DECISION NOTICEAND

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

2010 Gypsy Moth Slow the Spread Treatment Project

USDA Forest Service, Wayne National Forest, Ironton Ranger District

Gallia County, Ohio

A. INTRODUCTION

A treatment has been proposed to manage a low-density gypsy moth (Lymantria disparL.) population for the purpose of slowing the rate of spread of this non-native invasivespecies. The proposal is to treat approximately 92 acres of Wayne National Forest landsin Gallia County, Ohio. Adjacent private lands being treated concurrently are beinganalyzed by Ohio Department of Agriculture. Preparation of the Forest Service proposalwas a cooperative effort between the Wayne National Forest, USDA Forest Service,Forest Health Protection, and Ohio Department of Agriculture.

The responsible official for the decision to treat National Forest lands is Tim D. Slone,District Ranger, Ironton Ranger District, Pedro, Ohio. The responsible official to fundtreatment on state and private land is Robert Lueckel, Field Representative, USDA ForestService Forest Health Protection, Morgantown, WV.

A previous Environmental Assessment (EA) for a nearly identical treatment was preparedin March 2003, entitled "Hanging Rock Gypsy Moth Control Project". This EA analyzedthe use of the synthetic pheromone disparlure applied aerially in the infested area todisrupt the ability of male gypsy moths to locate females for mating, thus preventing orinhibiting reproduction. A pheromone is a chemical emitted by the female gypsy moth toattract male gypsy moths for the purpose of mating. Disparlure is the chemicallyidentical synthetic form of the pheromone. When disparlure is applied in sufficientquantity to saturate the infested area, the males can no longer locate females accurately.Disparlure cannot be detected by and does not affect other species. Disparlure has notoxic effect on any species, including gypsy moth. An Interdisciplinary Team (IDT)reviewed the Hanging Rock EA to determine whether that analysis could apply to thecurrent proposal. The team determined that only minor differences existed between theprevious and current projects:

The current proposal is in a location not included in the 2003 EA.The same pheromone will be used for the current proposal but in a differentcommercial form. The 2003 project used Disrupt II, a flake form spread aerially.The current proposal would use SPLAT-GM, a spray form also delivered aerially.The effects of SP LAT-GM are identical to the effects of Disrupt II, as they eachcontain the same active ingredient.

Based on the reports of the specialists who performed this review, little or no newknowledge or conditions have developed to justify a new analysis. Therefore, theHanging Rock EA will serve as the effects analysis for the current project. A Supplementto that EA has been prepared to document the minor differences in treatment location andmethods. Specialists performing the review were:

Ann Cramer, ArchaeologistChad Kirschbaum, BotanistKari Kirschbaum, Wildlife BiologistPam Stachler, Hydrologist

The EA is tiered to, the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) prepared by theUSDA, Forest Service (FS) and Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) entitled"Gypsy Moth Management in the United States: A Cooperative Approach." The Recordof Decision (ROD) was signed January 16, 1996, and selected Alternative 6 calling forconsideration of financial assistance for Integrated Pest Management (IPM) to reduce thedamage caused by gypsy moth suppression; to eliminate isolated gypsy moth infestationsoutside the regulated area (eradication); and to reduce the rate of spread of the insect inadvance of the leading edge of gypsy moth populations (slow the spread). The location ofthe proposed action is within the USDA-FS funded Gypsy Moth Slow the Spread area.

The EA was tiered to the 1996 Wayne National Forest Land and Resource ManagementPlan, as amended. The current proposal is in compliance the Wayne National Forest2006 Land and Resource Management Plan (2006 Forest Plan) Forest and ShrublandMosaic Management Area standards and is expected to meet the following Forest-wideGoals and Objectives stated in the 2006 Forest Plan:

Goal 7.1 — Protect Vegetation and Wildlife from Insects, Diseases, and Wildfires.

Objective-7.1b — Cooperate with The ODNR and State and Private ForestryDivision of the Forest Service to:

Retard advance of the gypsy mothPrevent spread onto land or into high value areas of the Forest (e.g., rarecommunities, developed recreation areas)

B. SCOPING AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

The original scoping was conducted in 2002 by the Forest Service and Ohio Departmentof Agriculture to determine issues related to the proposed action. The Forest Servicemailed scoping letters on November 5, 2002 to interested and affected agencies,organizations, and individuals. Three comments from scoping were received. Allcomments received are in the analysis project file located at the Ironton Ranger Districtand the Wayne National Forest Supervisor's Office. A legal ad was published in the

Ironton Tribune on November 5, 2002. Based upon public response and managementconcerns, the following significant issues were identified and addressed in the analysisfor formulating alternatives, developing mitigation measures, and prescribing monitoring:

Potential effects of the treatment on aquatic ecosystems (including wetlands andfloodplains), terrestrial ecosystems, species diversity, and Forest ManagementIndicator species within these systems.Potential effects of the treatment on threatened, endangered, sensitive, or locallyrare species.

3. The effects of the proposed treatment on human health.

These significant issues are listed in the EA on page 7.

Scoping for the current project was conducted by the Forest Service to determine if newissues or conditions had developed that would indicate a need for further analysis. TheForest Service mailed scoping letters on February 22, 2010 to interested and affectedagencies, organizations, and individuals. Three comments from scoping were received,all in favor of implementing the proposal. All comments received are in the analysisproject file located at the Ironton Ranger District and the Wayne National ForestSupervisor's Office. A legal ad was published in the Ironton Tribune on February 22,2010. Based upon public response and management concerns, no new issues orconditions were identified to justify further analysis.

C. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

Alternative 1 - Pheromone Flakes Treatment (Proposed Action)

In this alternative the Forest Service will cooperate with the State of Ohio to treat low-density gypsy moth populations on intermixed federal, state, and private lands in an IPMeffort to slow the rate of spread of gypsy moth by treating 1,651 acres with pheromoneflakes. The pheromone flakes would be applied at the rate of 15.2 grams of activeingredient per acre.

Alternative 2 — No Action

In this alternative no action would be taken to slow the rate of spread of gypsy moth. Thepopulations would continue to be monitored by pheromone trapping.

Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Study

Four other alternatives were considered in the EA, but eliminated from detailed studybecause they were not viable for this project.

D. DECISION

Based upon the analysis documented in the EA, the site-specific Forest HealthEvaluations, the Biological Evaluations, and the information in the 1996 FEIS, it is ourdecision to select Alternative 1 with the additional provision that the disparlure productSPLAT-GM will be applied. Implementation of alternative 1 will treat 92 acres of theIronton Ranger District with disparlure as part of the Slow the Spread project. An aerialapplication will be conducted in June or July 2010. The treatment will be followed bytwo years of post treatment monitoring using pheromone-baited traps to evaluatetreatment effectiveness.

RATIONALE FOR DECISION

Male moth trapping surveys in the summer of 2009 indicated that a contiguous butrelatively isolated low-density gypsy moth population occurs within the treatment area.Without intervention low-level gypsy moth populations will become established andcontribute to the rate of spread of gypsy moths within the area. Pheromone treatmentshave been shown to be effective in managing low-density populations of gypsy moth bysaturating the area with enough pheromone sources that the male is unable to find andmate with female moths.

We have selected Alternative 1 because it will best meet the purpose and need describedin the EA. It meets the objective of the Slow the Spread project and responds to the needfor using Integrated Pest Management in enhancing future forest health.

Alternative 2 (No Action) was not selected because it did not meet the purpose and needof this project. Taking no action would allow the spread of gypsy moth to continueunimpeded on public and private lands.

FINDINGS REQUIRED BY LAW

This action is consistent with direction in the 2006 Forest Plan. The previously statedGoal and Objective prescribe the use of integrated pest management methods to minimizeor prevent the development of invasive pest problems (Goal 7.1, Objective 7.1b)

G. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACTIt is our determination that carrying out Alternative 1 is not a major federal action,

individually or cumulatively, and will not significantly affect the quality of the humanenvironment. Therefore an Environmental Impact Statement is not needed. This findingincludes consideration of the following factors concerning the context and intensity of theexpected impacts of the selective alternative.

Context

Alternative 1, as supplemented for the current proposal, is within the context of the 2006Forest Plan. The physical and biological effects are limited to the treatment area. In thisarea long- and short-term effects of the specific actions of Alternative 1 are notsignificant.

Intensity

Both beneficial and adverse impacts have been considered (EA, p. 13-18). Slowthe spread of gypsy moth populations will be beneficial in preventing treemortality.There are not anticipated significant effects to public health and safety by thisaction. The 1995 FEIS, Appendix F — Human Health Risk Assessment states onpage 9-5 that "the potential effects of disparlure cannot be assessed directly,except to indicate that plausible levels of exposure are far below levels that didnot cause overt signs of toxicity in experimental mammals. By analogy to otherinsect attractants, the risks associated with exposure to disparlure are likely to bevery low."Based on input from applicable resource specialist the proposed action is nothighly controversial scientifically.There are no known significant effects on the human environment that are highlyuncertain or involve unique or unknown risks.This action does not set a precedent for future actions.There are no significant cumulative effects between this project and other past orreasonably foreseeable projects in the project area or adjacent areas.The Forest Archaeologist determined that the undertaking will not affect anyhistoric properties (Cramer, memo of 11/25/2002).The biological evaluation for animals stated that the project should not adverselyaffect any of the Federal Threatened or Endangered species, nor contribute to theloss of viability or cause to move toward federal listing of the Regional SensitiveSpecies (Fledge memo 12/11/2002). The biological evaluation for plants statedthat no federally listed plants are known to occur on National Forest land and thatthe project will have no effect on the continued viability of any RegionalForester's Sensitive Species (Larson memo of 12/05/02).

9. The proposed action does not threaten a violation of any federal, state, or locallaws for the protection of the environment.

H. APPEAL RIGHTS

The decision pertaining to National Forest system lands is not subject to appeal pursuantto 36 CFR 215.8(a)(3). Title 36 CFR 215.8 (a) lists type of decisions that are not subjectto appeal; subsection (3) of this list states that: "Actions for which notice and opportunityto comment have been published and on which no expression of interest has beenreceived during the comment period, and on which the Responsible Official's decisiondoes not modify the proposed action."

RESPONSIBLE OFFI IALik,h,74-TI

The decision pertaining to the treatment of state and private land is not subject to appealpursuant to 36 CFR 215 and may be implemented immediately.

Implementation is expected to occur immediately upon publication of the notice of thedecision in the Ironton Tribune as provided in 36 CFR 215.9.

For questions regarding the EA contact: Steve Alarid, Wayne National Forest, 13700 USHwy 33, Nelsonville, OH 45764, telephone 740-753-0916.

District RangerIronton Ranger DistrictWayne National Forest6518 State Route 93Pedro, OH 45659