Page 1

Tongass National Forest

Wrangell - Petersburg

Weed Management Project Scoping Report

1. Introduction The Forest Service proposes to eradicate, control, or contain invasive and other non-native plants (“weeds”) within the Wrangell and Petersburg Ranger Districts of the Tongass National Forest (Figure 1). Invasive plants displace native plant communities and cause long-lasting economic and ecological problems within and outside the National Forest and are defined as “nonnative plants whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health” [Executive Order 13112]. They can degrade fish and wildlife habitat, out-compete native plants, impair water quality and watershed health, and adversely affect a wide variety of other resource values such as scenic beauty and recreational opportunities. Invasive plants can spread rapidly across the landscape to all land ownerships.

Field inventories have identified 89 different weeds, both invasive and other non-native plant species (approximately 1,184 acres of infestation), within the boundaries of the 3.6 million-acre project area. Twenty-four of these species, totaling approximately 1,108 acres, are target weeds, meaning they are the species of greatest concern (Table 1). Included on the target weed list are common brass buttons, orange hawkweed, reed canarygrass and Japanese knotweed, among others. The target weeds are the focus of this project since they have been determined to pose a threat to the ecological integrity or desired condition of the sites they occupy. Species on the non-target weed list (Table 2) are not proposed to be targeted specifically, but incidentally when adjacent to target species or present in sensitive areas.

Undeveloped lands on the Wrangell and Petersburg Districts have relatively few weeds. Known infestations are primarily in areas that receive high use, such as along roads, recreation sites, some riparian areas and cabin sites. Alaska has been relatively insulated from the introduction and subsequent problems that have impacted other states. This is due in part to its remoteness and low population. However, existing infestations of weeds are spreading and new introductions are increasingly being discovered.

The ability to minimize the adverse impacts of weeds is greatest when infestations are treated while they are small and in the early stages of invasion. Additional benefits of early-stage treatments include reduced treatment costs, greater effectiveness of treatment methods, less chemical use, and less ground and habitat disturbance. In short, there is an opportunity to be proactive with weed management on the Wrangell and Petersburg Ranger Districts by acting now.

By preparing this environmental assessment, the US Forest Service is fulfilling agency policy and direction to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and state laws and regulations. For more project details see the Proposed Action.

Page 2

Table 1. Target Weed List. This list includes the species the action alternatives propose to treat. They pose a threat to the ecological integrity or desired condition of the sites they occupy.

Scientific name Common name

Estimated acres in the project

area

Centaurea stoebe ssp. micranthos spotted knapweed 0.1

Cirsium vulgare bull thistle 5.0

Cotula coronopifolia common brassbuttons 771.1

Crepis tectorum narrowleaf hawksbeard < 0.1

Digitalis purpurea purple foxglove 0.2

Hieracium aurantiacum orange hawkweed 4.2

Hieracium murorum wall hawkweed 31.9

Hypericum perforatum common St. Johnswort < 0.1

Hypochaeris radicata hairy cat's ear 3.2

Leucanthemum vulgare oxeye daisy 3.5

Lotus corniculatus bird's-foot trefoil 0.4

Melilotus officinalis sweetclover 3.7

Phalaris arundinacea reed canarygrass 167.7

Plantago major common plantain 30.9

Polygonum cuspidatum Japanese knotweed 3.3

Ranunculus acris tall buttercup < 0.1

Ranunculus repens creeping buttercup 14.9

Sorbus aucuparia European mountain ash < 0.1

Taraxacum officinale common dandelion 35.0

Tanacetum vulgare common tansy 0.1

Trifolium hybridum alsike clover 7.3

Trifolium pratense red clover 0.6

Trifolium repens white clover 24.5

Total acres of target weed species 1,107.5

Acres of infestation have been rounded which accounts for the slight discrepancy in total acres.

Page 3

Figure 1. Vicinity and Project Area Map for the Wrangell - Petersburg Weed Management Project

Page 4

Page intentionally left blank.

Page 5

Table 2 Non-target Weed List. These species are not proposed to be targeted specifically, but would be treated incidentally when adjacent to target species or present in sensitive areas.

