West Gravel Pit Project -...

West Gravel Pit EA

Biological Evaluation

- 1 -

West Gravel Pit Project

Wildlife Biological Evaluation

Hiawatha National Forest Munising Ranger District

400 E. Munising Ave. Munising, Michigan

49862

Prepared by:___________________________________ _March 26, 2009

Matt Cole / HNF West Side Wildlife Biologist Date

West Gravel Pit EA


- 2 -

Table of Contents

Section Page

Introduction

- Federally endangered, threatened, or proposed species 3

- Forest Service Region 9 Sensitive Species 3

Proposed Management Actions 4

Project Area Description 4

Identification of all Endangered, Threatened, or Sensitive Species 5

- Occupied Habitat 6

- Unoccupied Habitat 6

Effects Analysis with Determinations 10-17

Conclusion 18

References Cited 19

West Gravel Pit EA


- 3 -

INTRODUCTION Biological evaluations are required to document effects to federally endangered,

threatened, or USFS Regional Forester listed sensitive species.

1) Federally endangered, threatened, or proposed species.

Section II of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (as amended 1978, 1979, 1982

and 1988), the National Forest Management Act of 1976 and various directives in the

Forest Service Manual (2600-95-7) specify the need to protect endangered, threatened

and sensitive species. Specifically, the ESA requires each federal agency, in consultation

with and with the assistance of the Secretary of the Interior and/or Commerce, insure that

any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize

the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the

destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species which is determined by the

Secretary, after consultation as appropriate with affected States, to be critical, unless such

agency has been granted an exemption for such action by the Committee pursuant to

subsection (h)(7) of the Act. In fulfilling the requirement of this paragraph, each agency

shall use the best scientific and commercial data available. The Forest Service shall use

the biological evaluation to assess compliance with these regulations.

To facilitate compliance with the requirements of subsection (a)(2) each federal agency

shall, with respect to any agency action of such agency for which no contract for

construction has been entered into and for which no construction has begun on the date of

enactment of the Endangered Species Act Amendments of 1978, request of the Secretary

information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present

in the area of such proposed action. If the Secretary advises, based on the best scientific

and commercial data available, that such species may be present, such agency shall

conduct a biological assessment for identifying any endangered species or threatened

species that is likely to be affected by such action.

2) Forest Service Region 9 Sensitive Animal Species for the Hiawatha National Forest.

The Forest Service Manual requires the Forest Service to address the viability of Region

9 listed sensitive species to avoid impacts that may cause a trend towards federal listing

or loss of viability. For Regionally listed sensitive species a determination is made as to

whether the action will likely have “no impacts, beneficial impacts, may impact

individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability, or likely

to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability.”

West Gravel Pit EA


- 4 -

PROPOSED MANAGEMENT ACTIONS

The West Zone of the HNF is proposing to meet the purpose of and need for action by

expanding the existing 16 Mile Pit and developing the Halfmoon, Hickey Creek, and

Kilpecker sites as new gravel pits to be used for Forest Service administrative use. It

would also include developing the Whitefish site for Forest Service administrative use

and potentially public and local government use. Before each pit is developed, a

management plan would be completed for each site which identifies procedures for

development, operation, and rehabilitation of the pit.

Due to pit development, a total of 50-60 acres of vegetation (jack pine, balsam fir, paper

birch, sugar maple, beech, and yellow birch) would be removed. The existing roads into

the pits would be locked, and non-native invasive plants would be monitored and

controlled with herbicide.

Specific herbicides that could be used include the following:

Imazapic

Glyphosate

Triclopyr

Clopyralid

Dicamba

All sites would be large enough for a crushing operation to take place. This entails a

machine being brought into the site and crushing rock to meet standards for the various

road classifications. Crushing would most likely take place in July, August, September,

and possibly October when the ground is drier. Crushing operations would take place on

a sporadic basis, depending on the year and if there are any projects going on in the area

of the pits. Crushing operations could occur once or twice a year for approximately one

week. It is possible to go up to 2 to 3 years without entering a pit again.

PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION

Halfmoon

The Halfmoon Pit site is surrounded by mixed northern hardwoods, primarily sugar

maple/beech, with rolling topography. Halfmoon Lake is less than ¼ mile away.

In order to develop this site, 10-15 acres of hardwood overstory will need to be cleared.

West Gravel Pit EA


- 5 -

Hickey Creek

The Hickey Creek Pit site is not currently developed; however, there is a developed

mineral material pit on adjacent private lands to the southeast of the proposed site. The

proposed site is within an extensive stand of mature sugar maple/ beech/ yellow birch.

Kilpecker

The Kilpecker Pit site is not currently developed. The area is within a large stand of

pole-size jack pine. In order to be developed, approximately 10 acres of jack pine

overstory will need to be cleared. There will be a gate with berms on each side at the

entrance of the pit to control access.

Whitefish

The Whitefish Pit area is not currently developed and is located within a stand of mature

mixed northern hardwoods, with a red pine plantation adjacent. In order for the pit to be

developed, 10-15 acres of hardwood overstory will need to be cleared.

16 Mile

The 16 Mile Pit has been used in the past and has approximately 2 acres of opening. In

order for the pit to be developed, an additional 8-10 acres of overstory will need to be

cleared. The overstory is made up of mature beech, with sugar maple and yellow birch.

The topography is rolling to steep.

IDENTIFICATION OF ALL ENDANGERED, THREATENED. OR SENSITIVE SPECIES (ETS)

Habitat for a variety of game, non-game, threatened, endangered and sensitive wildlife

species occurs within the project area. Forest types include sugar maple, beech and

yellow birch mixed hardwoods and jack pine.. Many wildlife species are associated with

these forest types, including coyote, gray wolf, broad-winged hawk, northern goshawk,

red-shouldered hawk, ruffed grouse, black-throated green warbler, wood thrush,

ovenbird, American marten, black-backed woodpecker, and pileated woodpecker.

Information Review

In order to determine any known locations of TES species in the project area, the

following tasks were performed:

Findings from recent surveys conducted in the project area were reviewed.

Forest Service specialists and private individuals with specific knowledge of the

area were consulted.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was consulted for federally listed species.

West Gravel Pit EA


- 6 -

The following data sources were then reviewed to identify known sensitive species

locations in the general project area and to determine the habitat potential for species

included on the HNF Region 9 sensitive species list:

Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) county element lists for Alger,

Delta, and Schoolcraft Counties and MNFI Element Abstracts.

Hiawatha National Forest Natural Resources Information Service (NRIS) Wildlife

database.

Habitat maps, vegetative maps (current and historic), soils maps, National

Wetlands Inventory wetlands maps, and aerial photographs.

Journal articles, field guides, books and recent environmental analyses performed

on the HNF.

Michigan DNR 2008 Bald Eagle Nesting Survey in the Eastern Upper Peninsula

(UP).

Surveys

The project file contains the survey records. The following surveys have been completed

within the Gravel Pit Analysis Area:

June-July 2008 callback survey for woodland raptors in stands identified for

potential clearing, adjacent stands, and along the access routes. Survey was

conducted using the standard protocol developed on the Forest, titled HNF

Woodland Raptor Inventory Protocol (1995 as amended), which utilizes

directional broadcast calling techniques to elicit vocal or visual responses. The

protocol targets include northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) and red-shouldered

hawk (Buteo lineatus).

Incidental observations of other wildlife species were recorded during the raptor

surveys mentioned above.

Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species

Within the West Gravel Pit Project Area no listed or proposed “critical habitat” has been

identified by USFWS for any of the federally listed or proposed wildlife species. The

project area provides suitable habitat for Canada lynx and gray wolf.

