SCOPING PROPOSAL IN DETAIL WRANGELL PETERSBURG …

SCOPING PROPOSAL IN DETAIL WRANGELL - PETERSBURG INVASIVE PLANT MANAGEMENT PROJECT

U.S. FOREST SERVICE WRANGELL AND PETERSBURG RANGER DISTRICTS

PROPOSED ACTION

Within the project area, invasive plant treatment specialists currently use manual, mechanical and herbicide methods to treat weeds under the 2013 Wrangell-Petersburg Weed Management Environmental Assessment. However, to increase the effectiveness of invasive plant management activities, the Forest Service is proposing to:

(1) Treat invasive plants on National Forest System lands (including Wilderness) and onlands of other ownership. Invasive plants know no political boundary; therefore,efforts to treat across boundary lines will improve control and eradication efforts.Additionally, this “all lands, all hands” approach will increase the ability to formpartnerships and increase the capacity to treat an estimated 5,811 gross acres on bothNFS and lands of other ownership within the project area.

(2) Manage invasive plants using manual, mechanical and herbicide treatment methods toeradicate or control populations of weeds. Manual treatment includes pulling,grubbing, digging, hoeing, tilling, cutting, mowing, and mulching or tarping the targetplants. Mechanical treatment includes removing topsoil and plant parts throughexcavation or scraping, generally using heavy equipment. Mechanical treatmentswould not be used in Wilderness. Herbicides include aquatic formulations ofglyphosate and imazapyr, and aminopyralid. Herbicides would be applied bybroadcast spray, spot spray, wicking and wiping, foliar applications and/or cut-stumpmethods. Application rates for all three herbicides would be at or below the maximumrate stated on the product label.

(3) Treat emergent vegetation (invasive plants rooted in water with foliage above thewater’s surface). This would be permitted directly over water with aquaticformulations of imazapyr and glyphosate; aminopyralid application would bepermitted up to the water’s edge. The proposed project does not include aquatictreatments (for example, Elodea).

(4) Include no limit on the acres of weed treatment within the project area and use theearly detection-rapid response (EDRR) management strategy to provide the flexibilityto treat new infestations. It is assumed that new infestations will be similar (in size,species, and site type location) to current infestations. If known or new infestationsrequire treatments outside the scope of the project, or if project design features cannotbe applied without a significant loss of effectiveness, further analysis would berequired.

1

Wrangell – Petersburg Invasive Plant Management Scoping Proposal – March 2021

Analysis will incorporate by reference the Northern Tongass Integrated Weed Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 2019). Both project areas are ecologically similar and the treatment objectives and proposals are the same. Incorporation by reference is consistent with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR 1502.21) and Forest Service regulations that encourage reducing redundant analysis during the NEPA process. When incorporating by reference, other available documents are referenced that cover similar issues, effects and/or resources considered in the NEPA analysis at hand. The relevant portions of the referenced documents are cited and briefly summarized rather than repeating the analysis. This proposed integrated weed management plan project was included in the Central Tongass Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (Activity 03 Invasive Treatments). Due to existing funding for invasive treatments and the need to control invasive plants, this proposed project is moving forward separately.

PROJECT AREA

The project area covers the Wrangell and Petersburg Ranger Districts on the Tongass National Forest. Invasive plant infestations are known across the 3.7 million-acre project area along the road system, at recreation sites, along streams, in open canopy forest, and within wilderness areas across both ranger districts (Figure 1).

NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT

The purpose of this project is to maintain, improve, or restore the natural range of habitat conditions in the project area to support viable wildlife, fish, and plant populations for subsistence, traditional. and cultural uses, and to sustain diversity. In some watersheds this includes riparian ecosystem function improvements and native plant population protection. Infestations predominantly occur along human disturbance features (places such as rock quarries, roads, trails, parking lots, and campgrounds) and are primary areas for treatments. However, infestations also occur in natural settings such as along streams, in the intertidal zone, and within forested habitats. This would move the project area toward the desired future condition stated in the Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 2016a):

“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, Objectives, and Standards and Guidelines would be addressed:

Biodiversity Goal (p. 2-3), “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.”

Invasive Species Standards and Guidelines (p. 4-22), “Treat priority species infestations as practicable, using an integrated pest management approach,” and, “Reduce population sizes and/or limits of spread of priority invasive species on the Tongass National Forest through the use of an integrated pest management approach.”

