United States Department of Agriculture

Record of Decision

Malheur National Forest 

Site-Specific Invasive Plants Treatment 

Project

Grant, Baker, Harney, Malheur and Crook Counties, Oregon

Forest Service Malheur National Forest March 27, 2015
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities 

on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, 

familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, 

reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. 

(Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative 

means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact 

USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, 

write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 

20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity 

provider and employer.
Record of Decision

Table of Contents

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................1

Location and Area .........................................................................................................................................1

Background ...................................................................................................................................................2

Purpose and Need..........................................................................................................................................4

Decision.........................................................................................................................................................4

Invasive Plant Treatment Objectives ........................................................................................................5

Invasive Plant Treatment Methods............................................................................................................6

Manual and Mechanical Treatments .....................................................................................................6

Herbicide Treatments ............................................................................................................................7

Cultural Methods/Restoration ...............................................................................................................8

Biocontrol Agents..................................................................................................................................9

Integrated Treatment Prescriptions (Common Control Measures) For 18 Primary Target Species....11

Implementation Planning ........................................................................................................................15

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit......................................................15

Monitoring ..............................................................................................................................................15

Land and Resource Management Plan Amendments..............................................................................16

Rationale for Decision.................................................................................................................................17

Policies and Management Direction .......................................................................................................18

Public Scoping and DEIS Comments .....................................................................................................19

EIS Analysis............................................................................................................................................20

Other Alternatives Considered ....................................................................................................................22

Alternative A – No Action ......................................................................................................................24

Why Alternative A was not Selected...................................................................................................24

Alternative C – Strict Limitations on Herbicide Use ..............................................................................25

Why Alternative C was not Selected...................................................................................................26

Alternative D – No LRMP Amendment, No Aminopyralid ...................................................................27

Why Alternative D was not Selected...................................................................................................27

Public Involvement......................................................................................................................................27

Issues...........................................................................................................................................................28

Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations....................................................................................33

National Forest Management Act and Land and Resource Management Plan.......................................33

Endangered Species Act of 1973 ............................................................................................................34

Plants...................................................................................................................................................34

Fish ......................................................................................................................................................35

Wildlife................................................................................................................................................35

Wilderness Act of 1964...........................................................................................................................36

Roadless Area Conservation Rule...........................................................................................................36

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act....................................................................................................................36

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 ............................................................................................37

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and Executive Order 13186............................................................37

Irreversible or Irretrievable Impacts........................................................................................................37

Long-term Productivity...........................................................................................................................37

Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential..................................................................................38

Prime Farmlands.....................................................................................................................................38

Executive Orders 11988 and 11990: Floodplains and Wetlands ............................................................38

Executive Order 13112: Invasive Species...............................................................................................38

Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice......................................................................................38

Executive Order 13443: Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation...........................39

i
Name of Project

Environmentally Preferred Alternative....................................................................................................... 39

Pre-Decisional Administrative Review or Objection Opportunities........................................................... 39

Implementation ........................................................................................................................................... 41

Contact Person ............................................................................................................................................ 41

Attachment 1............................................................................................................................................... 42

ii
Record of Decision

Record of Decision

Malheur National Forest Site-Specific Invasive Plants 

Treatment Project

USDA Forest Service

Malheur National Forest

Grant, Baker, Harney, Malheur and Crook Counties, Oregon

Introduction

This Record of Decision (ROD) documents my decision and rationale for selecting Alternative B

for the Malheur National Forest Site-Specific Invasive Plants Treatment Project. Alternative B is 

the environmentally preferred alternative. My decision authorizes a range of integrated treatment 

and restoration methods that will be implemented on the Malheur National Forest. These methods 

include typical elements of an integrated weed management program:

• Treatment of existing infestations using one or more of seven possible treatment options;

• Early detection and rapid response to new or currently unknown infestations; and

• Restoration of treated sites.

My decision includes a non-significant amendment to the Malheur and Ochoco National Forest 

Land and Resource Management Plans 1 (LRMP) to add aminopyralid to the list of acceptable 

herbicides for use as part of the integrated treatment toolbox for invasive plants.