Table 1 lists each TES animal species for the Hiawatha National Forest, its status, and

whether suitable habitat exists within the project area. Those with habitat or occurrence in

the project area will be carried through an effects analysis.

Table 1. TES Animal Species of the Hiawatha Scientific name Common name Status Habitat? Documented ?

Federally Listed Species

Charadrius melodus Piping plover E,SE No No

Dendroica kirtlandii Kirtland‟s warbler E, SE No No

Canis lupus Gray wolf E, ST Yes No

Lynx canadensis Canada lynx T,SE Yes No

Somatochlora hineana Hine‟s emerald dragonfly E, SE No No

Regional Forester Sensitive

Mammals

West Gravel Pit EA


- 7 -

Canis lupus Gray wolf RS, ST Yes No

Birds

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle RS,ST Yes No

Accipiter gentilis Northern goshawk RS, SC Yes No

Ammodramus leconteii Le Conte‟s sparrow RS No No

Asio flammeus Short-eared owl RS, SE No No

Buteo lineatus Red-shouldered hawk RS, ST Yes No

Chlidonias niger Black tern RS No No

Coturnicops noveboracensis Yellow rail RS, ST No No

Cygnus buccinator Trumpeter swan RS, ST No No

Dendroica discolor Prairie warbler RS, SE No No

Falco peregrinus anatum Peregrine falcon RS, SE No No

Gavia immer Common loon RS, ST No No

Lanius ludovicianus migrans Loggerhead shrike RS, SE No No

Nycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned night heron RS, SC No No

Oporornis agilis Connecticut warbler RS No No

Picoides arcticus Black-backed woodpecker RS Yes No

Sterna caspia Caspian tern RS, ST No No

Sterna hirundo Common tern RS, ST No No

Tympanuchus phasianellus Sharp-tailed grouse RS, MIS No No

Insects

Gomphus quadricolor Rapid‟s clubtail dragonfly RS No No

Hylogomphus viridifrons Green-faced clubtail RS No No

Lycaeides idas nabokovi Northern blue butterfly RS,ST No No

Somatochlora incurvata Warpaint emerald dragonfly RS No No

Trimerotropis huroniana Lake Huron locust RS, ST No No

Williamsonia fletcheri Ebony boghaunter dragonfly RS No No

Williamsonia linteri Ringed boghaunter dragonfly RS No No

Reptiles

Emydoidea blandingii Blandings turtle RS No No

Mollusks

Catinella exile Land snail RS No No

Euconulus alderi Tawny glass snail RS No No

Vallonia gracilicosta albula Land snail RS No No

Vertigo morsei Six-whorl vertigo RS No No

Vertigo paradoxa Mystery vertigo RS No No

Vertigo bollesiana Delicate vertigo RS No No

Planogyra asteriscus Eastern Flat-whorl snail RS No No

U.S. Status: T = Listed threatened E = Listed endangered

R9 Status: RS = R9 Sensitive, Documented extant occurrence within the Forest Proclamation Boundary

MIS = Management Indicator Species on Hiawatha

Michigan Status:

SE = State Endangered

ST = State Threatened

SC = Special Concern

Occupied Habitat:

No federally-listed or Regional Forester Sensitive Species are known to occupy the

project area or those areas immediately adjacent.

West Gravel Pit EA


- 8 -

Unoccupied Habitat:

Federal Species

Gray wolf

The gray wolf was listed as “endangered” by the U.S. Department of Interior in 1967.

Wolves were officially protected in 1974 under the federal Endangered Species Act of

1973. In 2003, the gray wolf was reclassified to “threatened” in Michigan and the

remainder of the Eastern distinct population segment outside of Michigan. A FWS Final

Rule was issued in the Federal Register on Feb. 8, 2007 to delist the gray wolf Western

Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment (USDI, 2007). Management authority in

Michigan was transferred to the State. In September, 2008, the USFWS was directed to

return gray wolf to „endangered‟ status, as a result of recent litigation. On March 6, 2009

FWS reissued the delisting decision, currently published in the Federal Register for 30-day

review. Because of the potential for future appeals and litigation, and the possibility of

gray wolf being relisted (again), the species will be analyzed as both federally-listed and as

RFSS.

Gray wolves occupy many vegetative community types. Habitat can be characterized by

areas of low human occupancy, low levels of human-wolf interaction and an adequate

prey base. White-tailed deer are consumed most often. The wolf is a social species and

requires a large home range that is relatively free of human occupancy and low road

densities (Thiel 1985, Mech et al 1988).

A number of wolf packs and individuals have been documented with ranges overlapping

the HNF west unit. While exact population information for the HNF west unit is lacking,

we can likely assume a trend that parallels the recent upward trend for the Upper

Peninsula of MI. The following table shows increases in recent decades.

Table 9. Michigan Wolf Population (Upper Peninsula)

1980 0

1995 80

2000 216

2004 360

2008 520 (MDNR 2008)

The latest winter telemetry data for gray wolf territories (MDNR 2008) shows ten wolf

packs occupying the west unit of the Hiawatha, but does not show any locations,

rendezvous areas, or home range polygons intersecting the project areas. However,

individual wolves may disperse at any time and could travel through any of the five

proposed sites. Potential effects to wolves will therefore be discussed.

Canada lynx A lynx survey, the “National Lynx Detection Protocol” was developed in order to add

reliability, and efficacy to the process of lynx detection. Various locations across the

United States followed this “hair-snare” protocol to detect lynx in areas where lynx are

West Gravel Pit EA


- 9 -

known to occur or where lynx occurred historically. In 2003, the HNF completed three

years of this survey on each unit of the HNF and did not detect lynx. Additionally, no

lynx were detected on the Ottawa National Forest.

The most recent record of a Canada lynx in Michigan was an incidental capture in a

private trap on the Forest, in Mackinac County in November 2003. Genetic tests verified

the individual as a Canada lynx, with no evidence of hybridization (USDA FS 2003).

This is the first documented lynx specimen in Michigan in approximately 20 years; the

last verified lynx was caught in 1983, also in Mackinac County (Beyer et al. 2001).

The lack of recent observations, extensive tracking efforts and the review of mandatory

registration of bobcat pelts indicate that lynx are very rare in the UP (Beyer et al. 2001;

Harger 1965). Earle and Tuovila (2003) noted that the absence of lynx track crossings

after seven years and 2,741 kilometers (km) of winter track surveys in the Upper

Peninsula highlights the rarity of the species. Beyer et al. (2001) reported that in a survey

of records for lynx occurrence in the UP, no verifiable evidence of successful

reproduction was located.

The variety of forest types within the project area and immediately adjacent could

provide lynx dispersal habitat, and marginal denning and/or foraging habitat.

Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS)

Gray wolf

The gray wolf was listed as “endangered” by the U.S. Department of Interior in 1967.

Wolves were officially protected in 1974 under the federal Endangered Species Act of

1973. In 2003, the gray wolf was reclassified to “threatened” in Michigan and the

remainder of the Eastern distinct population segment outside of Michigan. A FWS Final

Rule was issued in the Federal Register on Feb. 8, 2007 to delist the gray wolf Western

Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment (USDI, 2007). Management authority in

Michigan was transferred to the State. In September, 2008, the USFWS was directed to

return gray wolf to „endangered‟ status, as a result of recent litigation. On March 6 FWS

reissued the delisting decision, currently published in the Federal Register for 30-day

review. Because of the potential for future appeals and litigation, and the possibility of

gray wolf being relisted (again), the species will be analyzed as both federally-listed and as

RFSS.

