Proposed Action for 30-day Notice and Comment

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service May 2009 Proposed Action for 30-day Notice and Comment Nonnative Invasive Species Plant Control Program Analysis Hoosier National Forest Brown, Crawford, Dubois, Jackson, Lawrence, Martin, Monroe, Orange, and Perry Counties, Indiana Key to cover photo. Multiflora Rose (Rosa multiflora) Water milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) Periwinkle (Vinca minor) Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense) Garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata) Sericea lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata) Amur (bush) honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii) Tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima) The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Table of Contents Purpose of This Document Introduction National Forest Management Forest Plan Direction and Desired Condition Existing Condition 6 6 6 7 7 Purpose and Need for Proposed Action Proposed Action – Alternative A Nonnative Invasive Species Plant Control Priorities, Techniques, and Strategies Proposed Action Design Criteria 8 8 9 14 Alternative B – No Action Alternative Project Location Decision to be Made Public Involvement 15 15 15 15 References Cited 17 This page intentionally blank. Nonnative Invasive Species Plant Control Program Analysis Proposed Action for 30-day Notice and Comment Nonnative Invasive Species Plant Control Program Analysis 5 Purpose of This Document In compliance with 36 CFR 215, the Hoosier National Forest (Forest) is circulating the proposed action for the Nonnative Invasive Species Plant Control Program Analysis. An interdisciplinary team of resource specialists will analyze this proposal in an environmental analysis. The Forest is providing this document to collect input, issues, and concerns that the public may have related to the anticipated effects of the Proposed Action. This information will help in completing the analysis. Instead of providing a finished document after completing the environmental analysis, we are making this document available earlier so that our process can benefit from timely input. Submitting comments at this time, allows the interdisciplinary team to fully consider and use that information in the analysis. Response to this document may assist the Forest in improving the analysis of effects, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act. By submitting comments to this document in the specified 30-day period will ensure that you receive a copy of the final project decision. You will also establish standing in the event that you choose to appeal the decision. The 30-day review and comment period begins when The Hoosier Times newspaper in Bloomington, Indiana publishes a legal notice concerning the proposal, called Nonnative Invasive Species Plant Control Program Analysis. The comment period represents the formal opportunity to comment on this proposal. The interdisciplinary team and decisionmaker will review and consider all comments to define issues to address throughout the proposal, to develop alternatives, and to help refine the analysis of effects. An issue is a disagreement with the proposed action based on some anticipated effect of implementation. The accompanying cover letter contains information related to commenting, appeal eligibility, and where to send comments. This will be the only opportunity to comment on this proposal before a decision is reached. Introduction The Forest is proposing to protect and restore native ecosystems by reducing populations of nonnative invasive plants species Forest-wide. The project will use an integrated pest management approach as described in Appendix F, of the Hoosier Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) (USDA FS 2006a). Integrated pest management describes a process that attempts to regulate nonnative invasive plant species to achieve resource management objectives. Integrated pest management is a planned and systematic use of detection, evaluation, and monitoring using all appropriate tools including but not limited to biological, chemical, manual, and mechanical methods. Prevention is the emphasis of any management related to nonnative invasive species threats. The Forest would also emphasize early detection and treatment of new infestations. National Forest Management National Forest planning takes place at three different levels: national, regional, and forest. The Forest Service implements the strategic priorities identified at the national level of planning through annual agency budgets. Strategic priorities are based on national assessments of natural 6 Proposed Action for 30-day Notice and Comment Nonnative Invasive Species Plant Control Program Analysis resources. The priorities are responsive to social and political trends. In 2007, the Forest Service developed strategic direction to guide the agency in its mission. The USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan FY2007-2012 sets goals that all levels of the agency are to address (USDA FS 2007). A site-specific project can tier to one or more of the goals stated in the 20072012 strategic plan. Goal 1 is applicable to the Nonnative Invasive Plant Species Control Program Analysis. That goal is, Goal 1 – Restore, sustain, and enhance the Nation’s forests and grasslands:  Objective 1.4. Reduce adverse impacts from invasive and native species, pests, and diseases; and  Objective 1.5. Restore and maintain healthy watersheds and diverse habitats. The Forest Service identified four major threats to the nation’s forests and grasslands for the 21st Century (http://www.fs.fed.us/projects/fourthreats). Invasive species is included as one of these threats, a threat that this proposal would address. The Strategic Framework for the Eastern Region (Strategic Framework) (USDA FS 2005) presents goals representing the Region’s vision for the future. Central to that vision is sustaining the health and diversity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to help meet the needs of present and future generations. Three goals in the Strategic Framework that apply to this project are:  Walk the talk for sustainability,  Protect ecosystems across boundaries, and  Revolutionize effectiveness and efficiency. Forest Plan Direction and Desired Condition The Forest Plan (USDA FS 2006a) meets the requirements of the National Forest Management Act of 1976 and represents forest level planning. The Forest Plan provides direction at the forest level and describes future resource conditions we intend to attain. It also provides direction Forest-wide and at the management area level in the form of desired conditions, standards, and guidelines. The Forest Plan contains eight broad goals that the Forest will work to achieve during the planning period. The Forest Plan goals that apply to this proposal include:  Conserve endangered and threatened species habitat.  Maintain and restore sustainable ecosystems.  Maintain and restore watershed health. Existing Condition The most complete nonnative invasive plant inventory across the Forest is within the special areas and the Charles C. Deam Wilderness. All of the special areas were surveyed from 1998 to 2001 as part of an inventory conducted by the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Nature Preserves. Two associated reports described the survey results (Hedge 2002, Hedge and Homoya 2000). Nonnative invasive plant surveys are ongoing on the Forest with an emphasis on validating those earlier surveys and determining the actual or net infested area. A mid-level assessment completed in 2007 summarized current conditions of nonnative invasive plant species in special areas (Larson 2007). Nonnative invasive plants occur across the Forest in scattered locations. A 2007 publication by Overlease and 7 Proposed Action for 30-day Notice and Comment Nonnative Invasive Species Plant Control Program Analysis Overlease compared the range of 245 different nonnative invasive plants in Indiana in 1899, 1940, and 2004 (Indiana Invasive Species Task Force 2008). Little is known regarding locations of invasive plants state-wide. Tree-of-heaven occurs in every county in Indiana, and Japanese stilt grass occurs in 21 southern and central counties (Indiana Invasive Species Task Force 2008). Many of these plants brought from other countries do well in the United States as they lack the natural enemies that kept them in control in their native environment. Other plants are successful because they chemically inhibit native plants. For instance, tree-of-heaven exudes chemicals from its roots that slow the growth of native plants (Indiana Invasive Species Task Force 2008). and aquatic nonnative invasive plants Forest-wide. Integrated pest management systems prescribe several methods to achieve results. An integrated program including biological, chemical, manual, and mechanical methods and control techniques would meet guidance stated in the Forest Plan (USDA 2006a). The method applied would depend on the site-specific situation and the desired results. For smaller infestations or those in close proximity to known rare plants, manual methods may be preferred over chemical methods. The Forest has an inventory of known locations of invasive species. Treatment areas would be prioritized based on criteria such as but not limited to the potential for spread and threats to Purpose and Need for Proposed Action This proposal would protect and restore native ecosystems on the Hoosier National Forest by reducing populations of nonnative invasive plant species. The Forest needs to minimize the threat to native plant communities and wildlife habitat by reducing populations of nonnative invasive plants. These nonnative invasive plant species are degrading native plant communities and wildlife habitat. Reducing the size and vigor or the nonnative invasive species populations would prevent a more