Environmental Assessment - a123.g.akamai.neta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai... · 3.4 MIS.…… ... (involving about 535 acres) ... Scoping notice

United States

Department

of

Agriculture

Forest

Service

February

2013

Environmental Assessment FY13 Longleaf Pine Release Project

Winn Ranger District, Kisatchie National Forest

Winn & Natchitoches Parishes, Louisiana

Present Condition:

Desired Condition:

For Information Contact: Charles M Graziadei

12319 State Highway 84 West

Winnfield, LA 71483

(318) 628-4664

FY13 Longleaf Pine Release Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER: 1

INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………….………..……........1

1.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………...1

1.2 Sub-Management Areas………………………………………………………....................1

1.3 Purpose and Need for Action……………………………………………..………………..2

1.4 Proposed Action……………………………………………………..……………………..2

1.5 Decision Framework……………………………………………..………………………...2

1.6 Public Involvement…………………………………………………….…………………..2

CHAPTER: 2

ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION………….………………………3

2.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………...3

2.2 Alternatives………………………………………………………………….……………..3

2.3 Design Criteria Common to All Alternatives…………………………………….………..3

2.4 Comparison of Alternatives……………………………………………………….……… 3

CHAPTER: 3

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES………………4

3.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………..4

3.2 Vegetation (Including Threatened, Endangered, and Invasive Plant Species)...……….....5

3.3 Wildlife and Fish (Including General and Game, Threatened/Endangered,

Sensitive/Candidate, Conservation, and Invasive Plant Species)………………………...5

3.4 MIS.………..…………………………………………………………………….………..6

3.5 Soil and Water…………………………………………………………………………….6

3.6 Recreation and Scenic Integrity…………………………………………………..………7

3.7 Heritage Resources…………………………………………………………….…………7

3.8 Transportation…………………………………………………………………………….7

3.9 Human Health and Safety………………………………………………………………...7

FY13 Longleaf Pine Release Page ii

3.10 Social and Economics………………………………………………………………….7

3.11 Environmental Justice………………………………………………………………….8

3.12 Summary of Unavoidable Adverse Effects…………………………………………….8

3.13 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources……………………………...8

3.14 Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity………………………………………….8

3.15 Climate Change………………………………………………………………………...9

CHAPTER: 4

DIRECT, INDIRECT, AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS SUMMARY………………….........9

4.1 Alternative 1……………………………………………………………………………..9

4.2 Alternative 2……………………………………………………………………………..9

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION…………………………….…………………...12

LITERATURE CITED………………………..……………………………………………….13

APPENDICES

Biological Resource Request.…………………………………………..……......Appendix A

Botanical Request……………………………………...…………….…………...Appendix B

Heritage Request…………..……………………………………...……………...Appendix C

Maps……………………………………………………………………………...Appendix D

The U.S. Department (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national

origin, sex, religion, age, disability, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, status as a parent (in education and

training programs and activities), because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance

program, or retaliation. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs or activities). If you require this information in

alternative format (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.), contact the USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (Voice or

TDD). If you require information about this program, activity, or facility in a language other than English, contact the

agency office responsible for the program or activity, or any USDA office.

To file a complaint alleging discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue,

S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call toll free, (866) 632-9992 (Voice). TDD users can contact USDA through

local relay or the Federal relay at (800) 877-8339 (TDD) or (800) 845-6136 (in Spanish). USDA is an equal opportunity

provider, employer, and lender.

FY13 Longleaf Pine Release Page 1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

The Winn Ranger District is proposing the use of chemical herbicides and chainsaws to release young

Longleaf Pine stands (involving about 535 acres) in various locations across the District. The FY13

Longleaf Pine Release project would be conducted within the following administrative

Compartments/Stands: 4/6, 10/9, 22/19, 23/30, 28/25, 33/10, 36/27, 48/27, 61/10, 63/23, 64/22,

65/12, 68/28, 68/31, 69/1, 79/2, and 115/42 (Table 1). See maps in appendix D for locations.

These stands were regenerated according to the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

(Forest Management Plan) as part of a Longleaf Pine restoration effort.

1.2 Sub-Management Areas (SMA)

1C

This SMA emphasizes producing and sustaining a high level of a mixture of commodity outputs.

Provide other resources a moderate level of protection during management activities. The overstory

vegetation on a large majority of the area consists primarily of pine stands which may contain up to

30 percent hardwoods. There are numerous pine regeneration areas, up to 40 acres in size, scattered

throughout the landscape. These areas are primarily seed-trees and shelterwoods where a variable

amount of overstory pine is initially maintained to provide a seed source for the regenerating stand.

3BL

This SMA emphasizes restoration of native, fire dependent Longleaf Pine communities in an

intermediate time period while providing a moderate level of protection of other resources.