Gray wolves occupy many vegetative community types. Habitat can be characterized by

areas of low human occupancy, low levels of human-wolf interaction and an adequate

prey base. White-tailed deer are consumed most often. The wolf is a social species and

requires a large home range that is relatively free of human occupancy and low road

densities (Thiel 1985, Mech et al 1988).

West Gravel Pit EA


- 10 -

A number of wolf packs and individuals have been documented with ranges overlapping

the HNF west unit. While exact population information for the HNF west unit is lacking,

we can likely assume a trend that parallels the recent upward trend for the Upper

Peninsula of MI. The following table shows increases in recent decades.

Table 9. Michigan Wolf Population (Upper Peninsula)

1980 0

1995 80

2000 216

2004 360

2008 520 (MDNR 2008)

The latest winter telemetry data for gray wolf territories (MDNR 2008) shows ten wolf

packs occupying the west unit of the Hiawatha, but does not show any locations,

rendezvous areas, or home range polygons intersecting the project areas. However,

individual wolves may disperse at any time and could travel through any of the five

proposed sites. Potential effects to wolves will therefore be discussed.

Both northern goshawk and red-shouldered hawk could find suitable habitat within the

project areas, primarily in the mature northern hardwood stands in the Whitefish,

Halfmoon, Hickey Creek, and 16 Mile pit areas. Individuals were not detected during

surveys, but could appear at anytime during the implementation period.

Black-backed woodpecker could find potential habitat within the extensive jack pine

stands surrounding the Kilpecker pit area. Only those trees showing signs of disease or

stress would be used as foraging or nesting habitat (Evers, 1991). The stands appear

healthy at this time.

Effects Analysis & Determinations

Scope of analysis

Direct and Indirect Effects

Spatial bounds for direct and indirect effects to gray wolf and Canada lynx include only

those stands where actions would occur, and their immediate vicinities and travel routes.

The rationale for this boundary is based on the mobility of wolves and lynx and their

ability to move to unaffected nearby areas. Temporal bounds would include the period of

implementation plus an additional five years, as the stands become re-vegetated and

begin to provide food for prey species (approximately 2011 to 2036). Habitats would

continue to change, but predictions become increasingly speculative at longer time

frames.

West Gravel Pit EA


- 11 -

The geographic bounds for analyzing impacts to nesting raptors will be up to ½ mile from

the proposed pit sites and access routes, to consider noise disturbance. Temporal bounds

would extend for the life of the pit(s), or as long as excavation and crushing operations

last. Spatial bounds of analysis for black-backed woodpecker will be limited to those

stands where clearing will occur. Temporal bounds would begin 10 years prior to

implementation and end with beginning of re-vegetation.

Cumulative Effects

The Council on Environmental Quality has defined cumulative impact as “…the impact

on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added

to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what

agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such actions” (40 CFR 1508.7). In

determining cumulative effects, the following list of past, present, and future actions were

added to the direct and indirect effects of the Proposed Action and alternatives.

Site Activity Name Timeframe

Halfmoon Jack Pine Budworm Munising 2006

Halfmoon Jack of Hearts 2002

Hickey Creek North Hickey, Hickey OSR 2002

Kilpecker Jack Pine Budworm 2007

16-Mile Bay 2004

Whitefish Carmen 2005

Direct and indirect effects from this project are not expected to extend beyond the areas

described above. Therefore, the areas used for analysis of cumulative effects will be

limited to those same areas. Temporal bounds also would be the same as for direct and

indirect effects.

Cumulative effects under the Endangered Species Act are those effects of future state or

private activities, not involving federal activities, that are reasonably certain to occur

within the action area of the Service action subject to consultation (50 CFR 402.02)

(Federal Register 2004). This project is not subject to formal consultation; therefore,

analysis of cumulative effects to ESA listed species is not required for this project.

Species Analysis: Federally-Listed

Gray Wolf

The recovery plan for the eastern timber wolf, or gray wolf, lists five main critical factors

for long-term survival of the wolf (USDI 1992). These are:

a. Large tracts of wild land with relatively low human densities and minimal

accessibility by humans.

b. Ecologically sound management.

c. Availability of adequate prey.

West Gravel Pit EA


- 12 -

d. Adequate understanding of wolf ecology.

e. Maintenance of populations large enough to resist parasites, disease, and other

adverse effects.

Alternative 1


Over the entire project area, the amount of forested habitat available to wolves would

decrease by 50-60 acres due to clearing. Therefore, these areas would not be suitable

habitat for wolves or prey species until extraction is completed, and pit rehabilitation and

succession has occurred. None of the sites represent unique or critical habitat for wolves.

The loss of such a small amount of habitat is not expected to affect gray wolf.

Disturbance would be the most likely effect to wolves: during clearing, extraction, and

hauling of material. Impacts are expected to be minor, if any, due to wolves‟ ability to

quickly move to nearby equally-suitable habitats. If an active gray wolf den or

rendezvous area is located during any portion of preparing or implementing the proposed

project, protection measures on page 2-23 in the HNF Draft Wildlife Technical Guide

will be implemented (USDA Forest Service, 2006). These measures would establish a

no-activity buffer zone around the active den site.

If Alternative 1 is implemented, mitigation measures, Forest Service policy, State and

Federal laws, and manufacturer recommendations would all be followed during the

herbicide application process in order to minimize environmental impacts. The data

suggest that the herbicides proposed for use are generally safe to mammals, birds, and

other wildlife if used in accordance with the manufacturer label (see Appendix B, Tables

E-1 – E-3). Additionally, these chemicals would only be used within the pits, which are

not considered important wolf habitat.

Cumulative Effects

Although it is difficult to estimate the cumulative effects resulting from management of

the National Forest along with neighboring land management and land uses from 2000-

2036, we can estimate cumulative effects related to habitat conditions and human

disturbances. Clearing and thinning of timber stands has occurred recently within the

analysis areas, with a resultant slight increase in fragmentation. Forested travel corridors

have diminished, but still remain for gray wolves. Clearing also provides a temporary

beneficial effect, with increased levels of browse for prey species (deer, hare).

Private land occurs within the cumulative effects area, and further development is

expected. These activities could result in the permanent loss of potential gray wolf

habitat. Additional actions performed on private lands that may adversely affect the gray

wolf in the future are fire suppression, timber harvest, and increased human disturbance.

Overall, implementation of the proposed action with HNF conservation measures is

expected to provide a very minor and probably discountable contribution to cumulative

effects within the analysis area.

West Gravel Pit EA


- 13 -

Determination

Due to the relatively small amount of habitat that would be impacted by constructing

these pits, and the fact that hauling would occur on roads that are already present, this

project “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” gray wolf, for Alternative 1.

Alternative 2 (No Action)


Implementation of the No Action Alternative would maintain the existing plant

communities and allow natural succession to occur. There would be no loss of forested

habitat from clearing.

Disturbance to wolves from harvest and pit operations also would not occur at the sites.

No increase in traffic on surrounding roads would result from Alternative 2. Therefore,

impacts such as direct mortality and road avoidance behavior would not increase.

Because the gravel pits would not be constructed, there would not be a need to control

NNIS. To summarize, there would be no direct or indirect effects from the No-Action

Alternative.

Cumulative Effects

With no direct or indirect effects at any of the five proposed sites, there would be no

change in conditions for wolves, and therefore no cumulative effects to consider from the

No-Action Alternative.

Determination

There would be “no effect” to gray wolf from Alternative 2 (No-Action).