widespread and costly problem in the future and protect threatened natural ecosystems. Without treatment, the current infestation would continue to expand and jeopardize the local native plant and animal communities. Japanese Stilt grass (Microstegium vimineum) annual grass that grows up to 3 feet in height. Stilt grass has been reported in 14 eastern states. It is especially well adapted to low light conditions, and out competes native vegetation (http://www.invasive.org/weedcd/pdfs/ wow/japanese stiltweed.pdf). Proposed Action – Alternative A The Proposed Action is addressed as Alternative A. Alternative A proposes treating acres infested with terrestrial known rare plants species and communities. As Forest personnel become aware of additional populations of nonnative invasive plant species, they would prioritize treatment. Early detection and treatment of new populations would allow for a rapid response and would aid in controlling previously documented populations. 8 Proposed Action for 30-day Notice and Comment Nonnative Invasive Species Plant Control Program Analysis Before treatment would occur, a sitespecific interdisciplinary review would address any potential impacts to cultural resources, karst, threatened, endangered, or sensitive plants or animals, and other applicable resource areas. The Forest would choose a different method of treatment if Forest staff anticipates adverse effects from use of any treatment method (biological, chemical, manual, or mechanical). Specialists would implement and monitor the treatments if adverse effects were not expected. Forest personnel would incorporate new methods as they are developed, studied, and shown to be effective for use. Control efforts would target aggressive, nonnative plants that threaten native ecosystems. Current Forest projects incorporate nonnative invasive species treatment (such as Oriole Restoration Project and Barrens Invasive Species Project). Those projects would continue as designed in those site-specific analyses. Forest personnel would monitor and evaluate work completed for effectiveness. Nonnative plant control would occur at specific sites on National Forest System lands within the Forest boundary. Most of these areas are along roads, trails, disturbed sites, and power line corridors; but some may occur in other areas, especially those with populations of rare native plant species. The Forest is proposing an adaptive approach that would respond quickly to newly found invasive plant infestations where appropriate and necessary. Integrated pest management includes restoration of native plant habitat by seeding and planting. The Forest would also work collaboratively with willing landowners and partners to control invasive species across ownership boundaries. Nonnative Invasive Species Plant Control Priorities, Techniques, and Strategies Nearly all nonnative invasive species that occur on the Forest prefer open habitats. These may invade Forest communities, but because they are not shade tolerant would decline as the Forest aged. Those species that are adapted to closed canopy conditions are most difficult to control and of greatest concern on the Forest. The primary objective is to reduce the vigor and size of nonnative invasive species populations and, where possible, remove them from the treatment areas. This minimizes the threat to native plant communities and wildlife habitat. Selection of treatment methods would provide effective control of the targeted invasive plant populations but also have negligible effects on native species. Restoration of treated areas would also occur. Specialists would restore degraded habitat by seeding and planting with native material. Lastly, effectiveness monitoring of the proposed treatment areas would also be part of the project proposal. Table 3.8 on page 3-192 of the environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Forest Plan (USDA FS 2006b) contains a prioritized list of species based on documented infestations occurring on the Forest. Table 1.1, includes additional species that were not included in Table 3.8 (USDA FS 2006b). Proposed Action for 30-day Notice and Comment Nonnative Invasive Species Plant Control Program Analysis 9 TABLE 1.1: SPECIES OF NONNATIVE INVASIVE PLANTS KNOWN TO OCCUR ON THE FOREST1 COMMON NAME Japanese stilt grass2 Japanese honeysuckle2 Garlic mustard2 Yellow (white) sweet clover2 Amur (bush) honeysuckle2 Potato vine2 Crown vetch2 Autumn olive2 Tree-of-heaven2 Kudzu Chinese (sericea) lespedeza2 Johnson grass2 Tall fescue2 Ground ivy2 Moneywort2 Reed canary grass2 Korean lespedeza (clover) 2 Common teasel2 Periwinkle 2 Water milfoil3 Chinese silvergrass3 Multiflora rose Day lily3 Common burdock3 Common mullein3 Japanese lespedeza (clover) 3 Japanese barberry3 White poplar3 Winged burning bush3 Winter creeper3 Timothy grass3 Orchard grass3 Red clover3 Downy brome3 Queen Anne’s lace3 Oxeye daisy3 Bull thistle3 Field sowthistle3 Giant foxtail3 Field hop clover3 Yellow foxtail3 