In arriving at my decision, I have considered the analysis that is documented in the Malheur 

National Forest Site-Specific Invasive Plants Treatment Project Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (FEIS) (USDA Forest Service 2015), information in the project file, and input received 

from the public during the course of the analysis of this project as required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969.

This ROD was developed according to requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (42 USC §§ 4321-4370), the Council of Environmental Quality’s implementing regulations 

(40 CFR §§ 1500-1508), Forest Service NEPA regulations (36 CFR Part 220), and Forest Service 

policy in Forest Service Manual 1900, Chapter 1950, and Forest Service Handbook 1909.15.

Location and Area

The project area covers approximately 1.7 million acres located in eastern Oregon (FEIS, Section 

1.3). It includes the entire 1,460,000-acre Malheur National Forest, with an additional 240,000 

1 This amendment would also apply to the former Snow Mountain Ranger District of the Ochoco 

National Forest that is currently managed by the Malheur National Forest. Throughout this 

document, when the Malheur LRMP amendment is discussed, my intent is to also apply the 

amendment to the portion of the project area within the Ochoco National LRMP area. 

1

 
Malheur National Forest Site-Specific Invasive Plants Treatment Project

acres of the Ochoco National Forest that are managed by the Malheur National Forest. This 

portion of the Ochoco National Forest was previously known as the Snow Mountain Ranger 

District, but is now managed as part of the Emigrant Creek Ranger District. All 1.7 million acres

are considered as the Malheur National Forest for purposes of this project’s analysis.

The counties included in the analysis area are Grant, Baker, and Harney, with small portions of 

Crook and Malheur Counties. The Malheur National Forest shares boundaries with the Umatilla, 

Wallowa-Whitman, and Ochoco National Forests, federal land administered by the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM), State of Oregon trust land, county, and private land.

Section 1.3 of the FEIS describes the project area, and includes a map of the project area 

comparing the level of invasive plant infestation for each 5th field watershed. Our most recent 

inventory data show there are 2,124 acres of invasive plants to be treated on the 1.7 million-acre 

project area (FEIS, Section 1.5).

Background

Invasive plants are defined as “nonnative plants” whose introduction causes or is likely to cause 

economic or environmental harm or harm to human health (Executive Order 13112). Invasive 

plants are distinguished from other nonnative plants by their ability to spread (invade) into native 

ecosystems. They spread between National Forest System lands and neighboring areas, affecting 

all land ownerships.

Uncontrolled invasive plants are damaging the ecological integrity of National Forest System 

lands. They are displacing native plants, increasing the potential for soil erosion and potentially 

destabilizing streams, reducing water quality and the quality of fish and wildlife habitat, and 

degrading natural areas. Invasive plants can have adverse effects on rare or endemic species, 

which could result in listing under state or federal endangered species laws.

On June 26, 2000, the Forest Service issued a Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant 

Impact to treat invasive plants on the Malheur National Forest. That decision allowed the use of 

herbicides and other methods according to regional direction developed during the 1980s. 

However, later that year, opponents of these treatments filed a lawsuit over the Forest Service’s 

decision.

In December 2002, the U.S. District Court with jurisdiction over the project area concluded that 

the noxious weed control environmental assessment supporting the June 2000 decision was 

insufficient to satisfy the requirements of NEPA because it was tiered to earlier documents that 

the court deemed to be outdated (Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. US Forest Service, CV 

01-703-HA). Thus, the court ordered us to stop “the use or application of herbicides and 

biological controls.” We were ordered not to resume this activity until we considered, evaluated, 

and disclosed the individual and cumulative impacts of herbicide use in an environmental impact 

statement or supplemental environmental impact statement.

Although that court decision applied exclusively to the Malheur National Forest, in 2005 the 

Regional Forester for the Pacific Northwest Region of the National Forest System decided to 

amend all of the Forest Land and Resource Management Plans in the Region (Record of Decision 

for the Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program: Preventing and Managing Invasive 

Plants, USDA 2005). The record of decision for that amendment, referred to herein as the R6 

2005 ROD, described the reasons why specific management direction was adopted. It also 

2
Record of Decision

explained why alternative strategies to increase herbicide use or increase emphasis on prevention 

were not adopted.