Scientific name Common name Estimated acres in the project

area

Achillea ptarmica sneezeweed < 0.1

Agrostis capillaris colonial bentgrass 0.1

Agrostis gigantea redtop < 0.1

Agrostis stolonifera creeping bentgrass < 0.1

Alopecurus geniculatus water foxtail < 0.1

Alopecurus pratensis meadow foxtail < 0.1

Anthemis cotula stinking chamomile < 0.1

Anthoxanthum odoratum sweet vernalgrass < 0.1

Bromus inermis ssp. inermis smooth brome 0.3

Cerastium fontanum common mouse-ear chickweed 10.7

Dactylis glomerata orchardgrass 1.5

Deschampsia elongata slender hairgrass 0.1

Euphrasia nemorosa common eyebright < 0.1

Fragaria ananassa < 0.1

Gnaphalium palustre western marsh cudweed < 0.1

Hordeum jubatum foxtail barley < 0.1

Holcus lanatus common velvetgrass 1.0

Iris pseudacorus paleyellow iris < 0.1

Lotus pedunculatus big trefoil < 0.1

Lolium perenne ssp. multiflorum Italian ryegrass 0.5

Lolium perenne ssp. perenne perennial ryegrass 0.2

Lupinus polyphyllus ssp. polyphyllus var. polyphyllus

bigleaf lupine 0.1

Matricaria discoidea disc mayweed 0.5

Medicago lupulina black medick < 0.1

Mycelis muralis wall-lettuce 10.1

Myosotis scorpioides true forget-me-not 0.4

Phalaris canariensis annual canarygrass 0.4

Phleum pratense timothy 30.7

Poa annua annual bluegrass 9.4

Poa compressa Canada bluegrass 0.5

Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass 1.7

Poa trivialis rough bluegrass 0.2

Rumex acetosella common sheep sorrel 0.5

Rumex crispus curly dock < 0.1

Sagina procumbens birdeye pearlwort < 0.1

Schedonorus phoenix tall fescue 6.0

Stellaria media common chickweed < 0.1

Triticum aestivum common wheat < 0.1

Page 6

Scientific name Common name Estimated acres in the project

area

Veronica serpyllifolia ssp. serpyllifolia

thymeleaf speedwell 0.4

Total acres of non-target species 75.7

Acres of infestation have been rounded which accounts for the slight discrepancy in total acres.

2. Background An earlier scoping report was mailed to those on our project mailing list in April 2012. In May, three open houses for this project were held in Wrangell, Petersburg and Kake. Based on the comments received from those efforts, the following issues were identified:

Herbicide toxicology/ herbicide use (particularly Glyphosate)

Herbicide impacts on non-target vegetation

Herbicide impacts on soils

Herbicide impacts on water and aquatic organisms

Herbicide impacts on wildlife

Treatment costs

Effects to Wilderness area characteristics from manual, mechanical, and chemical treatments

We are providing this update to highlight project changes and seek additional public input as we prepare to write the environmental assessment and decision, both planned for completion in May 2013.

Following public feedback received in the spring of 2012, the interdisciplinary team (IDT) has continued to discuss an important aspect of the proposed action (early detection, rapid response or EDRR) which would allow land managers to act quickly to treat infestations not currently documented. In an effort to better implement EDRR, the IDT now proposes to include the entire project area in the treatment analysis area (approximately 3.6 million acres) rather than the specific treatment areas described in 2012’s scoping report (31,300 acres). This increased area of analysis means treatment would not be limited to only high use areas and those areas where weeds are documented.

Another change includes an increase in the maximum number of acres proposed for treatment to 200 acres/year or 2,000 acres over the 10-year life of the project (up from 60 acres/year; 600 acres total). A reason for this change is to address the concern that the districts may miss out on unexpected funds for weed treatments if the treatment acre cap is too small. Increasing the yearly cap also provides more flexibility in the year-to-year management of weeds.