Vegetation patterns are primarily a product of frequent prescribed fire, Longleaf restoration harvests

and Longleaf stand improvement practices which result in many large openings in an open pine

canopy. Restoration includes maintaining areas of existing longleaf pine and associated ground cover

while restoring those areas currently dominated by off-site species back to Longleaf pine

communities. Longleaf restoration harvests result in many large openings scattered throughout the

area. Small openings occur as a result of prescribed fire. As a result of frequent prescribed fire, the

landscape is composed of relatively open park-like pine stands eventually dominated by native, fire

dependent Longleaf Pine communities. Many large longleaf restoration areas of up to 80 acres are

scattered throughout the landscape.

Compartments Stands Acres Age Management Area Remarks

4 6 26 2 5CL Competing Understory

10 9 18 3 5CL Competing Understory 22 19 58 10 5CL Competing Understory 23 30 16 2 5CL Competing Understory 28 25 25 11 3BL Competing Understory 33 10 36 12 3BL Competing Understory 36 27 33 5 5CL Competing Understory 48 27 34 7 3BL Competing Understory 61 10 17 11 3BL Competing Understory 63 23 17 7 5CS Competing Understory 64 22 29 12 5CS Competing Understory 65 12 30 10 5CL Competing Understory 68 28 77 12 5CL Competing Understory 68 31 32 2 5CL Competing Understory 69 1 10 7 5CL Competing Understory 79 2 43 12 1C Competing Understory

115 42 34 3 5CL Competing Understory

Table 1: Proposed treatment locations.


5CL

This SMA emphasizes the management of RCW habitat and restoring native, fire dependent Longleaf

Pine communities in an extended time period. Vegetation patterns are primarily a product of frequent

prescribed fire, Longleaf Pine restoration harvests and RCW habitat improvement practices producing

scattered, moderate openings in an open pine canopy. Restoration entails maintaining Longleaf and its

associated ground cover, while restoring areas now dominated by off-site species to Longleaf

communities over an extended period. As a result of frequent prescribed fire, the landscape is

composed of relatively open, park-like pine stands eventually dominated by native, fire dependent

longleaf communities. The native ground cover is continuous: herbaceous plants dominated by

grasses, composites, legumes and other forbs. Moderate Longleaf restoration areas up to 40 acres are

scattered throughout the landscape.

5CS

This SMA emphasizes management of RCW habitat and restoring native Shortleaf Pine / Oak-

Hickory (SOH) communities in an extended time period. Vegetation patterns are primarily a product

of infrequent prescribed fire, SOH restoration harvests and RCW habitat improvement practices

which result in scattered, moderate sized openings in the forest canopy. Restoration includes

maintaining areas of existing SOH while restoring those areas currently dominated by off-site species

back to SOH communities over an extended period of time. Small openings may occur as a result of

prescribed fire. Fire frequency is increased on those areas providing RCW cluster site and foraging

habitat. To improve RCW habitat conditions within restoration areas, allow thinning where clumps of

retained dominant or co-dominant shortleaf pine exceed 70 square feet of basal area per acre.

1.3 Purpose and Need for Action

The project is needed to reduce competition in young Longleaf Pine restoration stands from

competing vegetation, such as Loblolly Pine and various hardwood/understory species. This project

would limit the competition to Longleaf Pine seedlings and saplings by reducing stress which can

lead to higher rates of mortality and damage.

1.4 Proposed Action

These Longleaf Pine stands are proposed to be released by using one or more of the following

herbicides; Triclopyr, Imazapyr, and Glyphosate (per herbicide label instructions, and consistent with

Forest Service regulations and guidelines), as well as possible chainsaw release. This treatment

should inhibit the competing vegetation, release the young Longleaf Pine trees, and allow for better

growth, which will improve the overall health and condition of the Longleaf Pine stands.

1.5 Decision Framework

The responsible official (in this case the District Ranger) reviews the proposed action, the project

record, and other alternative(s) in order to make one of the following decisions:

Select all or part of the proposed actions with specified design criteria.

Select all or part of an alternative to the proposed actions with specified design criteria.

Take no action (i.e., no treatment of the Longleaf pine stands).

1.6 Public Involvement

Scoping notice of the proposal and opportunity to comment was provided to the public and other

agencies for 30 days beginning September 26, 2012, when the Legal Notice was published in the

Winn Parish Enterprise. In addition, as part of the public involvement process, on September 26,

2012, the agency mailed a scoping letter to interested parties on the Winn Ranger District scoping list.

Three parties responded with supportive comments during the public involvement period. These were

the only comments received concerning this project. No potentially significant issues were identified

to address in the EA analysis. The project was entered into Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) on

December 18, 2012.


CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

2.1 Introduction This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the FY13 Longleaf Pine Release

Project. It includes a description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives considered. This section

also presents the alternatives in comparative form, sharply defining the differences between each

alternative and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision maker. Some of the

information used to compare the alternatives may be based upon the design of the alternative and

some of the information based upon the environmental, social and economic effects of implementing

each alternative.

2.2 Alternatives

Alternative 1

No Action

Under the No Action alternative, there would be no treatments to the competing understory, and it

would likely harm the Longleaf Pine restoration efforts because of stress. This alternative serves as a

baseline for all other alternatives.

Alternative 2

The Proposed Action

The Winn RD proposes treating Longleaf pine stands per herbicide label instructions, along with

possible chainsaw release. This should reduce competing vegetation and prevent further or future

destruction to trees. Future treatments would take place if treatments fail to fully address the issue or

new treatments become necessary within the 5 years of decision implementation.

2.3 Associated Documents and Design Criteria

In response to interdisciplinary input regarding the proposal, design criteria were identified which

address some of the potential social or environmental impacts which may be caused by various

alternatives. The design criteria may be applied to any of the action alternatives.

Implement applicable Standards and Guidelines, found in Chapters 2 and 3 of the Forest Plan (as

amended).

Vegetation Management, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Record of Decision.

Pesticide/ Herbicide Label instructions.

Wear appropriate Personal Protective Equipment when applying herbicides.

2.4 Comparison of Alternatives

This section provides a summary of the effects of implementing each alternative. Information in table

2 is focused on activities and effects where different levels of effects or outputs can be distinguished

quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives.


Table 2: Comparison of Alternatives.

Activity/Effect Alternative 1

(No Action)

Alternative 2

(Proposed Action)

Protection of Louisiana

Pine Snake (Y/N) No Change Possible Indirect Effect

Protection of other

Sensitive species (Y/N) No Change No Change

Cultural Resources

affected (#) 0 0

Public safety adversely

affected? (Y/N) N N

Recreational

opportunities curtailed?

(Y/N)

N N

Access to private lands

limited? (Y/N) No change No change

Soil, water, vegetation

effects

(See ―Environmental

Consequences‖ section,

below)

(See Environmental

Consequences‖ section,

below)

Wildlife harassment or

disruption of habitat?

(Y/N)

No change Minor, Short-Term

Effect

Conflicts with NFS land

use (ROS)? (Y/N) N N

Acres Treated 0 535

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

3.1 Introduction

This section discloses in more detail the effects of each alternative on resources. It also forms the

scientific basis for comparing the alternatives in consideration of the best available science. Effects

can be positive or negative depending on the resource perspective and desired future condition.

Effects can be direct, indirect or cumulative. Direct effects occur at the time and place as the actions

that cause them. Their causes are usually obvious. Indirect effects occur at a later time or a different

place than the actions that cause them. Their causes are not obvious and may stem from effects on

other environmental elements. Cumulative effects are the combined effects of these actions with

those of other past, present and future actions. Cumulative effects can be on-site (confined to the

project area) or outside-site (outside the project area). Effects on vegetation, cultural resources or

soils are chiefly on-site. Effects on water and air quality or wildlife and fish are commonly outside-

site.


3.2 Vegetation (Including Threatened, Endangered, and Invasive Plant Species)

General Vegetation These stands were recently harvested between the years of 1998 and 2010, and have been replanted

back as Longleaf Pine between the years of 2000 and 2012, as part of a Longleaf Pine restoration

effort.

TESC Species

There are no known TESC (federally threatened or endangered, regional forester’s sensitive, and

Forest conservation) plants known to be present at the project area sites. There are no known rare

plant habitats at the sites. Therefore, treating the Longleaf Pine stands with herbicide would have no

known effects on any TESC species. Botanical Surveys were completed in the project area. No

sensitive or conservation plant species were found. No significant populations of non-native invasive

species (NNIS) were found. It is expected that none of the 81 sensitive or conservation plant species

on the Kisatchie National Forest will occur in the project area and no trend towards federal listing or a

loss of viability is expected to result from the proposed actions. 68 of these species have been

excluded because they do not occur or are outside their known range of the project area. The other 13

species were evaluated in the Botanical Report. (For a complete evaluation of TESC Species see

Appendix B).

Alternative 1 – There would likely be competing vegetation throughout the stands that would

continue to cause mortality to or damage to Longleaf Pine. There should be no direct effects. Sites

with suitable habitat for TESC species are located in stands managed for Longleaf that will be

maintained to some extent by continued prescribed burning. There could be adverse indirect effects.