The R6 2005 ROD added the following desired future condition statement to the Malheur 

National Forest and Ochoco National Forest LRMPs:

“....healthy native plant communities remain diverse and resilient, and damaged 

ecosystems are being restored. High quality habitat is provided for native organisms 

throughout the [Forest]. Invasive plants do not jeopardize the ability of the [Malheur] 

National Forest to provide goods and services communities expect. The need for invasive 

plant treatment is reduced due to the effectiveness and habitual nature of preventative 

actions, and the success of restoration efforts.”

The R6 2005 ROD provided management direction intended to help forests reach this desired 

condition. All projects must include invasive plant prevention measures to meet R6 2005 ROD 

standards. Invasive plant treatments must be timely and may require several years of effort to be 

effective. Restoration of native plant communities through mulching, seeding, or planting may be 

needed to discourage reinvasion (FEIS, Section 1.4).

The R6 2005 ROD was also based on new herbicide risk assessments and information about 

preventing invasive plant introduction, establishment and spread, and restoring treated sites. It 

added new management direction, including an emphasis on early detection, and effective 

integrated treatment of invasive plants. 

The R6 2005 ROD authorized the use of 10 herbicide active ingredients to effectively respond to 

invasive plant threats. The new herbicides offered many advantages over the more limited set of 

herbicides previously allowed, including greater target plant selectivity, less harm to desired 

vegetation, reduced application rates, and lower toxicity to animals and people.

The R6 2005 FEIS satisfied the intent of the 2002 court order. Management direction for invasive 

plant prevention, treatment and restoration, and monitoring was added to the Malheur National 

Forest and Ochoco National Forest LRMPs as a result of the R6 2005 ROD. In accordance with 

the court’s injunction, we have been treating invasive plants exclusively using manual or 

mechanical methods on the Malheur National Forest. Manual and mechanical treatments are labor 

intensive and tend to be costly, and in some cases are not effective (see common control measures 

table 9 in Chapter 2 of the FEIS for more information). We have continued to collect, update and 

analyze site-specific information during the time since the court injunction.

On March 31, 2006, we published a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an environmental impact 

statement (EIS) for this invasive plant treatment project (72 FR 62, pp. 16281 -1628, 3/31/06). 

This EIS will allow us to control invasive plant species on the Malheur National Forest using the 

amended LRMP direction. The Notice of Intent stated the purpose of the project is to bring the 

treatment program into compliance with the new standards, and allow for effective treatments on 

all sites currently mapped as well as those that may be detected in the future. Initial treatments 

will rely more heavily on herbicides. However, the goal of this project as invasive plant 

objectives are met is to reduce the use of herbicides over time.

We considered public scoping input and initiated an analysis. However, there was a delay in 

completing the NEPA process, so the proposed action was updated and a new NOI was published 

in the Federal Register on April 5, 2011, (76 FR 65, pp. 18713-18715, 4/5/11) initiating new 

scoping input. Scoping input from both 2006 and 2011 was used to develop issues and

alternatives analyzed for the draft environmental impact statement.

3
Malheur National Forest Site-Specific Invasive Plants Treatment Project

Purpose and Need

The Forest needs to suppress, contain, control or eradicate 2,124 acres of invasive plants, 

identified from the most recent Forest inventory data, and rapidly respond to new or expanded 

invasive plant sites as they may occur in the future. Invasive plants are currently occupying many 

special places on the Forest, including dispersed and developed recreation sites, wilderness areas 

and wild and scenic river corridors, fish habitat, and grazing allotments. The lack of sufficient 

methods in the toolbox for treating invasive plants is hampering the agency’s ability to maintain 

or improve the diversity, function, and sustainability of desired native plant communities and 

other natural resources that may be adversely impacted by invasive plant species. Timeliness of 

action is an important factor because the cost, difficulty, and potential adverse effects of 

controlling invasive plants increases with the size and extent of the population. The smaller the 

population when treated, the more likely the treatment will be effective.