3. Purpose and Need There is a need to eradicate, control or contain known weed infestations; provide a mechanism to allow quick detection and rapid response to changing and/or new weed infestations; and protect non-infested areas from future introduction or spread of weeds from existing sites. Weeds are still restricted in extent on the Tongass National Forest (compared to the rest of National Forest System lands in the lower 48 states); therefore, there is an opportunity to proactively limit their growth on the landscape. Most of the known weed infestations occur in developed areas, such as,

Page 7

along roadsides and at administrative sites, rock pits and recreation areas. Weeds are also documented in wilderness areas on both districts.

The purpose of this project is to eradicate or control known weed infestations and treat new infestations, when detected, in an efficient and cost-effective manner that complies with environmental standards. This would move us toward the desired future condition stated in the Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (2008) on p.2-1,

“Viable populations of native and desired nonnative species and their habitat are maintained and are not threatened by invasive species….”

Also, the following Forest Plan Goals and Objectives would be addressed,

Biodiversity Goal (p. 2-4), “Maintain ecosystems capable of supporting the full range of native and desired nonnative species and ecological processes. Maintain a mix of representative habitats at different spatial and temporal scales.”

Objective (c), “Manage the Forest in order to reduce, minimize, or eliminate the potential for introduction, establishment, spread, and impact of invasive species.”

This project will also work toward maintaining Wilderness quality objectives as per the Forest Plan,

Wilderness Goal (p. 2-8), “Manage designated Wilderness to maintain an enduring wilderness resource while providing for the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use, as provided in the Wilderness Act of 1964 and ANILCA.”

Objective, “Preserve and perpetuate biodiversity. Inventory and reduce or eliminate invasive species in Wilderness.”

4. Proposed Action The proposed action uses integrated weed management including manual treatments (e.g., hand pulling and tarping), mechanical treatments, and herbicides to eradicate, control, or contain populations of weeds on the Wrangell and Petersburg Districts of the Tongass National Forest. A treatment “cap” of 200 acres per year, with no more than 2,000 acres treated during the 10-year life of the project, is proposed. The acreage caps are not targets; they are part of the project design to limit treatment acres, while allowing for flexibility when faced with unpredictable yearly funding levels, treatment of currently unidentified infestations using the adaptive management tool Early Detection Rapid Response (EDRR), and to account for ongoing treatments needed in areas that have previously received treatment. Newly infested acres, as well as re-treated acres (typically successful treatment of infestations takes a minimum of two years) would be counted annually.

Prioritization of treatment is proposed to occur annually using a decision framework that provides a consistent process to determine priorities for treatment of target weeds and the selection of treatment methods. For example, some weeds are not considered “highly invasive” (e.g., clover or common plantain) and may only be treated in sensitive areas such as wilderness; however, when located along a roadside they may be tolerated and not treated at all. Alternatively, other weed species considered “invasive” (e.g., reed canarygrass or orange hawkweed) may be treated while its population is small and manageable in a riparian area, but may be tolerated as a large

Page 8

infestation along a roadside and not treated at all. This flexibility is needed to effectively evaluate the priorities of managing any weed plant population within the project area.

To help evaluate the effects of the proposed action on the natural resources within both districts, weed data (species, location, extent) is organized by 6th Level Hydrologic Units (HUCs) (see Figure 2). At the HUC (i.e., watershed) scale, site types have been identified. Site types represent where most known infestations occur, and are typically high-use areas where future infestations are expected (i.e., along roadsides, recreation areas, rock pits, etc.) and are likely locations for vectors to pick up seeds or propagules for transport to other high-use areas. Table 3 lists the selected site types and their common vectors.

Table 3. Site types and common vectors.

Site Type Common Vectors

Roadside Vehicles and road maintenance actions

Administrative sites, campgrounds, cabins

Recreation users, visitors, Forest employees

Wetlands Water

Trails (including trailheads)

Recreation users, vehicles at trailhead parking areas

Forest Logging activity

Marine Access Facilities Vehicles and dispersed material from infested areas

Rock pits Vehicles and dispersed material from infested areas

Streams and floodplains Water, mineral soil exposure

Estuaries Water, mineral soil exposure

Glyphosate, aminopyralid and imazapyr, three herbicides with different chemical properties and modes of action (how the herbicide kills the plant), were selected for this project and will be included in the suite of control methods analyzed. Herbicide use is proposed using only ground-based methods, such as spot and selective hand spraying which targets individuals and groups of plants, based on accessibility, topography, and size of infestation (no aerial or broadcast application is proposed).