Musk thistle3 Curly dock3 Princess tree 3 Chicory3 1 2 SCIENTIFIC NAME Microstegium vimineum Lonicera japonica Alliaria petiolata Melilotus officinalis (M. alba) Lonicera maackii Dioscorea oppositifolia Coronilla varia Elaeagnus umbellata Ailanthus altissima Pueraria montana Lespedeza cuneata Sorghum halepense Lolium arundinaceum Glechoma hederacea Lysimachia nummularia Phalaris arundinacea Kummerowia stipulacea Dipsacus fullonum ssp. sylvestris Vinca minor Myriophyllum spicatum Miscanthus sinensis Rosa multiflora Hemerocallis fulva Arctium minus Verbascum thapsus Kummerowia striata Berberis thunbergii Populus alba Euonymus alata Euonymus fortunei Phleum pratense Dactylis glomerata Trifolium pratense Bromus tectorum Daucus carota Leucanthemum vulgare Cirsium vulgare Sonchus arvensis Setaria faberi Trifolium campestre Setaria faberi Carduus nutans Rumex crispus Paulownia tomentosa Cichorium intybus TREATMENT PRIORITY High High High High High High Medium/High Medium/High Medium/High Medium/High Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium/Low Medium/Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Data collected through April 1, 2009. Species included in Table 3.38, page 3-192 in Forest Plan EIS (USDA FS, 2006b). 3 Priority ratings reflect potential threat to nearby native plant communities due to invasiveness. Generally, these species have been treated in combination with on-going management. Table 1.1 includes species with known populations on the Forest as of April 1, 2009. The Forest has not completed a comprehensive survey of all nonnative 10 Proposed Action for 30-day Notice and Comment Nonnative Invasive Species Plant Control Program Analysis invasive plant species Forest-wide. However, surveys have occurred in Management Area 8.2 (Special Areas) and Management Area 5.1 (Charles C. Deam Wilderness area) (USDA FS 2006a). Forest specialists used population data from these surveys to determine priority. Ongoing and future surveys adhering to Forest Service protocol will continue. Inventories for invasive plants (Hedge and Homoya 2000; Hedge 2002), primarily in designated Special Areas (Management Area 8.2) provided the primary basis for inclusion in Table 1.1. In preparation for various site-specific projects, Forest personnel inventoried and documented other nonnative invasive species infestations that are likewise included in Table 1.1. Site is also an important factor in prioritizing nonnative invasive plant species. For example, fire personnel may need to construct fire line near a patch of tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima). Table 1.1, shows that treeof-heaven is a medium to high priority for treatment. However, this species is a prolific seeder and regenerates quickly. Therefore, creating conditions that are more open in close proximity to the species would raise that area to a higher priority for treatment. TABLE 1.2: POTENTIAL TREATMENT PRIORITIES BY SITE PRIORITY SITE DESCRIPTION Sites with species capable of growing in shade, such as garlic mustard, Japanese and bush honeysuckle, autumn olive, and Japanese stiltgrass. Sites with other species prioritized as high or medium to high according to Table 1.1. Sites that have rare native plant species, within barrens communities, or other unique habitat. Infestations that are located close to heavily used trails. Areas where partners or volunteers are willing to help reduce nonnative plants. Trails and areas with known occurrences of nonnative species that have received recent disturbance, such as timber harvest or trail reroute. Old field sites, openings, or power line rights-of-way that contain open-land nonnative invasive plants. Nonnative invasive species that are capable of invading open habitats such as tree-of-heaven and Japanese honeysuckle within or near areas proposed to become more open. Areas of large, established populations that do not have a high potential for spread off-site. REASON These species are capable of invading nearly all forested areas. To protect barrens communities or other unique habitats To protect these globally imperiled or more unique habitats Trails provide vectors to spread nonnative invasive species off-site Cost efficiency Disturbance increases the potential for a population to expand To protect barrens communities and permanent openings Opening of the canopy could spread some species High Medium Contain the population perimeter to limit further expansion Proposed Action for 30-day Notice and Comment Nonnative Invasive Species Plant Control Program Analysis 11 Integrated pest management incorporates a variety of techniques in an effort to establish the most effective way to reduce or control populations. Tables 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 describe various treatment methods that would be considered for use. Methods listed in Tables 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 are not allinclusive and would be adapted depending on research and available