There are 18 primary target invasive species within 3,070 mapped infested sites, covering about 

2,124 acres (see table 1 in this ROD). The alternatives considered a variety of methods to treat 

these species on a range of types of sites, including roadsides, administrative sites, wilderness and 

riparian areas. 

Decision

Based on the analysis disclosed in the FEIS and project record, I have decided to select

alternative B – proposed action for the Malheur National Forest Site-Specific Invasive Plants 

Treatment Project. This alternative is described in Chapter 2.3.2 of the FEIS as the most costeffective approach to invasive plant treatment while minimizing the potential adverse effects of 

treatment (FEIS, Chapter 2.3.2).

My decision identifies 18 invasive plant target species currently found on the Forest, and 

establishes invasive plant treatment objectives and effective treatment methods, including 

herbicides, manual, mechanical, cultural and biological control agents for each species. 

Additional target species may be treated as long as effective treatment methods follow project 

design features and herbicide-use buffers discussed in the FEIS.

Treatments will be completed following steps outlined in the integrated treatment prescriptions 

(common control measures) (page 11 of this ROD) and project design features and herbicide-use 

buffers (Attachment 1). Treatments would be adapted to changing conditions over time following 

the implementation planning process included in Attachment 2.

The project design features and herbicide-use buffers are intended to minimize adverse effects of 

treatment and follow national Best Management Practice guidelines for chemical uses in national 

forests (USDA Forest Service 2012).

Annually, invasive plant treatments will be subject to the following constraints:

• In no case will more than 2,124 discrete acres be treated using herbicides in a single year 

(based on our existing, site-specific inventory). 

• No more than 10 percent of the total acres of any 6th field watershed will be treated in a single 

year. No more than 50 acres within 100 feet of any water body in a 6th field watershed will be 

treated in a single year, and of these, no more than 10 acres will be treated with herbicides. 

4
Record of Decision

Invasive Plant Treatment Objectives

Chapter 2.2 of the FEIS describes the four possible treatment objectives for invasive plant 

management in detail: 

• Eradicate

• Control

• Contain

• Suppress

My decision identifies one or two of the four possible treatment objectives for each of the 18 

target species of invasive plants (table 1).

Table 1. Current treatment objectives for the 18 mapped, primary invasive plant species

Target 

Species

Category

Common Name Spatial Extent 

(November 2012)

Treatment Objective

Sites Acres

Knapweeds Spotted knapweed 171 82 Eradicate small isolated sites in 

ecologically-sensitive areas

Control large open sites and linear 

roadside populations

Diffuse knapweed 213 74 Eradicate small isolated sites in 

ecologically-sensitive areas

Control large open sites and linear 

roadside populations

Russian knapweed 43 4 Eradicate

Squarrose knapweed 3 <1 Eradicate small isolated sites in 

ecologically sensitive areas

Control large open sites and linear 

roadside populations

Meadow knapweed 2 <1 Eradicate small isolated sites in 

ecologically sensitive areas

Control large open sites and linear 

roadside populations

Starthistle Yellow star-thistle 3 1 Eradicate

Thistles Canada thistle 1,277 1,021 Control

Bull thistle* 0* 0* Eradicate small infestations in 

ecologically sensitive areas

Control roadside infestations, large 

open sites and forested sites

Scotch Thistle 61 23 Eradicate small isolated sites in 

ecologically sensitive areas

Control large open sites and linear 

roadside populations

Musk thistle 13 11 Eradicate small infestations in 

ecologically sensitive areas

Control roadside infestations, large 

open sites and forested sites

Roadside 

Species

Common St. Johnswort 185 120 Contain

Houndstongue 171 340 Control

5
Malheur National Forest Site-Specific Invasive Plants Treatment Project

Target 

Species

Category

Common Name Spatial Extent 

(November 2012)

Treatment Objective

Sites Acres

Sulphur cinquefoil 61 186 Control

Toadflaxes Dalmatian toadflax 666 155 Suppress

Yellow toadflax 27 9 Suppress

Mustards Whitetop 148 85 Control

Perennial pepperweed 12 2 Control

Spurge Leafy spurge 14 10 Control

Total 3,070 2,124

*Bull thistle and Canada thistle were cataloged together in our November 2012 invasive plant inventory. However, the 

precise species will be identified to determine the specific treatment objective for a given site.