Canada Lynx

In the Great Lakes states the lynx may inhabit areas of boreal, coniferous, and mixed

coniferous/deciduous vegetation types (Baker 1983). Lynx are closely associated with

the habitats and populations of its primary prey, the snowshoe hare. Red squirrels may

also be an important alternate prey species, especially during snowshoe hare population

lows. Lynx den sites are found in forests with large coarse woody debris including

downed logs or root wads. Older forests with a substantial understory of conifers or

small patches of shrubs and young trees, that provide dense cover, generally provide

quality lynx foraging habitat.

Alternative 1


There are five Forest Plan guidelines that address the following factors of lynx habitat

(Forest plan p. 2-18 and 2-19).

1. Maintain sufficient habitat connectivity.

Connectivity is defined as forested areas in size class 2 (i.e. saplings 4.5 feet to 4.9 inches

DBH). There is sufficient connectivity habitat for lynx under both alternatives. Pit

West Gravel Pit EA


- 14 -

development would lead to loss of potential lynx habitat. Habitat may not be suitable

until extraction is complete, pit rehabilitation has occurred, and natural succession takes

place. However, at a landscape scale, the conversion of 50-60 acres of habitat to

gravel/sand pits is not expected to impact connectivity.

2. Retain 10% of areas affected by fire, blowdown, insects or disease.

No salvage activities are proposed by this project.

3. Protect habitat integrity when planning and designating snow compacted trails.

There are no new snowmobile trails proposed by this project.

4. Attempt to keep road densities below 2 miles per square mile in lynx habitat.

The focus of the project is gravel/sand pit construction; no roads are proposed for

construction or decommissioning.

5. At least 10% of habitat should be denning habitat in blocks greater than 5 acres.

The proposed sites contain marginal habitat for denning and given the low probability of

lynx occupying any of the sites, Alternative 1 would not impact lynx denning habitat.

Other factors:

None of the sites represent unique or critical habitat for lynx. The loss of 50-60 acres of

forested habitat is not expected to adversely affect lynx.

Disturbance would be the most likely effect to lynx: during clearing, extraction, and

hauling of material. Impacts are expected to be minor, if any, due to lynx ability to

quickly move to nearby equally-suitable habitats. If an active lynx den is located during

any portion of preparing or implementing the proposed project, a special closure order

may be used for protection as stated in the HNF LRMP, p 2-17 (2006). These measures

would establish a no-activity buffer zone around the active den site.

If Alternative 1 is implemented, about 50-60 acres of habitat would be lost, and herbicide

use would take place. This project does meet habitat guidelines within the Forest Plan.

Mitigation measures, Forest Service policy, State and Federal laws, and manufacturer

recommendations would all be followed during herbicide application. Data suggests that

the herbicides proposed for use are generally safe to mammals, birds, and other wildlife if

used in accordance with the manufacturer label (Appendix B, Tables E-1 – E-3).

Additionally, these chemicals would only be used within the established pits, which are

not considered lynx habitat.

Cumulative Effects

Clearing and thinning of timber stands has occurred recently within the analysis area with

a resulting increase in fragmentation. Connectivity habitat has diminished due to

fragmentation, but still remains in sufficient quantities.

Present actions include timber sales, involving jack pine salvage and red pine thinning,

which can reduce habitat temporarily. These effects are mostly discountable, as harvested

West Gravel Pit EA


- 15 -

areas return to suitability within 5 years, and because sufficient suitable habitat remains

throughout the analysis area.

It is likely that the distribution of cone-bearing conifers across the analysis area will be

sufficient to function as red squirrel habitat, meeting the needs of the lynx for an alternate

source of prey, both at present and in the future.

Private, state, county, and other landowners may continue to build roads, many of which

would become permanent or, if needed temporarily, may not be effectively closed after

use. However, it is possible that the majority of state and county road systems are already

in place and that additional major construction and changes in broad access patterns are

unlikely.

Determination:

Based on this analysis, and on the extremely low probability of lynx occurring within the

project area, the project “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” Canada lynx for

Alternative 1.

Alternative 2





Disturbance to lynx from harvest and pit operations also would not occur at the sites. No

increase in traffic on surrounding roads would result from Alternative 2. Therefore,



NNIS. To summarize, there would be no direct or indirect effects from the No-Action

Alternative.

Cumulative Effects


change in conditions for lynx, and therefore no cumulative effects to consider from the


Determination

There would be “no effect” to Canada lynx from Alternative 2 (No-Action).

West Gravel Pit EA


- 16 -

Species Analysis: Regional Forester Sensitive Species

Gray wolf

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Over the entire project area, the amount of forested habitat available to wolves would

decrease by 50-60 acres from clearing. Therefore, these areas would not be suitable

habitat for wolves or prey species until extraction is completed, and pit rehabilitation and

succession has occurred. None of the sites represent unique or critical habitat for wolves.

The loss of such a small amount of habitat is not expected to affect gray wolf.

Disturbance would be the most likely effect to wolves: during clearing, extraction, and

hauling of material. Impacts are expected to be minor, if any, due to wolves‟ ability to

quickly move to nearby equally-suitable habitats. If an active gray wolf den or

rendezvous area is located during any portion of preparing or implementing the proposed

project, protection measures on page 2-23 in the HNF Draft Wildlife Technical Guide

will be implemented. (USDA Forest Service, 2006). These measures would establish a

no-activity buffer zone around the active den site.

If Alternative 1 is implemented, mitigation measures, Forest Service policy, State and

Federal laws, and manufacturer recommendations would all be followed during the

herbicide application process in order to minimize environmental impacts. The data

suggest that the herbicides proposed for use are generally safe to mammals, birds, and

other wildlife if used in accordance with the manufacturer label (see Appendix B, Table

3). Additionally, these chemicals would only be used within the pits, which are not

considered important wolf habitat.

Cumulative Impacts

Although it is difficult to estimate the cumulative effects resulting from management of

the National Forest along with neighboring land management and land uses from 2000-

2036, we can estimate cumulative effects related to habitat conditions and human

disturbances. Clearing and thinning of timber stands has occurred recently within the

analysis areas, with a resultant slight increase in fragmentation. Forested travel corridors

have diminished, but still remain for gray wolves. Clearing also provides a temporary

beneficial effect, with increased levels of browse for prey species (deer, hare).



habitat. Additional actions performed on private lands that may adversely affect the gray

wolf in the future are fire suppression, timber harvest, and increased human disturbance.

Overall, implementation of the proposed action with HNF conservation measures is

expected to provide a very minor and probably discountable contribution to cumulative

effects within the analysis area.

West Gravel Pit EA


- 17 -

Determination

Due to the relatively small amount of habitat that would be impacted by constructing

these pits, and the fact that hauling would occur on roads that are already present, this

project „May Impact Individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a

loss of viability‟ for gray wolf.






Disturbance to wolves from harvest and pit operations also would not occur at the sites.

No increase in traffic on surrounding roads would result from Alternative 2. Therefore,



NNIS. To summarize, there would be no direct or indirect impacts from the No-Action

Alternative.

Cumulative Effects


change in conditions for wolves, and therefore no cumulative effects to consider from the


Determination

There would be “no impact” to gray wolf from Alternative 2 (No-Action).

Black-backed Woodpecker

The black-backed woodpecker occurs locally across the Upper Peninsula and parts of the

northern Lower Peninsula. It occupies open and closed black spruce-tamarack bogs,

northern white cedar swamps, mixed forests with eastern hemlock, jack-pine plains and

conifer clearcuts where disturbance (insect outbreak, fire) provide areas with a large

number of dead trees (Evers 1991).

Bark-boring beetle larvae provide 75 percent of the black-backed woodpecker’s diet.