materials. TABLE 1.3. NONNATIVE INVASIVE PLANT MANUAL AND MECHANICAL CONTROL METHODS METHOD Pull DESCRIPTION OF ACTION Hand-pull entire plant including roots – usually herbaceous plants or shrubs less than 0.2 inches in diameter. Leave plants on site or bag and remove if plants have mature flowers or fruit. Excavate plants with tools such as a narrow spade, shovel, weed wrench, or tractor with a shallow cultivating implement. Normal procedure calls for leaving the plants on site. Typically used for individuals or small patches of any plant. The method is most effective for tap-rooted species, but not effective for rhizomatous species. Weed-wrench is a manual tool to uproot woody plants up to 2.5 inches in diameter. Clip using tools such as lopping shears or cut with saw, brush cutter, weed whip, or mower. Used alone or followed by sponge-applying or hand-spraying systemic herbicide (absorbed into the plant through its vascular tissue). Use the flame of a propane weed torch to scorch or wilt green leaves. Application would occur either very early or late in the growing season when exotics are green and native perennials are mostly below ground. It does not start a ground fire. Scorching kills one year’s growth of annual and biennial weeds. Other professionals have found this method especially useful for garlic mustard. Shallow Digging Cut Scorch (flame) TABLE 1.4. NONNATIVE INVASIVE PLANT CHEMICAL (HERBICIDES) CONTROL METHODS METHOD Herbicide DESCRIPTION OF ACTION Application of herbicides would include the use of backpack sprayers, squirt bottles, or other hand techniques. In some places, the invasive species exist in extensive infestations and are becoming dominant monocultures. In such cases, the Forest would consider using all-terrain vehicles and off-highway vehicles with boom-mounted herbicide sprayers. The Forest would not allow any indiscriminate broadcast applications or aerial spraying. TABLE 1.5. NONNATIVE INVASIVE PLANT BIOLOGICAL CONTROL METHODS METHOD Biological DESCRIPTION OF ACTION Using insects or animals to act as a natural control of the nonnative invasive plant. The Forest does not anticipate use of biological controls at this time, but they are included to be available as needed. Biological control agents could include: golden loosestrife beetle (Galerucella pusilla) to target purple loosestrife, milfoil weevil (Euhrychiopsis lecontei) to target Eurasian water-milfoil, grazing mammals such as sheep or goats to target woody and herbaceous plants, or grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) to target Eurasian water-milfoil and waterthyme. Proposed Action for 30-day Notice and Comment Nonnative Invasive Species Plant Control Program Analysis 12 Table 1.6 displays some of the chemicals that are currently in use to treat these species. Chemicals are generally species and site-specific in their application. Applicators would follow label directions and use only chemicals approved by the Environmental Protection Agency. Table 1.6 lists some common chemicals, trade names and uses. Table 1.6 is not allinclusive and would be adapted depending on research and available materials. TABLE 1.6. CHEMICALS (HERBICIDES) AVAILABLE FOR USE COMMON EXAMPLES OF TARGETED USE CHEMICAL TRADE NAMES NAME Aminopyralid Milestone® Foliar spray; broadleaf selectiveespecially legumes Clopyralid Transline®; Curtail®; Foliar spray; Reclaim broadleaf selective especially composites and legumes Glyphosate Roundup Pro®; Stump treatment, Roundup®; Accord® foliar spray; nonselective Glyphosate (for near water) Imazapic Rodeo®; Aquamaster® Plateau® Foliar treatment, weeds near open water, non-selective Pre-emergent EXAMPLES OF TARGET NNIS PLANTS Kudzu, thistles, perennial broadleaf species Clovers Imazapyr Metsulfuron Arsenal® Escort® Sethoxydim Poast®; Vantage® Triclopyr Garlon3A®; Garlon4®; Brush-B-Gone®; Habitat® Vine-X® Include in tank mixes with other herbicides Foliar spray; broadleaf selective, at low dilution- selects for legumes Foliar spray; narrow leaf-selective (graminoids) Stump and/or basal bark treatment, foliar spot spray; broadleafselective Bush honeysuckle, garlic mustard, Japanese honeysuckle; can be used on all other listed NNIS Reed canary grass or any species occurring near open water Japanese stilt grass, Johnson grass, tall fescue, other nonnative grasses such as brome Woody NNIS plants, undesirable native species Kudzu, autumn olive, multiflora rose, other foliar applications Japanese stilt grass Autumn olive, bush honeysuckle, garlic mustard, Japanese honeysuckle, treeof-heaven Proposed Action for 30-day Notice and Comment Nonnative Invasive Species Plant Control Program Analysis 13 Proposed Action Design Criteria Design criteria help define actions that would be taken when implementing a proposal. Project implementors would follow these design criteria regardless of what action alternative is selected. The Forest would take a four-step approach to reduce the effect on nontarget vegetation: 1. When possible, treat nonnative invasive plants while they are relatively small and use manual or mechanical methods. 