Invasive Plant Treatment Methods

Control measures include a range of integrated treatment/restoration methods that could be 

implemented across a range of infested sites. We will identify the specific manual, mechanical, 

biological, herbicide and cultural/restoration treatments to be implemented at the time of 

treatment (see common control measures in table 4 below).

To develop the common control measures, project design features, and herbicide-use buffers, we 

considered the best available scientific information about invasive plant management. Our 

primary sources of information come from the R6 2005 FEIS, the most current herbicide and 

adjuvant risk assessments (SERA and Bakke), professional journal articles and other information 

published since 2005. The “Literature Cited” section of the FEIS documents our commitment to 

using best available science and high quality data (FEIS, Chapter 4).

We will identify the specific treatment method to be implemented on a site-specific basis at the 

time of treatment. The following descriptions summarize important information about the 

treatment methods that are included in the selected alternative.

Manual and Mechanical Treatments

Manual methods include hand pulling or using hand tools (e.g., grubbing), to remove invasive 

plants or cut off seed heads. Handsaws, axes, shovels, rakes, machetes, grubbing hoes, mattocks, 

brush hooks, and hand clippers may be used to manually remove invasive plants. Other manual 

methods could include hot water steaming, or solarization techniques such as using black plastic 

to cover invasive plants to shade out and kill pieces of roots (i.e., rhizomes).

Manual methods could be used in combination with herbicide methods or alone in areas where 

herbicide use is restricted, such as near sensitive plant populations or surface waters.

Mechanical methods use power tools and include such actions as mowing, weed whipping, road 

brushing, and root tilling. These activities will typically occur along roadsides, rock sources, or 

other confined disturbed areas and dispersed use areas. Mowing and cutting will be used to 

reduce or remove above-ground biomass. Seed heads and cut fragments of species capable of resprouting from stem or root segments will be collected and properly disposed of to prevent them 

from spreading into non-infested areas.

6
Record of Decision

Herbicide Treatments

Herbicides will be used to contain, control and eradicate invasive plants that are not costeffectively treated by other methods. When herbicide use is proposed to occur in or near sensitive 

areas, specific design features will be used to insure that vegetation treatments do not have an 

adverse impact on non-target plants or animals (see project design features and herbicide use 

buffers listed in Attachment 1). Herbicide treatments, chemical mixing, spill prevention, and 

clean-up will be done in accordance with Forest Service policies, plans, and product label 

requirements.

The herbicide active ingredients listed in table 2 are likely to be most effective on the currently 

mapped infestations. The analysis assumption is that currently infested areas are 100 percent 

covered with invasive plants. This assumption will require even herbicide application across each 

acre. However, it overestimates the amount of broadcast spraying that will actually occur during 

implementation because many of the infested areas are sparsely covered with invasive plants. 

Only a portion of each acre will actually be treated with herbicide, regardless of application tool. 

Table 2. Summary of herbicide use under alternative B (acres)

First Year/First Choice Activity Acres

Potential Broadcast Herbicide

Aminopyralid 1,180

Chlorsulfuron 71

Metsulfuron methyl 30

Total Potential Broadcast Application Method 1,281

Potential Spot/Selective Herbicide 

Aminopyralid 168

Chlorsulfuron 519

Metsulfuron methyl 156

Total Potential Spot/Selective 843

Spot or hand treatments will be preferred and used wherever they would be effective. Some 

mapped infestations are so small or so inaccessible that broadcast treatment would not be likely to 

occur there, even if they were found to be 100 percent covered with invasive plants.

