Map Site no.

Target Species

Treatment Acres1

Invasive Objective



site)


GK-7 Giant knotweed 0.1 Eradicate Seeding Roadside




GK-8 (A,B,C,D,

E,F)

Giant knotweed 214.9 Eradicate Passive Riparian


imazapyr (Habitat).Aug.-Oct.

Hand-held and backpack spot and wiping. Injection within

bankfull.

GK-9 (A,B)

Giant knotweed 2.8 Control Passive Riparian




GK-10 (A,B)

Giant knotweed 9.3 Eradicate Passive Riparian




GK-11 Giant knotweed 1.1 Eradicate Passive Roadside


imazapyr (Habitat).Aug.-Oct. Backpack spot.

GO-1 Gorse 22.0 Eradicate Passive Riparian2 lbs a.i./ac glyphosate

(Aquamaster), 1.0 lb a.i./ac triclopyr (Garlon 3A).

June-July Hand-held and backpack spot.

Consult with wildlife biologist as per PDC J3a prior to treatment. No access from the beach during plover nesting season. Protect cultural resources from adverse wind deflation as per PDC L1.



June-July Hand-held and backpack spot.

Consult with wildlife biologist as per PDC J3a prior to treatment. Monitor cultural resources as per PDC L2.



June-July Hand-held and backpack spot. Consult with wildlife biologist as per PDC J3a prior to treatment.

HK-1 Himalayan knotweed 3.7 Eradicate Passive Riparian



and wiping.




and wiping.




and wiping.

HR-1 herb Robert 4.7 Eradicate Seeding Roadside 2 lbs a.i./ac glyphosate (Aquamaster) May-June backpack spot.

JK-1 Japanese Knotweed 1.9 Eradicate Passive Riparian




JK-2 (A,B)

Japanese Knotweed 170.2 Eradicate Passive Riparian




JK-3 (A,B,C,D,

E)







Map Site no.

Target Species

Treatment Acres1

Invasive Objective



site)


JK-4 (A,B,C,D,

E,F)




and wiping, injection..

JK-5 Japanese Knotweed 9.4 Control Passive Riparian
























MK-1 Meadow knapweed 0.1 Eradicate Seeding Meadow

0.35 lbs a.i./ac chlopyralid (Transline), 2 lbs a.i./ac

glyphosate (Aquamaster). June-July Backpack spot.

MK-2 Meadow knapweed 0.9 Eradicate Seeding Meadow

0.35 lbs a.i./ac chlopyralid (Transline), 2 lbs a.i./ac

glyphosate (Aquamaster). June-July Backpack spot

PB-1 Portuguese broom 98.1 Control Passive Dunes

1.0 lb a.i./ac triclopyr (Garlon 3A), 2.0 lbs a.i./ac glyphosate (Aquamaster). Greater than

100 ft. from water 0.35 lb a.i./ac clorpyralid (Transline).

June-JulyHand-held or backpack spot, ATV or truck-mounted spot or

broadcast.

PL-1 Purple loosestrife 0.8 Eradicate Passive Riparian 2.0 lbs a.i./ac glyphosate

(Aquamaster). June-July Hand-held and backpack spot and wiping.

PX-1 Multiple 51.0 Control Seeding, Planting Riparian

1.0 lb a.i./ac triclopyr (Garlon 3A), 2.0 lbs a.i./ac glyphosate (Aquamaster), mechanical,

manual.

June-Sept. Hand-held and backpack spot, brushing, mowing, grubbing.

RS-1 Multiple 3.4 Eradicate Seeding Rock Source

1.0 lb a.i./ac triclopyr (Garlon 3A), 2.0 lbs a.i./ac glyphosate (Aquamaster), 0.3 lbs a.i./ac

sethoxydim (Poast).

June-Sept. Backpack spot



sethoxydim (Poast).




Map Site no.

Target Species

Treatment Acres1

Invasive Objective



site)




sethoxydim (Poast).




sethoxydim (Poast).




sethoxydim (Poast).