Fire alone is not adequate to preserve suitable habitat within the project area, which is overgrown

with pines, hardwoods, and brush. There could be adverse cumulative effects. Habitat for TESC

plants is limited and shrinking. Their numbers could continue to decline significantly. Therefore,

implementation of this alternative is likely to result in a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability.

Alternative 2 – Longleaf Pine seedling survival and chances of restoration would greatly increase by

release. The competing vegetation would be treated and reduced from the area. There could be

adverse direct effects. If TESC plants are present within the project area, they may be damaged or

destroyed by herbicide use. There could be both adverse and beneficial indirect effects. Reproduction

could be temporarily reduced in injured plants. However, the proposed action would restore and

maintain sandy woodland and xeric longleaf pine forest habitat within the project area, thus

increasing suitable habitat for this species. There should be beneficial cumulative effects. A

substantial amount of suitable habitat for this plant would be improved. Therefore, implementation of

this alternative may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of

viability for this species.

3.3 Wildlife and Fish

There are no known TESC (federally threatened or endangered, regional forester’s sensitive, and

Forest conservation) wildlife known to be present at the project area sites. The treatments could be

potentially favorable, by creating and improving present and future habitat for the Louisiana Pine

Snake and the Red-cockaded Woodpecker (RCW). The Pine Snake is listed as Sensitive by R8 USFS,

and is a Candidate for the Endangered Species list by the USFWS. The RCW has been on the

Endangered Species list since 1970. (A biological assessment of the project area was completed and

can be reviewed in Appendix A).


Alternative 1 – No change from current conditions or trends. No direct, indirect or cumulative effects

would occur beyond the current.

Alternative 2 – Triclopyr is highly toxic to aquatic vertebrates and practically non-toxic to terrestrial

animals. Glyphosate is moderately toxic to aquatic vertebrates and practically non-toxic to terrestrial

animals. Imazapyr is practically non-toxic to aquatic and terrestrial animals. The biological

evaluation after analysis of possible effects is that the proposed action would have no effect on

wildlife or fish if label instructions, FS regulations and guidelines are followed to prevent chemicals

from entering water.

3.4 Management Indicator Species (MIS)

The Forest Service has collected population data specifically for MIS for Kisatchie National Forest

(MIS Report) as part of the Forest Plan and FEIS (USDA Forest Service 1999a, 1999b, Wagner et al.

2001). To estimate the effects of each alternative on fish and wildlife populations, the Forest Plan

identified certain vertebrate and/or invertebrate species present in the area as MIS.

Population trends for all Forest MIS are monitored at the Forest Plan level and reported annually in

the Forest’s Monitoring and Evaluation Report. Annual Forest-wide validation monitoring evaluated

the cumulative effects of planned actions combined with past management actions on MIS population

trends and provides a context for evaluating the effects of management on future MIS trends.

Alternative 1 & 2 – No change from current conditions or trends. No direct, indirect or cumulative

effects would occur beyond the current.

3.5 Soil and Water

The Winn Ranger District is located in the Outer Coastal Plain Mixed Forest Plains and Flatwoods

Western Gulf Section (See FEIS, p.3-4) and within the Winn Rolling Uplands Land-type Association

(LTA). The soils that would be affected are Sacul and Boykin soils.

Effects of Herbicide Chemicals on Soils and Water

The chemical Imazapyr can enter the soil, but lateral and vertical movement is limited. It persists in

soil up to 12 months depending on soil type, amount used, and weather. It may affect nearby desirable

plants outside the treated area which have roots growing into the treated zone. The chemical

Glyphosate has practically no leaching tendency because it binds tightly to soil. In soil, it is highly

susceptible to degradation by micro-organisms, being converted to natural products such as carbon

dioxide and water. Persistence in soils is about 2 months or less. In soil, the chemical Triclopyr is not

highly mobile. It is rapidly broken down by soil micro-organisms and ultraviolet light, persisting an

average of 30-56 days depending on soils and weather. Its half-life in water is about 10 hours at 72°F.



Alternative 2 – Using these chemicals would likely have no direct or indirect effects on the site.

Cumulative effects could result from continued use by changing the chemical properties of the soils

and water. The overall topography of these stands, are flat, with only 1-5 % slope. There will be a 100

foot buffer from the edge of any perennial streams within or adjacent to treatment areas, and a 33 foot

buffer on any other types of streams within or adjacent to treatment areas. This will allow the

herbicide to be broken down before entering streams. A loss of fish could occur, if these chemicals

were to enter streams.