Of the eleven herbicides we considered for use, the first choice herbicides are most likely to be 

used. The herbicides picloram, sethoxydim, sulfometuron methyl, and triclopyr are the least likely 

to be used, either because they are effective on fewer target species found on the Forest than other 

herbicides or because of the restrictions associated with their use.

Aminopyralid will initially be used for treatment of about 1,350 acres (64 percent of the total 

infested acreage). This herbicide is likely to be the most effective of the 11 available herbicides 

for 13 of the 18 primary target species (all except houndstongue, toadflax, pepperweed and 

whitetop, which have chlorsulfuron as the first-choice herbicide; and sulphur cinquefoil, that has 

metsulfuron methyl as the first-choice herbicide). Other effective herbicides could be used as 

needed over time, depending on whether the first year’s choice proved effective.

Table 8 of the FEIS (Chapter 2.3.2) describes the herbicides authorized for use on the Forest. 

Most of these herbicides are not proposed for use during the first year of treatment for target 

species currently mapped on the Forest, but could be used if (1) the first year’s choice is found to 

be ineffective on a target species or site currently mapped on the Forest; or (2) if the existing first 

7
Malheur National Forest Site-Specific Invasive Plants Treatment Project

year’s choices are not effective on new target species found during the life of the project.

Additional information on herbicide toxicity is in Chapter 3 of the FEIS.

For each herbicide, table 8 of the FEIS shows the active ingredient, the SERA risk assessment 

reference, the typical and maximum label rates, and some remarks about the herbicide. Maximum 

application rates may be used if necessary in small areas, but in general, spot and broadcast 

treatments will use typical or lower application rates.

Herbicide Broadcast Spraying

Broadcast application means that herbicide is applied to a continuous population of invasive 

plants. This method is used when the weed is dense enough that it is difficult to discern individual 

plants and the area to be treated makes spot spraying impractical. Larger and denser infestations

may require a broadcast spray. In cases where the invasive plant covers more than 70 percent of 

an area that is bigger than 0.1 acre, broadcasting may be the most cost-efficient method. 

The most ambitious conceivable situation would be where all currently infested areas become 100 

percent covered with invasive plants, which would require the full amount of herbicide to be 

broadcast on each acre at a typical rate. Using this assumption for this analysis, about 1,281 acres 

would meet the criteria for broadcast spraying under alternative B. 

Many project design features are proposed to avoid drift and other risks sometimes associated 

with broadcast spraying. Broadcast spraying using most of the 11 herbicides is not allowed near 

streams (with the exception of aminopyralid which poses little to no risk to the aquatic 

environment).

Herbicide Spot and Selective Spraying

Selective application targets individual plants. Herbicide is usually applied by hand. Spot 

spraying targets clumps of plants. Herbicide is usually applied with a backpack sprayer or other 

hand pump system. Spot spraying is also done using a hose from a truck-mounted or ATVmounted tank. 

The most ambitious conceivable situation would be where all currently infested areas become 100 

percent covered with invasive plants. However, the size of these infestations would not require 

broadcast treatment. Therefore under this scenario about 843 acres would be treated using 

selective or spot application methods.

Cultural Methods/Restoration

Evaluation for site restoration will occur before, during, and after herbicide, manual, and 

mechanical treatments. Passive site restoration will be favored in areas having a stable and

diverse native plant community and sufficient organics in the soil to sustain natural revegetation. 

Passive restoration may include keeping cattle away from treated areas until the area has 

recovered and contains desirable vegetation. If the soils lack sufficient organics, mulch and/or soil 

microbe inoculum from nearby areas may be added. Deep-rooted shrubs may also be seeded or 

planted to more fully utilize resources from the lower soil profile, especially late in the growing 

season. Shrubs allow for easier establishment of understory species by increasing water 

availability and reducing understory temperatures and soil evaporation loss.