100 ft. from water 0.3 lbs a.i./ac sethoxydim (Poast).








sethoxydim (Poast).




sethoxydim (Poast).




sethoxydim (Poast).








sethoxydim (Poast).




Map Site no.

Target Species

Treatment Acres1

Invasive Objective



site)




sethoxydim (Poast).

June-Sept.. Backpack spot

SB-1 Scotch Broom 90.1 Control Passive Dunes

1.0 lb a.i./ac triclopyr (Garlon 3A), 2.0 lbs a.i./ac, glyphosate (Aquamaster), 0.35 lb a.i./ac

clorpyralid (Transline).

May-July Backpack spot.

TQ-1 Multiple 17.2 Control Seeding, Planting Riparian

1.0 lb a.i./ac triclopyr (Garlon 3A), 2.0 lbs a.i./ac glyphosate (Aquamaster), mechanical,

manual.

June-Sept. Hand-held and backpack spot, brushing, mowing, grubbing.

Totals 2123.61 Total

1 Appendix C Goals and Objectives

Appendix C

Goals, Objectives, and Applicable Standards from the

Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Record of Decision

The Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Record of Decision (USDA 2005; R6 2005 ROD) added invasive plant management direction (displayed in tables 1 and 2) to the existing direction for the Siuslaw National Forest Plan, as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan. Land uses and activities, including invasive plant treatments, would be designed to comply with the R6 2005 ROD standards. Standards for preventing invasive plants are in R6 2005 ROD, Appendix G.

Table 1. R6 2005 ROD Goals and Objectives Invasive Plants Treatment Goals and Objectives from the R6 2005 ROD

Goal 1 - Protect ecosystems from the impacts of invasive plants through an integrated approach that emphasizes prevention, early detection, and early treatment. All employees and users of the National Forest recognize that they play an important role in preventing and detecting invasive plants. Objective 1.1 Implement appropriate invasive plant prevention practices to help reduce the introduction,

establishment and spread of invasive plants associated with management actions and land use activities.

Objective 1.2 Educate the workforce and the public to help identify, report, and prevent invasive plants. Objective 1.3 Detect new infestations of invasive plants promptly by creating and maintaining complete, up-to-

date inventories of infested areas, and proactively identifying and inspecting susceptible areas not infested with invasive plants.

Objective 1.4 Use an integrated approach to treating areas infested with invasive plants. Utilize a combination of available tools including manual, cultural, mechanical, herbicides, biological

control. Objective 1.5 Control new invasive plant infestations promptly, suppress or contain expansion of infestations

where control is not practical, conduct follow up inspection of treated sites to prevent reestablishment.

Goal 2 - Minimize the creation of conditions that favor invasive plant introduction, establishment and spread during land management actions and land use activities. Continually review and adjust land management practices to help reduce the creation of conditions that favor invasive plant communities. Objective 2.1 Reduce soil disturbance while achieving project objectives through timber harvest, fuel

treatments, and other activities that potentially produce large amounts of bare ground. Objective 2.2 Retain native vegetation consistent with site capability and integrated resource management

objectives to suppress invasive plants and prevent their establishment and growth.

Objective 2.3 Reduce the introduction, establishment and spread of invasive plants during fire suppression and fire rehabilitation activities by minimizing the conditions that promote invasive plant germination and establishment.

Objective 2.4 Incorporate invasive plant prevention as an important consideration in all recreational land use and access decisions. Use Forest-level Access and Travel Management planning to manage both on-highway and off-highway travel and travel routes to reduce the introduction, establishment and spread of invasive plants.

Objective 2.5 Place greater emphasis on managing previously “unmanaged recreation” (OHVs, dispersed recreation, etc.) to help reduce creation of soil conditions that favor invasive plants, and reduce transport of invasive plant seeds and propagules.

Goal 3 - Protect the health of people who work, visit, or live in or near National Forests, while effectively treating invasive plants. Identify, avoid, or mitigate potential human health effects from invasive plants and treatments. Objective 3.1 Avoid or minimize public exposure to herbicides, fertilizer, and smoke.