2

https://www.fs.usda.gov/nfs/11558/www/nepa/104874_FSPLT3_5114681.pdf


Figure 1. Invasive plant infestations documented within the proposed project area.

3


This project would also work toward maintaining Wilderness quality objectives as per the Forest Plan:

Wilderness Goal (p. 2-6), “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.”

The Forest Service is currently authorized to control invasive plant infestations as authorized in the Wrangell-Petersburg Weed Management Environmental Analysis (USDA Forest Service 2013). There is a need to expand the areas where we can treat to control infestations more effectively as well as utilize additional treatment tools to improve treatment efficiency. This proposed project includes manual, mechanical, and chemical invasive plant treatments on NFS lands, including Wilderness areas, as well as on lands of other ownership to reduce invasive infestations mapped over 5,811 acres. Lands of other ownership are included to allow for a comprehensive all-lands approach to weed management that will be more effective. An all lands approach will also foster partnerships with other organizations as funding becomes available through federal grants or other initiatives. Existing Condition

Eighty-nine different invasive plant species cover an estimated 5,811 gross acres within the Central Tongass project area. There are two aspects of these 5,811 acres to keep in mind regarding the existing condition of our data: 1. Gross acres is defined as the entire area delimited by the extent of the plant species regardless

of the percent cover, as opposed to canopy acres which is calculated based on the area of actual plant cover within the aerial extent (Figure 2). Using the average percent cover available for invasive inventory (a crude calculation), the total canopy acreage within the project area is roughly 697 acres.

Figure 2. Canopy acres

2. The data set used is only an estimate. Inventory work conducted in 2006, 2007, and 2012 collected point data along the road system, the SEAPA powerline corridor, and at borrow pits/marine access facilities. This data was then represented spatially as a polygon based on the rough acreage every quarter mile; therefore, the data gives reasonable presence/absence data but does not provide the invasive infestation acreage between sample points. This

Outside boundary is considered the gross acreage whereas the black squares within the box are considered the canopy acres. In this example, with a 1 gross acre mapped (the square), and 5 percent cover (the black squares), the canopy acres equals 0.05 acre.

4


presence/absence information has been used to map continuous polygons along roads for reed canarygrass and orange hawkweed where present on NFS lands. Lastly, this data contains other inventory work over the past two decades that maps an entire infestation as a polygon.

Of these 5,811 gross infestation acres, 20 species with an estimated 4,336 gross acres are ranked moderately invasive or higher by the Alaska Center for Conservation Science (Table 1) (Figure 1). The ACCS ranks invasiveness based on the biology of the species, ecological impacts, distribution within natural areas/human role as a vector, and feasibility of control (Carlson et al. 2008). Five are ranked as highly invasive (greater than or equal to 80), including two knotweed species (Fallopia x bohemica, Fallopia japonica), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinaceae), spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe), and one infestation of giant hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzianum). Most of the estimated gross acreage is reed canarygrass with 3,806 gross acres. Five species are ranked as highly invasive (70-79), including two of the hawkweeds ranked at 79 and covering an estimated 173 gross acres (Hieracium aurantiacum, Hieracium caespitosum). The remaining 11 species are ranked as moderately invasive. The complete list of 89 species is provided in Appendix B of the Invasive Species Risk Assessment.

Table 1. Invasive plants within the proposed Integrated Weed Management project area ranked as moderately invasive or higher

Species Gross acres Rank Where found/Treatment if any

Knotweed (Fallopia japonica and Fallopia x bohemica) 20 87

Tarp treatment in Stikine – Leconte Wilderness; Herbicide treatments at NFS admin site on NFS land and on non-NFS lands

Spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe) 0.09 86 Hand-pulled on NFS and non-NFS lands at Kake

(likely eradicated)

Reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinaceae) 3,806 83

Hand pulling in Petersburg Creek – Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness and along lower Raven Trail; Herbicide treatments at admin sites, in riparian restoration sites, along select road systems, and along the river in the Stikine-LeConte Wilderness

Giant hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzianum) 0.001 81 Non-NFS lands, one location only

Orange hawkweed (Hieracium aurantiacum) 201 79

Tarp treatments in S. Etolin Wilderness and at SUP sites; Herbicide treatments at NFS admin sites and along select NFS roads

Meadow hawkweed (Hieracium caespitosum) 1.3 79 Herbicide treatments at NFS admin sites and

along select NFS roads

Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) 0.1 76 NFS and non-NFS lands, roadside