2. When using chemical methods, choose a method that, when applied directly, targets the invasive plants with little over-spray (for example, basal-bark treatment). 3. Apply herbicide when adjacent native plants are dormant (early spring or late fall), unless spraying a large area of nonnative invasive species, such as dense infestations of Chinese (sericea) lespedeza, crown vetch, garlic mustard, Japanese or bush honeysuckle, Japanese stilt grass, sweet clover, tall fescue, or other NNIS near those large patches. 4. If application is necessary during the growing season in areas other than large, dense infestations, use selective herbicides or a selective method of application to reduce effects to the surrounding non-target vegetation. Other specific design criteria would prevent or reduce the spread of nonnative invasive species during control operations, minimize any potential negative effects or resource concerns to Federally listed species and non-target native plants, and provide for public health and safety. Additional design criteria include:         Limit herbicide application to 4,000 acres per planning period (USDI FWS 2006) Clean all equipment, including equipment used in nonnative invasive species control activities before entering the treatment areas. Require thorough cleaning of equipment, boots, and clothing as necessary before moving from a site or between sites to avoid infesting new areas. Herbicide applicators would follow label directions. In addition, temporarily close treatment areas when warranted. Apply only formulations approved for aquatic use in or next to ground and surface waters. Minimize the use of triclopyr (ester formulation) or surfactants used with glyphosate (terrestrial version) within ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial stream corridors, or within 100 feet of caves, karst features, lakes, ponds, or wetlands. Restrict herbicide use to spot treatment of target nonnative invasive species plants by hand application methods for a zone extending outward in a radius of 300 feet from any known occupied Indiana bat primary (maternity) roost tree. Do not broadcast spray herbicides (with a boom sprayer, including from ATVs and OHVs) within 50 feet of any area with plant populations of Regional Forester sensitive species or other selected rare plants. Restrict any nonnative invasive plant control techniques in grassland areas from April 1 to July 31 to avoid direct effects to ground-nesting birds such as Henslow’s sparrow. Restrict herbicide application at cave entrances, direct drainage inputs, 14 Proposed Action for 30-day Notice and Comment Nonnative Invasive Species Plant Control Program Analysis   such as sinkholes and swallow holes, and any streams flowing into a known cave. Field personnel will provide the heritage resource specialist with maps, site descriptions, and prescriptions for review prior to any treatment occurring at protected cultural resource sites. Field personnel will provide sitespecific information to resource specialists for review prior to any on the ground implementation. The Integrated Pest Management Project Analysis form will document project implementation, as well as any sitespecific mitigations, concerns, or adaptations. (Research Natural Area), and 8.3 (Experimental Forest) will only consider use of methods other than herbicide treatment. Management Areas 8.1 and 8.3 would require approval of the Northern Research Station Director for herbicide use. Management Area 5.1 has an existing decision for treatment of nonnative invasive plant species (Table 1.7). Application of herbicides in Management Area 5.1 requires Regional Forester approval. Use of herbicides in any of these management areas (5.1, 8.1, and 8.3) would be addressed in a separate site-specific analysis in coordination with the Northern Research Station Director or the Regional Forester. Contractors, partners, Forest personnel, and others would implement this project in any of the nine counties containing National Forest System lands. Alternative B – No Action Alternative Analysis of the No Action Alternative is required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (§ 1502.14(d)). Table 1.7 gives a brief decision of the decisions already being implemented on the Forest. Outside of the specific areas that are currently under decision, no action to reduce or control nonnative invasive plant species would occur at this time if the decision-maker selects this alternative. Activities listed in Table 1.7 would continue regardless of the selected alternative. Decision to be Made Based on the environmental analysis the Forest Supervisor will decide whether to implement the proposed action, or one of the other alternatives. If the Forest Supervisor selects an action alternative, he will determine which mitigation and monitoring requirements are appropriate to be included. More than