Invasive Plants Treatment Goals and Objectives from the R6 2005 ROD

Objective 3.2 Reduce reliance on herbicide use over time in Region Six.

Goal 4 – Implement invasive plant treatment strategies that protect sensitive ecosystem components, and maintain biological diversity and function within ecosystems. Reduce loss or degradation of native habitat from invasive plants while minimizing adverse effects from treatment projects.

Objective 4.1 Maintain water quality while implementing invasive plant treatments.

Objective 4.2 Protect non-target plants and animals from negative effects of both invasive plants and applied herbicides. Where herbicide treatment of invasive plants is necessary within the riparian zone, select treatment methods and chemicals so that herbicide application is consistent with riparian management direction, contained in Pacfish, Infish, and the Aquatic Conservation Strategies of the Northwest Forest Plan.

Objective 4.3 Protect threatened, endangered, and sensitive species habitat threatened by invasive plants. Design treatment projects to protect threatened, endangered, and sensitive species and maintain species viability.

Goal 5 – Expand collaborative efforts between the Forest Service, our partners, and the public to share learning experiences regarding the prevention and control of invasive plants, and the protection and restoration of native plant communities. Objective 5.1 Use an adaptive management approach to invasive plant management that emphasizes

monitoring, learning, and adjusting management techniques. Evaluate treatment effectiveness and adjust future treatment actions based on the results of these evaluations.

Objective 5.2 Collaborate with tribal, other federal, state, local and private land managers to increase availability and use of appropriate native plants for all land ownerships.

Objective 5.3 Work effectively with neighbors in all aspects of invasive plant management: share information and resources, support cooperative weed management, and work together to reduce the inappropriate use of invasive plants (landscaping, erosion control, etc.).

In addition, Standards 11 through 23 from the R6 2005 ROD apply to invasive plant treatment and restoration (table 2). Standards 1 through 10 apply to invasive plant prevention. These standards and additional information about prevention on the Siuslaw National Forest are displayed in Appendix G. All alternatives assume prevention practices would be implemented as directed.

Table 2. R6 2005 ROD Applicable standards and how the Project complies with these standards Standard # Forest Plan Standard How Project Complies with Standard

11 Prioritize infestations of invasive plants for treatment at the landscape, watershed or larger multiple forest/multiple owner scale.

Treatment priorities are described in Chapter 2, Appendix B, and Treatment Area Maps 1 through 6.

12 Develop a long-term site strategy for restoring/revegetating invasive plant sites prior to treatment.

Treatment strategies and restoration plans are described in Chapter 2 and Appendix B.


Standard # Forest Plan Standard How Project Complies with Standard 13 Native plant materials are the first choice in

revegetation for restoration and rehabilitation where timely natural regeneration of the native plant community is not likely to occur. Non-native, non-invasive plant species may be used in any of the following situations: 1) when needed in emergency conditions to protect basic resource values (e.g., soil stability, water quality and to help prevent the establishment of invasive species), 2) as an interim, non-persistent measure designed to aid in the re-establishment of native plants, 3) if native plant materials are not available, or 4) in permanently altered plant communities. Under no circumstances will non-native invasive plant species be used for revegetation.

Revegetation (seeding and planting) would occur as needed to replace invasive plants with native plant communities. Non-native, non-persistent species may be used infrequently as an interim measure to control erosion or prevent target species from returning on treated sites. Appendix B outlines the restoration approach including use of native plant materials.

14 Use only USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and State-approved biological control agents. Agents demonstrated to have direct negative impacts on non-target organisms would not be released.

APHIS approved Biological Agents have been released, or are currently being released within or near Siuslaw National Forest by Forest and Oregon Department of Agriculture personnel. All biocontrol agents released have been approved by APHIS.

15 Application of any herbicides to treat invasive plants will be performed or directly supervised by a State or Federally licensed applicator. All treatment projects that involve the use of herbicides will develop and implement herbicide transportation and handling safety plans.