Field sowthistle (Sonchus arvensis) 0.1 73 Non-NFS land, roadside

Creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens) 32 72 NFS and non-NFS lands, road shoulder and

recreation sites

Bigleaf lupine (Lupinus polyphyllus ssp. polyphyllus var. polyphyllus)

0.08 71 Non-NFS land, road shoulder

Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) 0.1 69 Non-NFS land (likely eradicated)

5


Species Gross acres Rank Where found/Treatment if any Robert geranium (Geranium robertianum) 0.1 67 Hand pulling on non-NFS land, road shoulder

Pale yellow iris (Iris pseudacorus) 0.4 66 Digging on NFS lands, recreation sites (likely eradicated)

Bird’s foot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus) 0.5 65 NFS and non-NFS land, road shoulder

Tall fescue (Schedonorus arundinaceus) 6.7 63 NFS and non-NFS lands, road shoulder

Stinking willie (Senecio jacobaea) 0.1 63 Non-NFS land, road shoulder

Smooth brome (Bromus inermis) 0.4 62 NFS and non-NFS lands, road shoulders

Oxeye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare) 277 61 Human disturbance on NFS and non-NFS lands:

homes, road shoulders, admin sites

Bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare) 6.1 61 Digging up on NFS land, road prism; non-NFS lands road shoulder

Humans have been the most significant vector for the introduction of invasive plants within the project area. Communities are invasive hotspots - Wrangell has 65 different species, Petersburg has 53, and Kake has 52. Roughly 1,117 gross acres are documented on non-NFS lands, with surveys focusing on communities and State highways. Typically the spread radiates out from these sources over time as people recreate and work across the landscape. Knotweed is a species of concern regarding spread, as the shrubs are predominantly located within the communities; however, small infestations have been documented in the Stikine-LeConte wilderness and islands outside of the city of Wrangell.

METHODS TO PRIORITIZE POTENTIAL TREATMENTS

Several factors are used to evaluate whether to tolerate, control, or eradicate an invasive plant infestation. All planned treatments are tied to inventory work completed across the Wrangell and Petersburg Ranger Districts. If infestations are new, the treatment falls under the Early Detection Rapid Response approach. For known invasive species, the decision to tolerate or treat based on:

(1) The Alaska Center for Conservation Science ranking which considers the biology andthe ecological impact of the species,

(2) The habitat type infested,(3) The size of the infestation, and(4) The likelihood of success given available resources.

Prioritization of treatments is given to EDRR, specific Land Use Designations (e.g., Resource Natural Areas or Wilderness), and areas where ecological function may be impacted (see Figure 3). Examples of ecologically important habitat include areas where fish reside or spawn, where rare plants occur, or where water quality may be adversely affected.

6

https://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=SEJA


Figure 3. Process for prioritizing invasive plant treatments

7


PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES

Alternative 1 – No Action

Not meeting the purpose and need is represented by the “No Action” alternative. Under the No Action alternative, invasive plant treatments would continue as authorized in the Wrangell-Petersburg Weed Management EA (USDA Forest Service 2013). Manual, mechanical, and herbicide (glyphosate, aminopyralid, and imazapyr) treatments could occur on National Forest System lands, with a cap of 200 acres. Existing infestations below the ordinary high water mark or the mean high tide line, and emergent infestations would go untreated. Non-NFS lands would continue to serve as a source for spread onto Forest Service lands. Alternative 2 - Proposed Action

Treatment methods depend on the species (including life stage), infestation size, and habitat. Herbicide is the preferred treatment tool. Exceptions may include using manual or mechanical methods due to specific conditions and public concern. Manual methods [such as hand pulling, hand tools, and barriers (for example, tarps)] are typically used to treat small infestations. Mechanical means, such as mowers, may be used to treat larger, more homogeneous infestations. The three herbicides considered for use are:

(1) An aquatic-approved formulation with glyphosate (non-selective herbicide, frequently used to target grasses and knotweed among others),

(2) Aminopyralid (selective herbicide used to target aster, legume and nightshade family plants among others), and

(3) An aquatic-approved formulation with imazapyr (used in combination with glyphosate or as a stand-alone for specific species).

The application method for herbicides depends on the site being treated and the size of the infestation. Foliar spot treatment may be the preferred application method (often in conjunction with manual/mechanical pre-treatments). In other situations, such as rock quarries or roads, broadcast spraying may be the preferred tool. Low toxicity surfactants such as Agri-dex would be utilized to improve herbicide efficacy.