3.6 Recreation and Scenic Integrity

Existing recreation use on the Winn Ranger District consists of hunting, fishing, canoeing, dispersed

recreation, trail riding, and scenic viewing. Alternative 1 & 2 – No change from current conditions or trends. No direct, indirect or cumulative


3.7 Heritage Resources

To ensure that important historic and prehistoric sites are not damaged, all forestry management

actions are coordinated though the Louisiana State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) (VM-FEIS,

Volume 1, pages IV-17; Forest Plan, pages 2-19). In obtaining concurrence from the SHPO for these

actions, areas subject to disturbance are surveyed prior to the implementation of any ground

disturbing activities to ensure that no unknown historical or archaeological sites exist in the affected

area. In the event that any additional heritage resource site is discovered during forest management

activities, all work at that location is immediately suspended and the District Archaeologist is

contacted. A qualified archaeologist (48FR 44716) evaluates the site before work is allowed to

continue (36CFR 800.11). The proposed action can be categorically exempt from further review

under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The project conforms to

Categorical Exemption #8: Pesticide/ Herbicide spray.



3.8 Transportation



3.9 Human Health and Safety

In this very rural forest setting, the potential for human exposure to the herbicides are very low.

Warning signs will be posted to notify the people they are entering an herbicide use area.



Alternative 2 – The treated stands will have warning treatment signs posted in the affected areas,

before, during, and up to 48 hours after treatments in order to notify the public of any potential

hazards. Hazards related to the use of herbicides are not anticipated.

3.10 Social and Economics

National Forest management affects the economics of the local communities and citizens of Winn,

Natchitoches, and Grant Parish. Economic benefits come from both consumptive and non-

consumptive use. Consumptive use includes hunting, fishing, and the sale of forest products and jobs

related to logging and post-harvesting contracting activities such as reforestation projects. Benefits

also occur from the processing of the material from sales and jobs generated by the timber program in

the surrounding area. Timber sales provide jobs directly to loggers and processors and indirectly to

others through multiplier effects. Non-consumptive use may include recreational activities such as

bird-watching, hiking, camping, OHV riding, horseback-riding, and sightseeing. Benefits from these

activities are not directly associated with the specific activity, but come from multiplier effects within

the community.


Alternative 1– No change from current conditions or trends. No direct, indirect or cumulative effects


Alternative 2 – Contract crews would be used for treating some or all of the acres. These crews tend

to be non-local and would generate local income for hotels, dining, and merchants.

3.11 Environmental Justice

Winn, Natchitoches, and Grant Parishes are located in central Louisiana. They cover approximately

1,868,050 acres. The Winn Ranger District covers approximately 165,000 acres or 8.8% of those

parishes totaled. The current (November 2012) unemployment rate is 6.5% for the parishes, compared

to 5.8% for the state of Louisiana and 7.7% for the USA. In 2010, the population of the three parishes

together was 77,188 with over half (39,566) being in Natchitoches Parish. Data from 2010 indicates

that the population of the three parishes together is made up of 68% white, 29% black and 3% other.

All documents and notices related to this proposed project were understandable and readily accessible

to all segments of the public. See Section ―CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION‖ for a list of

people contacted. Notices were placed in the Winn Parish Enterprise, which is the paper of record

detailing proposed actions.

Alternative 1 & 2 – No change from current conditions or trends. This alternative would not have

disproportionate environmental effects on minority populations and low-income populations. No

direct, indirect or cumulative effects would occur beyond the current.

3.12 Summary of Unavoidable Adverse Effects

This section summarizes the unavoidable adverse impacts. Only those resources with adverse impacts

are discussed.



Alternative 2 – Treatments would kill or top kill vegetation, which would lead to color changes of

leaves/ needles, demonstrating a short term loss in scenic integrity.

3.13 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

An irreversible commitment causes the permanent loss of non-renewable resources, including energy

minerals, such as petroleum products (FEIS, RLRMP, Chapter 4, pages 4-132 and 4-133). There

would be no irreversible commitment of resources in either alternative in this EA. An irretrievable

commitment consigns the management of an area to a single purpose resulting in the loss of

production or use of other resources. None of the proposed alternatives stresses management of one

resource to the detriment of others.

3.14 Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity

The Kisatchie National Forest is managed to protect the long-term productivity of the land. Most

management activities and resource outputs are short-term uses (FEIS, RLRMP, Chapter 4, page 4-

132). The design criteria required for each action alternative reduce or eliminate adverse effects on

long-term productivity by protecting resources. Monitoring requirements (RLRMP, Chapter 5, pages

5-1 o 5-13) ensure that short-term uses do not impair the long-term productivity of the land.


3.15 Climate Change

Climate change is an emerging issue for the Forest Service because of its potential impacts to forests

and grasslands, and the effects of impacts on these resources and/or the human environment. The

agency has begun to consider climate change in policies, program guidance, and communications.

Climate change may affect a proposed project directly through alteration of regional climate regime,

or indirectly through the imposition of new policies or actions by agencies in response to climate

change.