They also consume other insects and spiders. Nesting cavities are drilled in dead or live

conifers, with spruce and pine trees being preferred. Foraging sometimes occurs far from

its nesting territory (SVE 2002). Most nests overlook openings such as lakes, peatlands,

clearcuts and roads. This woodpecker quickly inhabits areas where wildfire or disease

events create stands with large numbers of snags, these woodpeckers move between areas

with large disturbances. Dead standing and dead and downed logs are used for foraging.

West Gravel Pit EA


- 18 -

Stands with lesser numbers of snags are used in the interim. Of the five proposed sites,

only Kilpecker represents potential habitat for black-backed woodpecker, as the jack pine

matures and becomes diseased or dies.

Alternative 1


The loss of approximately 10 acres of jack pine at the Kilpecker site is not expected to

impact black-backed woodpecker, with thousands of acres of equally suitable habitat in

close proximity. Clearing, extraction, and crushing operations could disturb individuals

foraging nearby, and cause them to forage elsewhere. Birds nesting near the pit would

also be affected by disturbance, and there may be potential for nest abandonment. This

potential could be lessened by restricting operations to late summer-fall, and could reduce

impacts to other nesting birds.

The impact that herbicide use may have on black-backed woodpeckers is not well known.

Mitigation measures, Forest Service policy, State and Federal laws, and manufacturer

recommendations would all be followed during the applications process in order to

minimize environmental impacts. The data suggest that the herbicides proposed for use

are generally safe to mammals, birds, and other wildlife if used in accordance with the

manufacturer label. However, according to Table E-3, impacts on insects are possible,

and black-backed woodpeckers are insectivores, so there may be potential for impact to

individuals that feed adjacent to pit locations. Chemicals would only be used within the

pits, which are not considered black-backed woodpecker habitat, but impacts to the

surrounding area could potentially impact black-backed woodpeckers.

Cumulative Impacts

The most relevant factor for this species is the removal of dead or dying conifers. The

past and current practice of removal of dead and dying timber has negatively impacted

black-backed woodpecker across the landscape. Under a natural disturbance regime,

wildfire would likely follow a budworm outbreak, creating extensive areas of quality

woodpecker habitat with thousands of acres of dead standing trees.

Recent actions (Jack pine Budworm Project, 2007), within ½ mile of the proposed

Kilpecker pit and travel route include clear cut of 15 acres of diseased jack pine. Effects

from this sale would combine with gravel pit clearing to increase fragmentation within

the cumulative effects area, and would reduce habitat for black-backed woodpecker. The

amount of vehicular use of FR2225 E is unknown and therefore the potential increased

level of traffic (with gravel hauling) is impossible to estimate. An increase in traffic

could disrupt wildlife travel patterns on a daily and seasonal basis. No impacts to black-

backed woodpecker from other actions are anticipated.

Determination

Because of the small amount of habitat affected and the opportunity for individuals to

move to nearby undisturbed areas, the determination for Alternative 1 is ‘May Impact

Individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability’.

West Gravel Pit EA


- 19 -






Disturbance to black-backed woodpecker from harvest and pit operations also would not

occur at the sites. No increase in traffic on surrounding roads would result from

Alternative 2. Therefore, impacts such as direct mortality and road avoidance behavior

would not increase. Because the gravel pits would not be constructed, there would not be

a need to control NNIS. To summarize, there would be no direct or indirect impacts from

the No-Action Alternative.

Cumulative Effects


change in conditions for black-backed woodpecker, and therefore no cumulative effects

to consider from the No-Action Alternative.

Determination

Alternative 2 would have ‘no impact’ on black-backed woodpecker.

Northern goshawk

The northern goshawk inhabits large stands of boreal and northern hardwood forests

having a dense overstory and a relatively open understory (Postupalusky 1991). In

Michigan, nests are most often constructe d in deciduous trees and less often in pine. On

the Hiawatha NF, maple, yellow birch and American beech are the most frequently used

trees for nesting (Gibson 2003). Ten confirmed Northern goshawk nests in the

West Unit Raptor Database were found in eight stands; one of which was a red pine saw

log stand and the remainder of the stands were northern hardwoods (hardwood/yellow

birch, mixed hardwoods and dry site red maple).

Alternative 1


The proposed action would remove approximately 50 acres of sugar maple, beech, aspen,

paper birch, and balsam fir at four pits (excluding Kilpecker). Therefore, this project

would result in loss of goshawk nesting and foraging habitat. Additionally, gravel/sand

hauling may impact individuals that utilize habitat near roads. Impacts from disturbance

would likely be more significant than from the loss of habitat. Design criteria (Appendix

A) will be initiated if an active goshawk nest is located near the pits at any time during

implementation. The design criteria include a no-activity buffer around the nest area and

seasonal restrictions on hauling, if necessary. The design criteria will reduce the

potential for disturbance to nesting goshawks.

West Gravel Pit EA


- 20 -

Herbicide use within the pits is not expected to impact northern goshawks. Mitigation

measures, Forest Service policy, State and Federal laws, and manufacturer




manufacturer label (Tables E-1 – E-3). Additionally, these chemicals would only be used

within the pits, which are not considered to be important northern goshawk habitat.

However, impacts of herbicide use, specific to goshawks, are not well known.

Cumulative Impacts

Actual trend data for northern goshawk within the west unit of the Hiawatha is lacking.

Past and present actions that may impact goshawk include clearing and subsequent

fragmentation, conversion to red pine, and increased human activity across the area.

Recent actions include a paper birch shelterwood cut and hardwood thinning within ¼

mile of the Halfmoon pit site. These actions resulted in a more open condition. Removal

of an additional 15 acres would add to this open condition, further reducing habitat for

species requiring more closed canopy conditions, such as northern goshawk. Overstory

removal of jack and red pine within ½ mile of the proposed Hickey Creek pit would

combine with gravel pit clearing to increase fragmentation within the cumulative effects

area, thus reducing habitat for northern goshawk. Recent actions within ½ mile of the

proposed Whitefish pit and travel route include pine and hardwood thinning. Thinned

stands will return to a more closed canopy condition within five years and would not

combine with the proposed gravel pit clearing to increase fragmentation, but would

contribute to temporary habitat loss for northern goshawk.

Clearing can also provide a temporary beneficial effect, with increased levels of forage

for prey species (ruffed grouse).



habitat. Additional actions performed on private lands that may adversely affect northern

goshawk in the future are timber harvest and increased human disturbance. The mostly

insignificant impacts to goshawk from the proposed action alternative are not expected to

add appreciably to other past, present, or future impacts.

Determination

Based on the analysis above, the management activities proposed in Alternative 1 “may

impact individuals but are not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability”

for northern goshawk. If a northern goshawk nest is located in the project area during

project preparation or implementation, protection measures listed in Appendix A of this

Biological Evaluation will be used.

West Gravel Pit EA


- 21 -






Disturbance to northern goshawk from harvest and pit operations also would not occur at

the sites. No increase in traffic on surrounding roads would result from Alternative 2.

Therefore, impacts such as direct mortality and road avoidance behavior would not

increase. Because the gravel pits would not be constructed, there would not be a need to

control NNIS. To summarize, there would be no direct or indirect impacts from the No-

Action Alternative.

Cumulative Effects


change in conditions for northern goshawk, and therefore no cumulative effects to

consider from the No-Action Alternative.

Determination

The determination for Alternative 2 is “no impact” to northern goshawk.

Red-shouldered hawk

The red-shouldered hawk is associated with mixed coniferous-deciduous woodlands,

lowland hardwood forests, swamp, river bottomlands, and wooded marshy areas. Prey

species are highly varied, and include numerous kinds of small mammals, snakes,

amphibians, small birds, frogs, toads, and also insects. Red-shouldered hawk habitat

includes extensive areas of mature forests with wetland foraging areas nearby. Forest

stands dominated by beech and sugar maple are frequently selected for nesting (Brewer et

al. 1991).