TIME AND DURATION OF PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

The proposed project could begin implementation upon signature of the Decision Notice. Implementation would occur annually during the growing season through the fifteen-year life of the project; timing is dependent on the plant species and life stage targeted and constrained by the weather.

PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES

The following project design features would help prevent potential negative effects of the proposed work: Aquatics

The design features below minimize the potential impacts of herbicide use on aquatic resources. Design feature criteria are categorized according to subject. These criteria would be implemented, as necessary, according to the annual weed treatment plan.

8


1. Product Labels (Alaska Region BMP 15.2; National Core BMP Chem-2)Use only aquatic formulations or low aquatic risk herbicides on saturated soils, or those with seasonally high water tables, where label restrictions allow.

2. Erosion Control (Alaska Region BMP 12.17; National Core BMP AqEco-2; USDA ForestService 2018a, p. 4-61)

Apply erosion control measures (for example, silt fences) and native revegetation (for example, mulching, native grass seeding, planting) for manual treatment where detrimental soil disturbance or de-vegetation may result in the delivery of measurable levels of fine sediment (Krosse et al. 2018, Landwehr et al. 2018).

3. Buffers/Spray Distance to Water (Alaska Region BMP 15.5; National Core BMP Chem-3)All herbicides may be applied up to water’s edge using hand application or spot spraying techniques. Aquatic-based formulations of glyphosate and imazapyr may also be used to treat emergent vegetation directly over water. Begin application of herbicide products nearest to the aquatic habitat boundary and proceed away from the aquatic habitat; do not apply towards a waterbody. Herbicide spray equipment would not be washed or rinsed within 150 feet of any waterbody, stream channel, or roadside ditch with flowing or standing water present (or as far as possible from the waterbody where local site conditions do not allow a 150-foot setback). All herbicide containers and rinse water will be disposed of in amanner that would not cause contamination of waters.Mixing and loading of herbicide(s) would not occur within 150 feet from any waterbody, stream channel, or roadside ditch with flowing or standing water present (or as far as possible from the waterbody where local site conditions do not allow a 150-foot setback).

4. Public Water Sources (PWS) / Supplies (Alaska Region BMP 15.5; National Core BMPChem-3)

Before authorizing herbicide use within public water system source watersheds, consult with Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), the affected municipality, and/or the owner/operator of the water system. Review the completed Source Water Assessment for the PWS watershed, available from ADEC prior to authorizing weed management activities in these watersheds. Herbicide use within 1,000 feet of domestic wells or public water supplies will be coordinated with the water user, manager, or local Municipal Water board. All herbicide application, storage, chemical mixing, refilling and post-application equipment cleaning is completed at least 200 feet from domestic wells or public water sources, and in accordance to label guidance relative to water contamination. All known unclassified (private) water sources will receive the same consultation given to public systems, as outlined above, prior to herbicide application if located within a PWS watershed. If located outside a PWS watershed, consultation will occur if herbicide application is proposed within 1,000 feet of surface waters of known unclassified water sources.

9


5. Identify Riparian Areas (Alaska Region BMP 15.5; National Core BMP Chem-3)Forest Service personnel will identify riparian areas according to methods outlined in the Tongass Riparian Management Area Standards and Guidelines prior to implementation of herbicide application. Forest Service specialists will work closely with herbicide applicators to ensure project design features are implemented.

Botany 1. A 100-foot buffer around sensitive plant populations will be placed if using broadcast

methods.2. When target is between 60 and 100 feet from a sensitive plant population, herbicide will

only be applied by hand (wicking/wiping, or stem injection). The District Ranger mayallow use of herbicides within 60 feet of a sensitive occurrence (per Forest Plancomponents) if deemed necessary to control an infestation that may pose a threat to thatoccurrence.

3. To reduce potential spray drift or run-off, herbicides will not be applied when average windspeeds exceed the maximum wind speed stated in the product labeling.

4. Herbicide treatments will be scheduled as practicable to reduce adverse impacts to nearbysensitive plants. For example, herbicides should be applied to an infestation of a late-growing weed species after sensitive or rare plants in the vicinity have entered dormancy,to minimize potential impacts due to spray drift or run-off.

Invasive Plants 1. Prepare an annual treatment plan for all sites where treatment is proposed. The plan should

include the location, target species, herbicide, application method and rate, and projectdesign features.

2. Refer to spatial data for resource concerns, such as RMAs, public water supplies, rare plantlocations, etc. prior to invasive plant treatment to ensure compliance with project designfeatures.