Currently, the Forest Service does not have an accepted tool for analyzing all greenhouse gas

emissions. As greenhouse gas emissions are integrated across the global atmosphere, it is not possible

to determine the impact on global climate from emissions associated with any number of particular

projects. Nor is it expected that such disclosure would provide a practical or meaningful effects

analysis for project decisions. While climate model simulators are continuing to be developed and

refined, climate model projections do not currently have the capability of providing reliable predictive

simulations of effects at the higher resolution (i.e., smaller geographic scale) needed for project-level

analysis.



CHAPTER 4: Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects Summary

4.1 Alternative 1

The condition of the Longleaf Pine seedlings would remain the same. No use of herbicides would be

used under this alternative. Longleaf Pine seedlings survival would depend on the prescribed burning

that would continue on a 2-5 year cycle under the district fire program. Dormant season prescribed

burning would not effectively control herbaceous competition. Seedlings might increase in height, but

a majority would not. Early growing season prescribed burns have a greater chance of success with

less seedling mortality than late growing season burns.

Without the necessary steps to improve conditions for the desired future condition of these young

stands, the current conditions would remain the same for a while but eventually areas would become

overcome with herbaceous and woody competition and successful Longleaf restoration could not be

assured. Also, desirable plants and grasses associated with the Longleaf Pine ecosystem would not be

attained.

4.2 Alternative 2

Implementing alternative 2 would reduce the competition from undesirable species and enhance the

herbaceous understory for the desired future condition of the Longleaf Pine ecosystem.

Forest Service policy requires that only registered pesticides/ herbicides be used on National Forest

land, and that the pesticide/ herbicide must be used according to the requirements and instructions

(labeling). Imazapyr, Glyphosate, and Triclopyr are the herbicides proposed for use in this project.

The effects and use of herbicides proposed in this project are described below.


Imazapyr is used for control of weeds, grasses, and woody plants in forest management

including the actions of site preparation and release. It is also labeled for weed control under

pavement at industrial sites and rights-of-way. Methods of application include cut-surface

treatments, foliar spray, and basal bark spraying. Imazapyr is absorbed through foliage and

roots and is rapidly moved throughout the plant. Imazapyr accumulates in growing tips of

plants where it inhibits amino acid synthesis. It affects susceptible species slowly, yellowing

newest leaves first and then spreading throughout the plant. Imazapyr, photodegrades, and to

a lesser extent, biodegrades. Imazapyr has minimal effect on soil microflora (USDA, Forest

Service, Forestry Use Pesticides, 2007).

Glyphosate is commonly used in agriculture and as a home-use product. It controls a broad

range of grasses, weeds, and woody brush species. It is also registered for control of grass

and weeds in recreational areas, schools, parking lots, other public grounds, and for non-crop

areas, forests and silvicultural sites. Glyphosate is used in forest management for site

preparation and release. Methods of application include cut-surface treatments and foliar

spray. Glyphosate is readily absorbed by foliage and primarily affects plants by disrupting

photosynthetic processes. (USDA, Forest Service, Forestry Use Pesticides, 2007).

Triclopyr is a broad-spectrum herbicide originally developed for control of vegetation along

utility rights-of-way and on industrial sites. In forest managemnt, it is labeled for site

preparation and release. Methods of application include cut-surface treatments, foliar spray,

and basal bark spray. Triclopyr is primarily absorbed by plant leaves and is readily moved

throughout the plant. It affects plants by interfering with normal growth processes. (USDA,

Forest Service, Forestry Use Pesticides, 2007).

Herbicides and application methods would be chosen to minimize risk to human and wildlife health

and the environment. Herbicides would be applied at the lowest rate effective in meeting project

objectives. Method and timing of application would be chosen to achieve project objectives while

minimizing effects on non-target vegetation and other environmental elements.

Areas would not be prescribed burned for at least 30 days after herbicide treatment.

To control drift, the weather would be monitored and the project suspended if temperature, humidity,

or wind become unfavorable and nozzles would be used that produce large droplets or streams of

herbicides. Table 3 discusses unfavorable conditions for the use of herbicides.

Table 3: Unfavorable Conditions.

Temperature higher than Humidity less than Wind greater than

Ground Application Hand (other) 98ºF 20% 15 mph Mechanical (liquid) 95ºF 30% 10 mph

Herbicide applications would reduce competition within the treated area. All vegetation could be

killed or injured, depending on the selectivity of the herbicide, application method and the type of

vegetation (FEIS, RLRMP, Chapter 4, page 4-30).

Once established, Longleaf Pine is a low risk tree to manage. In addition to its tolerance of fire, the

species is resistant to many of the more serious insects and diseases that afflict the other southern

pines. Release treatments, which involve herbicides, are reported to be highly effective in improving

growth of desired pine.