Alternative 1


In the HNF, red-shouldered hawks appear to nest in mature northern hardwood stands. .

The proposed pits (excluding Kilpecker) would remove about 50 acres of sugar maple,

beech, aspen, paper birch, and balsam fir. Therefore, this project would result in a loss of

red-shouldered hawk nesting and forage habitat. Additionally, gravel/sand hauling may

impact individuals that utilize habitat near roads, but design criteria would be

implemented to minimize this impact. For example, no pit development, hauling, or

other extraction activities would occur between March 1 and August 31 around active

nest sites.

Herbicide use within the pits is not expected to impact red-shouldered hawks. Mitigation

measures, Forest Service policy, State and Federal laws, and manufacturer



West Gravel Pit EA


- 22 -


manufacturer label (Tables E-1 – E-3). Additionally, these chemicals would only be used

within the pits, which are not considered to be important red-shouldered hawk habitat.

However, impacts of herbicide use, specific to red-shouldered hawks, are not well

known.

Cumulative Impacts

Actual trend data for red-shouldered hawk within the west unit of the Hiawatha is

lacking. Past and present actions that may impact red-shouldered hawk include clearing

and subsequent fragmentation, conversion to red pine, and increased human activity

across the area.

Recent actions include a paper birch shelterwood cut and hardwood thinning within ¼

mile of the Halfmoon pit site. These actions resulted in a more open condition. Removal

of an additional 15 acres would add to this open condition, further reducing habitat for

species requiring more closed canopy conditions, such as red-shouldered hawk.

Overstory removal of jack and red pine within ½ mile of the proposed Hickey Creek pit

would combine with gravel pit clearing to increase fragmentation within the cumulative

effects area, thus reducing habitat for red-shouldered hawk. Recent actions within ½ mile

of the proposed Whitefish pit and travel route include pine and hardwood thinning.

Thinned stands will return to a more closed canopy condition within five years and would

not combine with the proposed gravel pit clearing to increase fragmentation, but would

contribute to temporary habitat loss for red-shouldered hawk.


expected. These activities could result in the permanent loss of potential red-shouldered

hawk habitat. Additional actions performed on private lands that may adversely affect

red-shouldered hawk in the future are timber harvest and increased human disturbance.

The mostly insignificant impacts from the proposed action alternative are not expected to

add appreciably to other past, present, or future impacts.

Determination

Based on the analysis above, the management activities proposed in Alternative 1 “may

impact individuals but are not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability”

for red-shouldered hawk. If a red-shouldered hawk nest is located in the project area

during project preparation or implementation, protection measures listed in Appendix A

of this Biological Evaluation will be used.






Disturbance to red-shouldered hawk from harvest and pit operations also would not occur

at the sites. No increase in traffic on surrounding roads would result from Alternative 2.

West Gravel Pit EA


- 23 -

Therefore, impacts such as direct mortality and road avoidance behavior would not

increase. Because the gravel pits would not be constructed, there would not be a need to

control NNIS. To summarize, there would be no direct or indirect impacts from the No-

Action Alternative.

Cumulative Effects


change in conditions for red-shouldered hawk, and therefore no cumulative effects to

consider from the No-Action Alternative.

Determination

The determination for Alternative 2 is “no impact” to red-shouldered hawk.

EFFECTS DETERMINATIONS

Table 2. Summary of Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species Determinations

Species Status Habitat (H) or Species

Present (S)

Determination Alternative 1 Determination

Alternative 2

Gray Wolf E, ST H NLAA where the effects are

expected to be discountable

No Effect

Canada lynx T, SE H

NLAA where the effects are

expected to be discountable

No Effect

Gray Wolf RS H MINL No Impact

Black-backed

Woodpecker

RS H MINL No Impact

Red-shouldered

hawk

RS H MINL No Impact

Northern goshawk RS H MINL No Impact

NE: No Effect, NI: No Impact, NLAA: Not Likely to Adversely Affect, BI: Beneficial Impact

MINL May Impact individuals but Not Likely to cause a Trend to federal Listing or loss of Viability

Conclusion

The USFWS will be informally consulted and concurrence will be requested for

determinations for federally listed Threatened and Endangered Species made in this

Biological Evaluation. The consultation will be Level 2 project-specific consultation

pursuant to the Programmatic Consultation for the HNF Land and Resource Management

Plan (Forest Plan), including the Programmatic Biological Assessment (BA) and

Biological Opinion (BO), completed on March 2, 2006. The history of this consultation

is documented in the Programmatic Biological Opinion for the revision of the Forest

Plan. The relevance of program-level consultation to this project includes those elements

of species ecology and biology, risk factors and general effects, analysis parameters,

monitoring, and management direction in the revised Forest Plan. A project-level BA will

provide more specific information on how relevant information in the program-level BA

West Gravel Pit EA


- 24 -

is incorporated. Additionally, other factors relevant to this project not discussed in detail

in program-level consultation will be discussed in detail in the project-level BE.

The USFWS will determine if this proposed project is in compliance with the applicable

Forest Plan standards and guidelines for each listed species and has no additional effects

on those species other than those discussed within the Programmatic BO.

After reviewing available scientific literature and assessing the effects presented in this

Biological Evaluation, it is my conclusion that implementing the proposed action would

not violate laws or regulations applicable to Federally Endangered, Threatened, or

Regional Forester Sensitive Species considered in this document.

References Cited:

Baker, Rollin H. 1983. Michigan Mammals. Michigan State University Press.

Beyer, Dean E., Jr., Brian J. Roell, James H. Hamill, and Richard D. Earle. 2001.

Records of Canada lynx, Lynx canadensis, in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.

Canadian Field –Naturalist 115(2): 234-240.

Earle, R.D. and V. R. Tuovila 2003. Furbearer Winter Track Count Survey of 2002.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 10 pp.

Evers, David C. 1991. Black-backed Woodpecker. In: Atlas of Breeding Birds of

Michigan. Brewer, McPeek, and Adams, editors. Michigan State University Press. pp.

270-271.

Gibson J. 2003. Productivity, Predation and Habitat of Woodland Raptors on the West-

Unit Hiawatha National Forest in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, USA. 77 pp.

Harger, Ellsworth M. 1965. The Status of the Canada Lynx in Michigan. The Jack pine

Warbler 43(4). December, 1965.

HNF Land and Resource Management Plan. 2006. Canada Lynx guidelines. Pp 2-17 - 2-

19.

Mech, L. D., S. H. Fritts, G.L. Radde, and W. J. Paul. 1988. Wolf distribution and road

density in Minnesota. Wildlife Society Bulletin 16:85-87.

Michigan Gray Wolf Recovery Team. 1997. Michigan Gray Wolf Recovery and

Management Plan. Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Lansing, MI. 59 pp.

Michigan State University Extension. 2007. Michigan Natural Features Inventory.

West Gravel Pit EA


- 25 -

Web Database Search for “Element Occurrence Records” in T 43 N, R 20 W, Section 31;

T 43 N, R. 18 W, Section 10; T 45 N, R19 W, Section 35; T 46 N, R 18 W, Section 34;

and T 45 N, R 20 W, Section 10.

Postupalsky, S. 1991. Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis pages 168-169 in: Brewer , R.,

G.A. McPeek, and R.J., Adams (eds). 1991. The Atlas of Breeding Birds in Michigan.

East Lansing, Michigan State University Press 594 pp.

Thiel, R. P. 1985. Relationship between road densities and wolf habitat suitability in

Wisconsin. American Midland Naturalist 113(2):404-407.