3. A Pesticide Use Proposal (PUP FS-2100-2) will be prepared for herbicide use. The PUPshould be reviewed annually to determine if changes are warranted due to changes in theproject. If it is determined that substantive changes are warranted, a new PUP will beprepared, reviewed, and approved. If no changes are warranted, the original PUP issufficient for the life of the project and does not need to be rewritten (Forest ServiceHandbook 2109.14).

4. Required State of Alaska permits will be obtained as needed, such as the Alaska PollutantDischarge Elimination System (APDES) or the Pesticide Use Permit.

5. Personnel who apply or directly supervise the application of herbicide on the NationalForest System or other areas administered by the Forest Service shall be trained for theproper, safe, and effective use of the respective pesticides being applied in the managementactivity. Applicators who apply herbicide on NFS and non-NFS lands will hold thenecessary State of Alaska or US Forest Service certifications [Forest Service Manual2155.1 and 2155.2 (USDA Forest Service 1994b); (State of Alaska 18 AAC 90 2013)].

6. Prior to herbicide application, herbicide labels will be reviewed to ensure directionsregarding herbicide selection, tank mixing, and use of adjuvants, surfactants, and otheradditives, are followed (Alaska Region Soil and Water Conservation Handbook BMP 15.4).

10


7. The herbicide application rate will follow label recommendation and will be applied at the minimal effective dosage that, when properly applied to the target species, will accomplish the resource management objectives.

8. Prior to every herbicide application, check equipment and nozzles to ensure there are no leaks or excessive wear. Calibrate sprayer three times per season to ensure herbicide is applied at the intended rate.

9. The Herbicide Transportation, Handling, and Emergency Spill Response Plan, Safety Data Sheets, and spill kit will be on-site when herbicide treatments occur. The plan will include reporting procedures, project safety planning, accidental spill clean-up methods, and information on the spill kit’s contents and location as noted in FSM 2150 (USDA Forest Service 1994b), Pesticide-Use Management and Coordination and Handbook (FSH) 2109.14 (USDA Forest Service 1994a).

10. No more than daily use quantities of herbicides will be transported to the project site. The exception is for crews staging in remote locations. Under these circumstances, crews can bring enough herbicide for the planned duration of the field work (for example, enough herbicide for multiple days).

11. Herbicides will be transported in a leak-proof container and will be secured to prevent tipping during transport.

12. To reduce the potential for spills, impervious material, such as a large tote, will be placed beneath mixing areas to contain any spills associated with mixing/refilling.

13. This project will use only aquatically approved surfactants. This feature will eliminate potential impacts from adjuvants that have a risk of adverse effects to aquatic species.

14. Marker dyes will be used to mark where herbicides are applied to avoid over spraying. 15. To reduce potential spray drift, herbicides will not be applied when average wind speeds

exceed the maximum wind speed stated on the product label. If a maximum average wind speed is not stated, herbicide application will be limited to times when wind speed is less than 7 mph (18 AAC 90.610, National Core BMP Chem-3).

16. Herbicides will not be applied immediately prior to, during, or immediately after a rain event at the treatment site (National Core BMP Chem-3).

17. Avoid or minimize drift by using appropriate application equipment (for instance, nozzles that produce 200- to 800-micron diameter droplets, which are less prone to drift), adding drift reduction agents or adjusting equipment settings, such as nozzle pressure).

18. When applying herbicide at developed recreation sites, post treatment information where clearly visible for at least 24 hours following treatment (Alaska DEC 18 AAC 90, Pesticide Control 2013).

19. Daily logs must be kept per State of Alaska law (Alaska DEC 18 AAC 90, 2013) to record location, herbicide, volume applied, volume of active ingredient applied per acre, method of application, calibration rate, and any additional comments. Log data will be recorded in the NRM database.

Karst 1. The District/SO geologist or karst specialist will review treatment plans. A karst

vulnerability assessment will be completed prior to any surface management practice. 2. All hydrology and aquatic organism project design features will be applied to high and

moderate karst systems for both surface and subsurface aquatic systems.

11


Recreation 1. If the activity is located near any known recreation areas initiate a communication plan to

alert recreation users who could be affected by the timing/location of the weed treatments. Silviculture

1. Review treatment plans with a certified silviculturist to determine if mitigation is necessary to avoid damage to non-target trees or vegetation.