Herbicidal treatments that eliminate competing species improve the residual stand vigor and quality.

Herbicides produce more lengthy residual effects on target vegetation and plant species richness than

either manual cutting or burning. (FEIS, RLRMP, Chapter 4, page 4-30)

Landscape rehabilitation typically demands a full array of forest vegetation management tools

including herbicides. Application of selective herbicides may be required for extensive landscape

restorations to accelerate forest canopy development, to protect fragile sites, reverse or prevent

invasion of exotic species, enhance aesthetics and reclaim critical habitat.

The characteristics of Longleaf Pine make it highly adaptable to a range of management goals and

silvicultural systems. This timber type is well adapted to multiple-use management because of the

many forest products it supplies, the forage is produces, the wildlife it supports and the recreation

uses it affords.

Herbicides produce more lengthy residual effects on target vegetation and plant species richness than

either manual cutting or burning. Applications can be used to maintain or build diversity. Release

treatments accelerate succession by helping the target species (Longleaf Pine) dominate the site

sooner. Using herbicidal treatments to eliminate competing species improves stand vigor and quality.

Herbaceous weed control, by increasing water and nutrients available to pine seedlings, will generate

significant increases in survival and growth of pine seedlings. Herbicidal release can be the difference

between successful or unsuccessful pine planting.

By eliminating competing weeds and hardwoods by the use of herbicides, the seedlings have a better

opportunity to grow and compete for sunlight, moisture and nutrients. This in turn increases seedling

survival and growth resulting in larger and healthier trees. These stands would improve the habitat for

the Longleaf Pine ecosystem and become future habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker.

Environmentally safe, selective application herbicide treatments can be adapted to manage habitats

and direct succession toward desired future conditions within the principles of ecosystem

management (Ecosystem Management and our National Forests-is there a role for forest herbicides,

1994 Proceedings, Southern Weed Science Society).

Herbicides, in concert with other vegetation management treatments such as prescribed fire, can play

a vital role in creating and managing habitat. Fire is an essential component of the restoration and

management of the Longleaf Pine ecosystem. Fire is an important element in establishing the species

and is a critical component for achieving and maintaining the biologically diverse understory that is

characteristic of the ecosystem (Longleaf Pine Ecosystem Restoration: The Role of Fire, James P.

Barnett, USDA Forest Service, Pineville, LA).

Some of the areas proposed for treatment are within areas planned for prescribed burning during the

proposed implementation period (District-wide Prescribed Burning Program EA). The cumulative

effects to the areas treated from additional prescribed burning may include additional loss of some

woody and herbaceous plant species within the young Longleaf stands. This additional loss would

reduce seedling competition within the stands. The additional effects of prescribed burning may also

reduce the occurrence of brown spot on young, grass stage seedlings. In addition, the areas being

proposed for treatment with herbicide and prescribed fire in this EA may need several years in order

to redevelop sufficient fuels to carry another prescribed fire over the same area. These areas would be

re-evaluated after burning to ensure herbicide release was still required.


CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes and

non-Forest Service persons during the development of this environmental assessment:

ID TEAM MEMBERS:

Gregory Cohrs - District Ranger

Brian Rudd - I D Team Leader

Charles Graziadei – Prescription Forester

Al Brazzel - Biological

Barbara Poole - Recreation/Lands

Daniel Cain - Archaeological

Dave Moore - Botanical

FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES:

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service-Ms. Monica Sikes

State of Louisiana SHPO-Dr. Charles McGimsey

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries-Mr. Fred Hagaman, Amity Bass

Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry-Mr. Dan Armstrong

Winn Parish School Board-Mr. Steve Bartlett

Winn Parish Police Jury-Mr. Jack McFarland

Natchitoches Parish School Board

Natchitoches Parish Police Jury

Grant Parish School Board

Grant Parish Police Jury

Mayor of Goldonna-Ms. Verna Bedgood

Mayor of Calvin-Mr. Jeff Canerday

Mayor of Georgetown-Mr. Danny Olden

Mayor of Sikes-Mayor Kenneth Womack

Mayor of Dodson-Mayor Lloyd Vines

Mayor of Winnfield-Mayor BR Audirsch

TRIBES:

Jena Band of Choctaw-Ms. Dana Masters

Chitimacha Tribe of LA-Ms. Kimberly Walden

Tunica-Biloxi Indians of LA-Mr. Earl Barbury, Jr

Caddo Tribe of Oklahoma-Mr. Robert Cast

Choctaw Tribe of Oklahoma-Mr. Terry Cole, Mr. Ian Thompson

Coushatta Tribe of LA-Mr. Michael Tarpley

OTHERS:

The Nature Conservancy-Mr. Rick Jacobs, Mr. Rick Bryan

F.S.E.E.E.-Ms. Jennifer Fairbrotuer, Mr. James Hines

Baker Land & Timber Management-Mr. Donald Baker, Mr. Daniel Armstrong

L.L. Brewton Timber Company-Mr. Randy Brewton

Martin Forest Products-Mr. TJ Kervin

Plum Creek Timber Company-Ms. Frankie Rogers

Tulane Environmental Law Clinic-Ms. Laurie Dubriel

Caroline Dormon Nature Preserve-Richard L. Johnson


LITERATURE CONSULTED

A Survey and Description of the Natural Plant Communities of Kisatchie National Forest, Evangeline

and Catahoula Districts. March 1993.