USDA Forest Service, Hiawatha National Forest 2006 Wildlife Technical Guide for gray

wolf protection page 2-26.

USDA Forest Service, Hiawatha National Forest 2006 Wildlife Technical Guide for

Northern goshawk and Red-shouldered hawk protection pages 2-36 and 2-37.

USDI- Fish and Wildlife Service, 4/29/2005. Letter to Forest Supervisor Thomas

Schmidt, List of Threatened and Endangered Species for the Hiawatha National Forest. 2

pgs.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf. Twin

Cities, MN. 73.

Appendix A: Design Criteria

Woodland Raptors

The following measures apply to any northern goshawk or red-shouldered hawk nest that

may be constructed in the project area between the signing of the decision for this project

and the final implementation of the associated work in the Decision Notice.

Nest Area

Defined as a 30-acre area around an existing goshawk nest. The nest is typically the

center of a circular area approximately 1320 feet across (660 foot radius from the nest).

No timber harvesting will be permitted within this area, regardless of nest status.

Actions related to timber harvest, such as hauling or use of existing temporary roads

would only be permitted outside the nesting season (March 1 to August 31).

West Gravel Pit EA


- 26 -

Forest service local roads within 960 feet of the nest will be seasonally (March 1 to

August 31) restricted or closed. Minimal human presence will be permitted during the

same period.

Post-Fledging Area (PFA)

Defined as a 400-500 acre forested area, typically the center of a circular area,

approximately one mile in diameter (1/2 mile radius from the nest). This area should

contain a mosaic of vegetative structural stages in small patches.

All sale activity within the PFA will only be permitted outside the nesting season

(March 1 through August 31).

No more than 20% of the PFA will be in upland openings and/or in the 0-9 yr. age class.

Small openings are important. Openings should be less than 400 feet across and range

from 1/3 to 4 acres in size.

Sixty percent of the PFA should be in 30+ year age classes (100 year rotation) within the

long rotation forest types. Management prescriptions that have emphasis areas

(Kirtland‟s warbler or grouse) will strive for 44% in 30+ year age classes (55 year

rotation).

Dead and Down

An important component in goshawk prey base management.

Snags: at least two large ( 10” dbh and 10‟ in height) snags per acre will be left or

created throughout the foraging area.

Downed logs: at least three large ( 10” diameter at midpoint and 10‟ in length) downed

logs per acre will be left or created throughout the PFA

Appendix B: Effects from Proposed Herbicides

Tables E-1, E-2, and E-3 provide herbicide information for all of the animals and groups

analyzed in this BE. Table E-1 presents mammalian toxicity data from the 2006 edition

of the Herbicide Handbook (WSSA 2006) for each of the five herbicides selected for use

in the proposed program. The data reflect the potential for toxicity to terrestrial

mammalian wildlife exposed to areas treated with the herbicides. The data consist of

LD50, LC50, and NOEL values. A LD50 (Lethal Dose50) represents the dose (amount

supplied orally) to a test animal species in a controlled laboratory experiment that causes

50 percent mortality. An LC50 (Lethal Concentration50) represents the concentration

causing 50 percent mortality when a test animal species is externally exposed to the

chemical in a controlled laboratory experiment. A NOEL (No Observed Effects Level)

West Gravel Pit EA


- 27 -

represents the highest dose or concentration (expressed as mg per kg body weight per

day) observed not to cause noticeable effects in a test animal in a controlled laboratory

experiment. For all three parameters, a higher value indicates a safer (less toxic)

chemical.

Data are presented for two categories of toxicity: acute and chronic. Acute toxicity results

from exposure to the chemical for a short time, for example when an animal enters an

area immediately after herbicide application when the foliage is still wet. Chronic toxicity

results from continuous exposure to the chemical over an extended time, for example

should an animal inhabit an area that is repeatedly sprayed with a herbicide at regular

intervals over multiple years. Because the proposed program would consist mostly of

single applications, or at most, an initial application and one to three subsequent

applications, the acute toxicity data is most relevant. For each herbicide, we presented

separate rows of data in Table E-1 for the technical product (unformulated active

ingredient) and for several common formulations. How a product is formulated can

significantly affect its toxicity. Because it is the formulations and not the technical

product that are used in the field, formulation data are more relevant, if available. While

data based on exposure of mammalian test organisms are a useful predictor of toxicity to

mammalian wildlife, they are less useful as a predictor of toxicity to birds, fish, and other

wildlife whose physiology substantially differs from that of mammals.

Table E-2 presents toxicity data generated specifically for these other types of wildlife.

Because mammalian toxicity data are also useful in assessing toxicity to humans, they are

usually more widely available. However, when data based on other animals is available,

they are more useful for assessing potential impacts to those animals and associated

groups of animals.

Table E-3 includes information related to minimum, average and maximum application

rates, when available, for the chemicals included in the proposed actions. The table

presents ecological risk assessments summarized from Forest Service publications and

Cornell University publications for the proposed herbicides. The ecological risk

assessments consider not only the potential toxicity of herbicides to ecological receptors

but also the likelihood of exposure of receptors to the herbicides. Thus, they provide a

more realistic assessment of risk to ecological receptors from herbicide use than do

toxicity data alone.

Herbicides on the market today are generally regarded as safe to both humans and to

wildlife if used in accordance with the manufacturer label. For purposes of comparison

against data in Table E-1, the oral LD50 for rats exposed in their diet to table salt (sodium

chloride) is reported at 3,000 mg/kg body weight (BW) (Mallinckrodt Baker Inc. 2004),

which is somewhat lower (less safe) than the oral rat LD50 values for most formulations

of glyphosate and clopyralid. Furthermore, the oral LD50 data suggests that most of the

other herbicide formulations are not substantially more toxic than table salt. For purposes

of comparison against aquatic toxicity metrics in Table E-2, the reported 48-hour LC50 for

Daphnia pulex exposed to table salt is 1,470 milligrams per liter (mg/L) (Salt Institute

2004); this value is lower (less safe) than the corresponding values for most herbicide

West Gravel Pit EA


- 28 -

formulations reported in the table. Values for many of the formulations do not greatly

differ from this value.

West Gravel Pit EA


- 29 -

West Gravel Pit EA

Biological Evaluation - 30 -

Table E-1. Mammalian toxicity data for herbicides proposed for non-native invasive plant (NNIP) control on the HNF as part of the proposed action (Alternative 2)

Herbicide Acute Toxicity Chronic Toxicity

(Technical product

unless specific

formulation noted)

Oral

LD50

(rat)

Dermal

LD50

(rabbit)

4-Hour

Inhalation

LC50

(rat)

Skin

Irritation

(rabbit)

Skin

Sensitization

(guinea pig)

Eye

Irritation

(rabbit)

24-Month

Dietary

NOEL

(mouse)

24-Month

Dietary

NOEL

(rat)

12-Month

Dietary

NOEL

(dog)

mg/kg BW mg/L mg/kg BW/day

Glyphosate

Glyphosate acid 5600 >5000 NA None No Slight 4500 400 500

Glyphosate

isopropylamine salt

>5000

>5000

NA None

No

Slight

Chronic toxicity data available

only for technical glyphosate acid

Glyphosate trime-

thylsulfonium salt

748

>2000

>5.18

(unspec.)

Mild

Mild

Mild

ROUNDUP >5000 >5000 3.2 None No Moderate

RODEO >5000 >5000 1.3 None No None

Imazapic

Imazipic acid >5000 >5000 NA None No Slight Long-term dietary administration

produced no adverse effects in mice

and rats.