Mulching, seeding and planting of desirable vegetation may occur to restore treated sites. In addition, existing prevention measures detailed in FSM 2080 Region 10 Tongass National Forest 2000-2007-1 (Noxious Weed Management) would be ongoing and a part of the weed management strategy. Annual monitoring of selected treatment sites would evaluate the effectiveness of the treatment method and possibly modify the management strategy, including the method and type of continued or follow-up treatments needed.

Project design features will be applied during implementation to minimize or eliminate the potential for weed treatments to adversely affect non-target plants, animals, human health, water quality, and aquatic organisms.

Page 9

Figure 2. Map delineations all the HUCs within the project area and highlights those with weed infestations.

Page 10

Page intentionally left blank.

Page 11

5. Description of Preliminary Alternatives The following preliminary alternatives were developed based on input from the interdisciplinary team and the public.

Alternative 1 – No-Action Under the No-Action Alternative, none of the activities proposed in the action alternatives would be implemented. The No-Action Alternative would not preclude future weed management in the project area. This alternative represents the existing condition and expected future conditions (in the absence of treatments proposed in this project) and serves as a baseline to compare the effects between alternatives.

Alternative 2 – Integrated Weed Management, Including Herbicides This alternative proposes an integrated weed management approach, using all available treatment methods (manual, mechanical and chemical) in combination with an early detection and rapid response (EDRR) system of treatment within the project area. It is designed to provide a framework for decision making and treatment strategies of existing and new infestations for the next 10 years. From this framework, site specific treatment prescriptions would be developed for priority infestations on an annual basis. Site specific prescriptions would include the eradication, control or containment of existing and new infestations of target weed species. The number of entries into the same area would vary by weed species.

Herbicide treatments would be applied in accordance with label advisories, USDA Forest Service policies, Forest Plan management direction, human health and ecological risk assessments, and applicable design features identified in this document. These specific design features would be applied to minimize or eliminate the potential for weed management to adversely affect non-target plants, animals, human health, water quality, and aquatic organisms. All herbicides considered under the proposed action have human health and ecological risk assessments that are posted on the Forest Service website (http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/risk.shtml).

The number of acres proposed for treatment within the project area is based on the current inventory of non-native plants on both Districts, which totals about 1,184 acres. Though many of these populations are important to treat, the sheer number and distribution of sites, coupled with yearly funding fluctuations make priority-setting a difficult task. For this reason, specific infestations selected for treatment would be analyzed yearly through an implementation planning process and are therefore not included as a NEPA decision. An annual treatment plan will be required to determine the program of work each year.

Alternative 3 – Integrated Weed Management without Herbicides Alternative 3 was developed in response to a comment received during the 2012 scoping. The individual was concerned that herbicides could have an adverse effect on aquatic organisms, humans and animals. The alternative is a reasonable alternative to the proposed action because it could possibly fulfill the purpose and need (dependent on staffing and funding) and addresses un-resolved conflicts related to the proposed action. This alternative would be the same as Alternative 2, other than it would remove herbicides as an option from the treatment methods.

Page 12

6. Scope of the Decision Following this comment period and the completion of the environmental analysis, the District Rangers will determine whether the proposed project’s alternatives could result in a significant impact. If there is a finding of no significant impact, the rangers will select an alternative that best meets the Purpose and Need and addresses the Issues raised during the public process.

7. Glossary of Terms Handpulling - Removal of individual plants, by pulling them out of the soil by hand or with the

assistance of tools.

Tarping/solarizing- This measure would employ use of an impermeable cover, such as black plastic or tarp.

Mechanical treatments - Mechanical treatments include moving, brushing, and weed-whacking to remove above ground vegetation of plants.

Spot spraying - Herbicide treatment using a backpack sprayer or other means. Application is aimed at the target plant, with methods to prevent (such as barriers) and control damage to non-target species.

Selective application - Herbicide treatment of individual plants through wicking, wiping, stem injection, etc.