Boyer, William D, Longleaf Pine Regeneration and Management: An Overstory Overview.

Boundy, J. J. 1997. Snakes of Louisiana. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton

Rouge, LA.

Conner, R. N., D. C. Rudolph, and J. R. Walters. 2001. The red-cockaded woodpecker: surviving in a

fire-maintained ecosystem. University of Texas Press, Austin, TX.

Dundee, H. A. and D. A. Rossman. 1989. The amphibians and reptiles of Louisiana. Louisiana State

University Press, Baton Rouge, LA.

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, Kisatchie

National Forest, 1999.

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Vegetation Management in the Coastal Plain/Piedmont, 1989.

Ganapathy, Carissa, 1997. Environmental Fate of Triclopyr, Department of Pesticide Regulation,

Sacramento, CA.

Hamel, P. B. 1992. The land manager's guide to the birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy,

Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC.

Herbicides—Protecting Long-Term Sustainability and Water Quality in Forest Ecosystems. Neary,

Daniel G. and Michael, Jerry L. 1996. New Zealand Journal of Forestry Science

Kisatchie National Forest TESC Species List, January 2002.

Longleaf Pine Ecosystem Restoration: The Role of Fire, James P. Barnett, 2004. (USDA Forest

Service, Pineville, LA).

Louisiana Natural Heritage Program, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge,

LA.

Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for Amdro.

Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for Fipronil.

NEPA and Agency Planning, 40 CFR, pt.1501.7 (2007).

Protection of Historic Properties, 36 CFR, pt.800.1 (2007).

Rudolph, D. C. and S. J. Burgdorf, 1997. Timber rattlesnakes and Louisiana pine snakes of the west

gulf coastal plain: hypotheses of decline. Texas J. Sci., 49(3) Supplement: 111-122.


Shively, S. H. and W. G. Vermillion. 1999. 1998 Survey for the Louisiana Pearlshell (Margaritifera

hembeli) in Rapides Parish, LA. Section 6 project number E-1-9 report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service by the Louisiana Natural Heritage Program.

Sibley, D. A. 2000. National Audubon Society the Sibley guide to birds. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. New

York.

The role of low impact herbicide treatments in ecosystem management. McMahon, Charles K.,

Miller, James H., Thomas, David F. 1994. National Silviculture Workshop.

Triclopyr, Weed Control Methods Handbook, The Nature Conservancy, Tu et al., version April 2001.

Triclopyr. June 1990.

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the management of the red-

cockaded woodpecker and its habitat on national forests in the Southern Region. Volumes I and II.

USDA Forest Service Management Bulletin R8-MB73.

USDA Forest Service. 1999. Final Environmental Impact Statement and Revised Land and Resource

Management Plan of the Kisatchie National Forest, August 1999.

USDA, Forest Service. 2007. Forestry-Use Pesticides

USDA, Forest Service. 1999. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Kisatchie National

Forest. Pineville, LA: USDA Forest Service, Kisatchie National Forest.

USDA, Forest Service. 1999. Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Kisatchie

National Forest. Pineville, LA: USDA Forest Service, Kisatchie National Forest.

USDA, Forest Service. 1989. Final Environmental Impact Statement for Vegetation Management in

the Coastal Plain/Piedmont. Volumes I and II. Management Bulletin R-8-MB-23. Atlanta, GA:

USDA Forest Service, Southern Region.

USDA, Soil Conservation Service. 1990. Soil Survey of Natchitoches Parish, Louisiana.

Wagner, David and Dwayne Hightower. 2001. Management Indicator Species Population and

Habitat Trends, Kisatchie National Forest.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Birds of conservation concern 2002. Division of

Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 99 pp.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 2003. Recovery plan for the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides

borealis): second revision. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 296 pp.

NOTE: Other references are cited in associated documents found in the EA Appendices, as

applicable.


Appendix A

Biological Resource Request/ Report


Appendix B

Botanical Report


Appendix C

Heritage Request

&

Programmatic Agreement

Categorical Exemption Documentation


Appendix D

Maps