Imazipic ammonium

salt

>5000 >5000 2.4 None No None Chronic toxicity data available

only for technical imazipic acid

PLATEAU >5000 >5000 2.4 None No None

CADRE >5000

>5000

(rat)

2.4

None

No

None

Triclopyr

Triclopyr acid 713 >2000 NA None Positive Mild 5.3

(22mo)

3 NA

West Gravel Pit EA


Herbicide Acute Toxicity Chronic Toxicity

(Technical product

unless specific

formulation noted)

Oral

LD50

(rat)

Dermal

LD50

(rabbit)

4-Hour

Inhalation

LC50

(rat)

Skin

Irritation

(rabbit)

Skin

Sensitization

(guinea pig)

Eye

Irritation

(rabbit)

24-Month

Dietary

NOEL

(mouse)

24-Month

Dietary

NOEL

(rat)

12-Month

Dietary

NOEL

(dog)

mg/kg BW mg/L mg/kg BW/day

GARLON 3A 2574 >5000

>2.6

(unspec.)

NA NA Severe

Chronic toxicity data available

only for technical triclopyr acid

GARLON 4 1581 >2000

>5.2

(unspec.)

Moderate

Positive

Slight

Clopyralid

Clopyralid acid >5000

>2000

>1.3

(unspec.)

V. Slight

No

Severe

500

(18mo)

(mouse)

50

(rat)

100

(dog)

STINGER >5000

NA NA NA NA NA Chronic toxicity data available

only for technical clopyralid acid

Dicamba

Dicamba acid 1707 >2000 9.6 Slight Possible Extreme 115

(18mo)

125 60

BANVEL 2629 >2000 >5.4 Moderate No Extreme Chronic toxicity data available

only for technical dicamba acid BANVEL 720 2500 NA NA NA NA NA

BANVEL SGF 6764 >20000 >20.23 Slight N/A Minimal

WEEDMASTER

Dicamba+2,4-D

>5000

>20000

>20.3

Minimal

N/A Minimal

Table E-2. Toxicity data for other types of wildlife for herbicides proposed for non-native invasive plant (NNIP) control on the HNF as part of the proposed action (Alternative 2)

Herbicide

Formulation

Avian Receptors Terrestrial

Invertebrates

Aquatic Receptors

West Gravel Pit EA


(Technical product

unless specific

formulation noted)

Bobwhite Quail Mallard Duck Earth-

worm

Honeybee Daphnia Bluegill Rainbow

Trout

Oral

LD50

8-day

dietary

LC50

Oral LD50 8-day

dietary

LC50

LC50 Topical

LD50

48-hour

LC50

96-hour

LC50

96-hour

LC50

mg/kg

BW

ppm

(in food)

mg/kg BW ppm

(in food)

ppm

(in soil)

ug/bee Mg/L (in water)

Glyphosate

Glyphosate acid >4640 >4640 4640 >100 780 120 86

Glyphosate

trimethylsulfo-nium

salt

>5000 950 >5000 >62.1 71 3500 1800

ROUNDUP >5000 >100 5.3 5.8 8.2

RODEO 930 >1000 >1000

Imazapic

Imazapic Acid >2150 >5000 >2150 >5000 100 32

Triclopyr

Triclopyr acid 2934 1698 >5620 >100 133 148 117

Triclopyr

butoxyethyl ester

5401 >5401 >100 1.7 0.36 0.65

Triclopyr

triethylamine salt

>10000 3176 >10000 >100 775 891 613

Clopyralid

Clopyralid acid >4640 1465 >4640 1000 >0.1 232 125 104

Dicamba

Dicamba acid 216 >10000 1373 >10000 110

(TL50)

135

(TL50)

135

(TL50)

BANVEL >4640 >2510 >4640 1600 >1000 1000

BANVEL SGF >10000 >4640 >10000 38.1 706 558

WEEDMASTER >4640 >4640 >4640 >1800 >1000 >1000

West Gravel Pit EA


Herbicide

Formulation

Avian Receptors Terrestrial

Invertebrates

Aquatic Receptors

(Technical product

unless specific

formulation noted)

Bobwhite Quail Mallard Duck Earth-

worm

Honeybee Daphnia Bluegill Rainbow

Trout

Oral

LD50

8-day

dietary

LC50

Oral LD50 8-day

dietary

LC50

LC50 Topical

LD50

48-hour

LC50

96-hour

LC50

96-hour

LC50

Dicamba+2,4-D

Table E-3. Risk assessment information for herbicides proposed for non-native invasive plant (NNIP) control on the HNF as part of the proposed action (Alternative 2)

Risk

Assessment

Application

Rate

Terrestrial Mammals Birds Insects Fish & Other Aquatic

Receptors

Glyphosate (Source: SERA 2003a; Tu et al. 2001)

West Gravel Pit EA


Risk

Assessment

Application

Rate


Receptors

2 lb a.e./acre

(average rate)

7 lb a.e./acre

(maximum

rate)

Effects resulting from

average application rate

are minimal. Some risk

exists for large mammals

consuming foliage for an

extended period of time in

areas treated with

maximum application rate.




exists for small birds

consuming insects for an

extended period of time

from areas treated with

maximum application rate.




from maximum application

rate to bees exposed to

direct spray.



are minimal. Some risks

exists to fish near areas

treated with maximum

application rate using

some of the more toxic

formulations not labeled

for use in aquatic settings.

Imazipic (Source: SERA 2004c, Tu et al. 2004)

0.100 lb a.e.

/acre

(average rate)

0.1875 lb/acre

(maximum

rate)

No substantial risk to small

mammals at maximum

rates.

Some risk exists for large

mammals, if consumed

over long period (i.e. 2

years).

No substantial risk at

maximum rates.


maximum rates. Non-toxic

to bees


maximum rates. However,

limited toxicological data

available. Potential for

risk to aquatic plants from

maximum rates is

borderline.

Triclopyr (Source: SERA 2003b, Tu et al. 2003)

West Gravel Pit EA


Risk

Assessment

Application

Rate


Receptors

1 lb a.e./acre

(average rate)

10 lb a.e./acre

(maximum

rate)


average rate. Some risk for

mammals exposed via

direct spray or consuming

sprayed vegetation when

applied at maximum rate.


average rate. Some risk for

large bird exposed via

direct spray or consuming

sprayed vegetation when

applied at maximum rate.

No substantial risk to

terrestrial vertebrates and

invertebrates from salt and

ester formulations. Risk to

aquatic invertebrates when

if exposed to the

butoxyethyl ester (BEE)

formulation.

No substantial risk when

triethylamine (TEA) salt

formulations are applied at

average rate. Some risk to

aquatic species when

butoxyethyl ester (BEE)

formulations are applied at

average rate. Substantial

risk when BEE

formulations applied at

maximum rate.

Clopyralid (Source: SERA 2004b, Tu et al. 2001)

0.1 lb

a.e./acre

(typical rate)

1.0 lb

a.e./acre

(maximum

rate)

Reported to be relatively

non-toxic, with little

potential for adverse

effects.




effects.


non-toxic to bees, with

little potential for adverse

effects. Low toxicity to

soil invertebrates and

microbes.




effects.

Dicamba (as Vanquish, the diglycolamine salt of dicamba) (Source: SERA 2004a, Cornell 1993)

West Gravel Pit EA


Risk

Assessment

Application

Rate


Receptors

2 lb a.i./acre

(foliar

application)

1.5 lb a.i./acre

(cut surface

application)

(VANQUISH

)

No plausible and

substantial hazard under

normal conditions of

Forest Service use.

No plausible and



Forest Service use.

Reported to be non-toxic

to bees.

No plausible and



Forest Service use.

West Gravel Pit Project -...

Documents

Transcript of West Gravel Pit Project -...