The elements of herbicide transportation, handling and application are listed in Chapters 2 and 3, and further discussed in Appendix A. All applicable State and Federal policies and law are incorporated into Project Design Features.

16 Select from herbicide formulations containing one or more of the following 10 active ingredients: chlorsulfuron, clopyralid, glyphosate, imazapic, imazapyr, metsulfuron methyl, picloram, sethoxydim, sulfometuron methyl, and triclopyr. Mixtures of herbicide formulations containing 3 or less of these active ingredients may be applied where the sum of all individual Hazard Quotients for the relevant application scenarios is less than 1.0. * All herbicide application methods are allowed including wicking, wiping, injection, spot, broadcast and aerial, as permitted by the product label. Chlorsulfuron, metsulfuron methyl, and sulfometuron methyl will not be applied aerially. The use of triclopyr is limited to selective application techniques only (e.g., spot spraying, wiping, basal bark, cut stump, injection). Additional herbicides and herbicide mixtures may be added in the future at either the Forest Plan or project level through appropriate risk analysis and NEPA/ESA procedures.

See Chapter 2 for details about Project Design Features (PDFs), which add layers of caution and minimize or eliminate adverse effects related to use of herbicides and adjuvants. The herbicide formulations listed in this document are approved for use under Standard 16.

Table 2.5 lists the herbicide formulations proposed for use that currently meet Standards 16 and 18, based on analysis by Bakke (2003a and 2003b) and SERA (various, see Chapter 3.1.5) and disclosures herein. Since the release of the DEIS, the herbicide formulation Habitat (the aquatic formulation for Imazapyr) has become approved for use. Policies/compliance monitoring and reporting forms related to herbicide use are further discussed in Tables 2.6 through 2.8, Chapter 3 and Appendix A.

17 The 2005 ROD does not include any Standard 17 18 Use only adjuvants (e.g. surfactants, dyes) and inert

ingredients reviewed in Forest Service hazard and risk assessment documents.

All adjuvents considered for use by the Project meet this Standard.


Standard # Forest Plan Standard How Project Complies with Standard 19 To minimize or eliminate direct or indirect negative

effects to non-target plants, terrestrial animals, water quality and aquatic biota (including amphibians) from the application of herbicide, use site-specific soil characteristics, proximity to surface water and local water table depth to determine herbicide formulation, size of buffers needed, if any, and application method and timing. Consider herbicides registered for aquatic use where herbicide is likely to be delivered to surface waters.

Chapter 3discusses the use of herbicide in proximity to surface water and how risks from herbicide use are abated by Project Design Features including buffers and restrictions on herbicide use and method of application in Aquatic Influence Zones and roadside treatment areas that have high potential to deliver herbicide to streams and other water bodies.

20 Design invasive plant treatments to minimize or eliminate adverse effects to species and critical habitats proposed and/or listed under the Endangered Species Act. This may involve surveying for listed or proposed plants prior to implementing actions within unsurveyed habitat if the action has a reasonable potential to adversely affect the plant species. Use site-specific project design (e.g. application rate and method, timing, wind speed and direction, nozzle type and size, buffers, etc.) to mitigate the potential for adverse disturbance and/or contaminant exposure.

Chapter 3 discusses how potential adverse effects to Endangered Species and critical habitats from herbicide use are abated by Project Design Features.

21 Provide a minimum buffer of 300 feet for aerial application of herbicides near developed campgrounds, recreation residences and private land (unless otherwise authorized by adjacent private landowners).

No aerial application is proposed.

22 Prohibit aerial application of herbicides within legally designated municipal watersheds.

No aerial application is proposed. Coordination with water users would occur in accordance with Municipal Watershed Plans (more information in Chapter 3).

23 Prior to implementation of herbicide treatment projects, National Forest staff will ensure timely public notification. Treatment areas will be posted to inform the public and forest workers of herbicide application dates and herbicides used. If requested, individuals may be notified in advance of spray dates.