one decision may result from the environmental analysis. Public Involvement The Forest is circulating the proposed action that will be analyzed in an environmental assessment in accordance with 36 CFR 215. This comment period will last for 30 days beginning when The Hoosier Times publishes the legal notification of the project. Interdisciplinary team members will use comments received to further develop and refine the analysis. Project Location This project encompasses almost all National Forest System land contained within the Hoosier National Forest boundary. Three management areas comprising an estimated 13,673 acres are excluded from analysis of herbicide use in this proposal. Management Areas 8.1 Proposed Action for 30-day Notice and Comment Nonnative Invasive Species Plant Control Program Analysis 15 TABLE 1.7: PROJECT DECISIONS ALREADY APPROVED FOR IMPLEMENTATION THAT INCLUDE ACTIVITIES TO REDUCE AND CONTROL NONNATIVE INVASIVE SPECIES PROJECT ACTIONS Reduce vigor and size of populations of garlic mustard, Japanese stilt grass, multiflora rose, and periwinkle in Management Area 5.1 and Tower Ridge Road corridor. All actions are completed using hand or, where approved, mechanical removal methods. Use hand and mechanical techniques for control of new infestations of nonnative invasive plants that result from project activities. Use herbicides to treat lakes. DECISION YEAR ACRES Charles C. Deam Wilderness 2004 Approximately 13,500 Tell City Windthrow 2004 5,616 Tipsaw Lake, Indian Lake, and Celina Lake Aquatic Weed Control Mogan Ridge Prescribed Burn Maumee Prescribed Burn 2006 Hand and mechanical removal Hand and mechanical removal Reduce the potential spread and treat current populations of nonnative invasive plant species including herbicide use. Nonground-disturbing actions are approved in project area Use herbicides to treat water milfoil in lakes and ponds. Hand and mechanical control of invasive species Control invasive species to improve native plant communities and wildlife habitat. The actions are to occur on seven special areas on the Tell City Ranger District. Hand and mechanical removal Treat nonnative invasive plants using hand, mechanical, and chemical methods Reduce nonnative invasive species using and integrated pest management approach 2006 2006 447 5,550 1,700 Up to 1,110 acres of herbicide use. Non-ground disturbing action on 5,200 acres. 184 2,170 Oriole Restoration Project 2007 Tell City Ranger District Aquatic Weed Control German Ridge Restoration Project 2007 2007 Barrens Invasive Species 2008 6,255 Fork Ridge Prescribed Burn Pleasant Run Habitat Improvement Mifflin Restoration 2008 2008 465 180 2009 186 Proposed Action for 30-day Notice and Comment Nonnative Invasive Species Plant Control Program Analysis 16 References Cited Hedge, Cloyce. 2002. Inventory and control recommendations for invasive plant species on selected areas of the Hoosier National Forest. Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Nature Preserves. Unpublished report.12 p. [On file with: Forest Supervisor, Hoosier National Forest, 811 Constitution Ave., Bedford, IN 47421]. Hedge, Cloyce; Homoya, Mike. 2000. Surveys for invasive plant species on selected areas of the Hoosier National Forest (with recommended control measures). Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Nature Preserves. Unpublished report. 20 p. + appendices. [On file with: Forest Supervisor, Hoosier National Forest, 811 Constitution Ave., Bedford, IN 47421]. Indiana Invasive Species Task Force. 2008. At the Crossroads – Invasive Species in Indiana, Findings and Recommendations from the Indiana Invasive Species Task Force. 51 pp. [On file with: Forest Supervisor, Hoosier National Forest, 811 Constitution Ave., Bedford, IN 47421]. Larson, Kirk. 2007. Hoosier National Forest special areas and Pioneer Mother’s Research Natural Area nonnative invasive species assessment for invasive plant control. January 11, 2007. 14 p. [On file with: Forest Supervisor, Hoosier National Forest, 811 Constitution Ave., Bedford, IN 47421.] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2006a. Land and resource management plan – Hoosier National Forest. Eastern Region. Bedford, IN: Hoosier National Forest. 85 p. + appendices. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2006b. Final Environmental Impact Statement – land and resource management plan. Bedford, IN: Hoosier National Forest. 381 p + separate volume of appendices. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2007. USDA Forest Service strategic plan FY 2007-2012. FS-880 (July 2007). 32 p. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 2005. Strategic framework for eastern region. (September 2005). 26 p. U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI FWS). 2006. Biological opinion of the proposed land resource management plan, Hoosier National Forest, Indiana. 60 p. Proposed Action for 30-day Notice and Comment Nonnative Invasive Species Plant Control Program Analysis 17