Soils/Wetlands 1. Review of treatment plans is required by a Tongass soil scientist. The soil scientist will

determine soil and wetland suitability for each type of herbicide prior to implementation. Use only aquatic formulations in wetlands.

2. Soil disturbance should be kept to a minimum. If an area greater than 100 square feet of mineral soil is exposed by pulling, erosion control measures should be implemented. If necessary, consult Tongass soil scientist to review and make mitigation recommendations.

3. Revegetation will follow current Tongass standards for seed mix outlined in the Guidance for Invasive Plant Management Program (USDA Forest Service 2017).

4. Apply Alaska Region BMPs 12.4, 12.5, 12.9, 12.17, 14.8, 14.25, 15.1, 15.2, 15.4, and 15.5. 5. Apply National Core BMPs AqEco-2, Chem-1, Chem-2, Chem-3, Chem-4, Chem-5,

Chem-6, Fac-6, Veg-2, and Veg-8. Transportation

1. Access to work sites is generally available on existing roads. Off-highway vehicles are commonly used when highway vehicle access is not available and as a tool for broadcast spraying when needed. Follow applicable travel regulations. Use form FS-7700-0040 or obtain a letter of permission for use of the closed road. Upon project completion return the road to its designated closed state.

Wilderness 1. Review annual treatment plans with the District Wilderness Manager to ensure Wilderness

objectives will be met. Submit the annual treatment plan to the Regional Forester for review.

2. A Minimum Requirements Decision Guide has been completed and approved by the Regional Forester for herbicide treatment activities taking place within designated Wilderness areas. The Minimum Requirements Analysis concludes the activity can only be conducted when the principle objective is to protect or restore the Wilderness resource. The means of treatment used will be a professional judgement.

3. Any use of herbicides within Wilderness areas must be approved by the Regional Forester [FSM 2323.04c (USDA Forest Service 2007)] through a Pesticide Use Proposal.

4. No motorized equipment or mechanical transport will be used. 5. Crew size will be kept to 12 people or fewer. 6. Crew camps, if needed, will be located in previously used campsites if available, and crews

will follow Leave-No-Trace guidelines (www.lnt.org). Wildlife

1. Wildlife design features, as determined through the wildlife specialist review will be applied in adherence with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and other official guidance, direction, law, regulation, and policy.

12

http://www.lnt.org/


2. Prohibit all use of herbicides and pesticides within 15 miles of all known or historicalPeale’s peregrine falcon nest sites. Refer to Forest Plan Standard and Guideline WILD4 IIC, p. 4-96 (USDA Forest Service 2016a).

Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers 1. Maintain or enhance the outstandingly remarkable values (ORVs), free-flowing condition,

water quality, and classification of rivers designated or recommended for designation ascomponents of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

2. Apply the High Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO) within wild river corridors and no lessthan Moderate SIO for any designated or recommended river with a Scenic ORV.

3. Apply all applicable Forest Plan direction pertaining to Wild, Scenic and RecreationalRivers (USDA Forest Service 2016a, pp. 3-76 to 3-96).

WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT THIS PROJECT?Your input and ideas are important in evaluating and completing the Petersburg and Wrangell Invasive Plant Management project. Feedback will help the interdisciplinary team identify issues important to you and design a proposed action and alternatives to address your issues and concerns. There are several ways to submit comments for this project:

• Submit comments through the project’s comment database: https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public//CommentInput?Project=59576.

• Fax comments to: 907-772-5995.

• Mail comments to Ted Sandhofer, District Ranger, PO Box 1328, Petersburg, AK 99833.

• Hand-deliver comments to either district office in Wrangell (525 Bennett St.) orPetersburg (12 North Nordic Dr.), Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m.and 4:30 p.m. except holidays. For continued public safety during the ongoing pandemic,hand-delivered comments will be accepted by appointment only. In Wrangell call: 907-874-2323. In Petersburg call: 907-419-6158.

Please submit your comments within 30 calendar days following the publication of the Opportunity to Comment notice in the Petersburg Pilot and Wrangell Sentinel for this process. The expected publication date for the notice is March 4, 2021. For more information about the project, contact the Petersburg Ranger District at (907) 772-3841 or [email protected]. We look forward to your participation. Your input and ideas will help ensure a successful assessment.

13

https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public/CommentInput?Project=59576

https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public/CommentInput?Project=59576

mailto:[email protected]

SCOPING PROPOSAL IN DETAIL WRANGELL PETERSBURG …

Documents