Appendix A lists Project Design Features, including public notification requirements.

Siuslaw Invasive Plants EA

1

Appendix D

Contributions from Others 1. Proposed Project (scoping) Comment Summary and Forest Service Responses Reference to the Siuslaw Invasive Plants preliminary analysis (PA) is included in the response column, where applicable. Table D-1. Person or Organization- Comment Summary Response Steve Trask

Reported a site of knotweed on FS land at the confluence of Five River and Green River. He wanted to see a project map of the proposed sites included with the scoping letter.

Knotweed site added to project. Refer to PA Appendix B – Treatment Sites (JK-1) and Map 4. Six site maps are included with the PA.

Wilbur TenEyck Wanted to know where the European beachgrass treatment site is. Since it is not in the Florence area, he said that he had no concerns and no comment on the project.

Refer to PA Appendix B – Treatment Sites (EB-1) European beachgrass site is located on Hebo District within the Sand Lake Research Natural Area.

Vicky Prince Concerned about possible herbicide use by the FS. Has adjacent property about 3.5 miles up Yachats River Road. Concerns included contamination of a well on her property. There is knotweed on her property and that they have been trying to control it by cutting for a couple of years without much luck.

Refer to PA, Chapter 3- Soils and Water Quality, pages 35 to 48.

Steve Hatler What herbicide formulation would be proposed for knotweed treatments.

Please refer to PA, Chapter 2 – Alternative 2, page 20.

Cory Lindgren Which species are you concerned with and how are you describing high-risk areas?

Refer to the PA, chapter 1; and to Chapter 3-Non Native Invasive Plants (page 25).


2

Person or Organization- Comment Summary Response Gary Blanchard, Starker Forests, Inc.

Eliminate the mechanical and manual methods and use the saved money to buy more herbicides to be used in successive years. The injection method to control knotweed is not effective.

Refer to the EA, Chapter 2-Alternative 2 section and Chapter 3-Project Costs and Financial Efficiency section. The injection method would be used in sensitive areas near anadramous fish streams as per the National Marine Fisheries Service 2007 Biological Opinion.

Betty Sleight We would like to cooperate with you in the effort to eradicate and control invasive plants. This could include any species close to our property that we should be looking for.

Refer to PA Appendix B-Treatment Sites (FB sites) and Map 4.

Doug Shaller, Lincoln County Public Works I am totally in favor of any project to manage non-native

vegetation. Consider allowing Lincoln County to treat, with herbicides approved by the US Forest Service, any federally or state listed noxious weeds along County roads that pass through lands administered by the US Forest Service and at no cost to the Forest Service.

See Chapter 2, Alternatives Considered But Eliminated from Detailed Study. The purpose and need of the project is to identify high priority species and sites for treatment. Roads within these high priority areas are identified in the project for treatment.


3

Person or Organization- Comment Summary Response Chandra LeGue Oregon Wild

Utilize preventative measures, such as cleaning equipment, weed free livestock feed, maintain shade, and minimize ground disturbance. Do not rely solely on chemical means. Disclose the environmental impacts of inert ingredients. Utilize the correct herbicide for the location. Consider the cumulative effects of time and multiple chemicals. Fish and wildlife effects must be evaluated. Evaluate water quality and the Aquatic Conservation Strategy. Evaluate a full range of alternatives.

All prevention measures from the Region 6 Invasive Plant EIS completed in 2005 would be followed. Refer to PA Chapters 2 and 3- Alternative 2. When effective, other treatment methods would be used in conjunction with herbicides. Refer to the Region 6 Invasive Plant EIS and PA Chapter 3. Refer to PA Chapters 2 and 3- Alternative 2. Refer to PA Chapter s 2 and 3- Alternative 2 Refer to PA Chapter 3- Alternative 2 Aquatic Habitat and Species and Wildlife Species section. Refer to PA Chapter 3- Soils and Water Quality section and Aquatic Conservation Strategy section. Refer to PA Chapter 2

Eric Thompson, Thompson Tree Farm

We are in full support of the proposed effort to manage invasive plants.

Richard Artley If hand pulling is impossible, I expect the NEPA document to explain why. If herbicides must be used, I DEMAND (emphasis added) that only Milestone®, Ally®, and Escort® be applied on your forest.

This site-specific environmental analysis focuses on the control of invasive species for which past efforts using manual or mechanical techniques have been unsuccessful. Japanese, giant and Himalayan knotweed are examples of targeted invasive species on the Forest that are resistant to control by non-chemical means. The EA tiers to the Region 6 Invasive Plant EIS completed in 2005.


4

2. Preliminary Analysis comment summary and Forest Service Responses Table D-2 summarizes the comments received on the preliminary analysis during the 30-day comment period, which began on April 2, 2010 and ended close-of-business on May 3, 2010. Each comment was read and considered, as the environmental assessment for this project was prepared. Comments, not covered by existing regulations or not outside the scope of the project, were separated into topics. Where applicable, pages of the environmental assessment (EA) or project design criteria (appendix A) are referenced where the comment topics are discussed. Table D-2. Preliminary analysis comment and response summary Person or Organization- Comment Summary Response Richard Artley Summaries and links to articles about Glyphosate,

Atrazine, and 2,4-D. Information only. No specific comment.

Doug Shaller, Lincoln County Public Works

Fully in favor of the project. Good first step.


5

Person or Organization- Comment Summary Response Gary Chapman, President, Corvallis –to-the-Sea Trail Partnership

Support the goal of reducing, or eliminating, the invasive species along these roads so that motor vehicles, our recreational trail users, and other vectors of dispersal are less apt to spread these species. As part of our trail management process we stand ready to assist with any future manual or mechanical means of control as part of our trail maintenance program. The only questions we have at this time relate to the actual location of the 9.1 acres associated with area GK6 and identified as “riparian.”

1. Does this include the grounds of the Big Elk Campground?

2. Does this land include Siuslaw Forest land immediately across Big Elk River from the Campground?

3. Does any of this land lie above the road near the Big Elk campground?

We are particulary interested in the area immediately above the Big Elk campground as a potential overflow “wal-in” camping area should our trail users arrive at the campground and find it filled to capacity. Obviously, having a significant population of an invasive plant species here would not be a desirable condition.

1. Big Elk Campground is included within the 9.1 acre GK-6 treatment area. The actual infestation of giant knotweed is confined to a smaller area east of the Campground between the buildings and the Big Elk River. If controlled at its present location, there would be no need to treat giant knotweed in the Campground.

2. Treatment area GK-6 includes Siuslaw National Forest lands across Big Elk River from the Campground.

3. Treatment area GK-6 does not extend above (north) of County Road 538 near the Campground.


6

Person or Organization- Comment Summary Response Doug Heiken, Oregon Wild We share the Siuslaw NF's concern about invasives

species and we agree that careful application of selected herbicides has a role to play in eliminating the spread of invasive plant species. However, we wish to caution the Forest Service about the risk that its new authority to apply herbicides should not make forest managers complacent about activities that may spread invasive species. Intact native vegetation and undisturbed soil are our best defense against the spread of invasives, so activities that disturb soil and vegetation should be carefully limited to avoid the spread of weeds which will limit the need for using chemical herbicides. Everything else we need to say was in our July 2007 scoping comments.

All prevention measures from the Region 6 Invasive Plant EIS completed in 2005 would be followed. Some invasive species respond to natural disturbance and will need to be managed for some time in the future, despite our best efforts at prevention. An example would be knotweed expansion after a large flood event.

Davis Hawker, Lincoln City Planner verbal comment to District Ranger George Buckingham

Asks to not have RS-10 included for herbicide treatment since it is in the Lincoln City watershed..

A site inspection determined that the invasives that are currently present could be manually treated. The site will be dropped.

siuslaw invasive plants project -...

Documents