Restoration of native plant communities and erosion protection through mulching, seeding, or 

planting is likely to occur as a follow up to invasive plant treatment in areas where passive 

restoration is not sufficient. This will be determined as a part of each treatment prescription. The 

8
Record of Decision

1,281 acres that are of a size and configuration to potentially warrant broadcast spraying are 

assumed to need some sort of restoration. In this project, the following cultural treatments are not 

included: livestock grazing2

, burning, tilling, plowing, and mechanical seed drilling.

Recovery of native vegetation after invasive plant treatment cannot be precisely predicted. 

Restoration will be considered following repeated herbicide and other treatment methods, 

especially in areas where recovery to native vegetation may not be possible, such as campgrounds 

and other highly disturbed areas. It is likely that due to the nature of repeated disturbance 

activities in some areas on the Forest, such as roadsides, long-term site objectives may be focused 

on containment to prevent future spread into other areas of the Forest but not full restoration of 

these areas to native vegetation.

Meadows and forested areas are most likely to respond favorably to passive restoration, while 

roadsides and other highly disturbed areas may require active assistance through mulching and 

competitive seeding or planting with desirable vegetation. The intent is to re-establish 

competitive local, native vegetation post-treatment to promote resilient habitat conditions that are 

less susceptible to invasive plants.

The Malheur National Forest LRMP (1990) (as amended by the R6 2005 ROD) Invasive Plant 

Standard 13 (FEIS, table 1) requires that native species be the first choice for revegetation. No 

noxious weed or invasive plant species will be used for revegetation. A combination of native and 

desirable nonnatives could be an initial mix for revegetation. A fast-growing desirable nonnative 

such as sterile wheatgrass can germinate quickly and start filling in bare ground until a slower to 

germinate native species can start competing effectively.

Biocontrol Agents

My decision targets 12 invasive plant species for biological control. Biological agents are 

parasitic insects, mites, nematodes, and pathogens that feed on specific parts of invasive plants 

and inhibit their growth and spread. In some situations, a suite of biological control agents is 

needed to reduce weed density to a desirable level. For instance, a mixture of five or more 

biological control agents may be needed to attack flower or seed heads, foliage, stems, crowns 

and roots all at the same time or during the plant’s life cycle. 

Typically 15 to 20 years are needed to suppress or contain an established population of invasive 

plants. Agents approved by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) that are 

proven natural control agents of specific invasive species but do not harm other species may be 

released.

Table 3 lists biological control agents that could be redistributed as needed to suppress or contain 

larger infestations on the Forest. These agents may be used in combination with other treatment 

methods. They are approved for use in the State of Oregon and will meet R6 2005 ROD (Malheur 

National Forest LRMP/Ochoco National Forest LRMP) standards.

2 Grazing will be managed to prevent invasive plant introduction, establishment and spread and may reduce 

existing populations. These actions will be managed under appropriate grazing management plans. 

Prescribed burning will also address prevention of the spread of invasive plants and could reduce the size of 

target populations. However, no grazing or burning is proposed for this project.

9

 
Malheur National Forest Site-Specific Invasive Plants Treatment Project

Table 3. Biological Control Agents Proposed for Redistribution 

Target Species Agent Mode of Action

Bull Thistle Urophora stylata

Larvae form a hard multi-chambered gall in the 

flower receptacle that interferes with seed 

production.

Canada Thistle Ceutorhunchus litura

Larvae mine pith in stems of flowering plants, 

increasing susceptibility to pathogens. Adults feed 

on leaves.

Canada Thistle Urophora cardui

Larvae cause galls on the stems that act as 

nutrient sinks, stressing plants and reducing seed 

production and growth.

Dalmation Toadflax Mecinus janthinus Larvae are stem miners; adults can cause damage 

to flowers and young leaves.

Dalmation Toadflax Gymnetron linariae

Larvae cause galls in the roots, which may act as 

nutrient sinks and reduce plant vigor. Adults may 

cause minor damage by feeding on flowers.

Diffuse Knapweed

Spotted Knapweed

Meadow Knapweed

Urophora affinis

Urophora quadrifasciata

Larvae overwinter in the seed heads. Developing 

larvae cause the plant to form a gall around the 

reproductive parts and create a metabolic sink, 

drawing nutrients from the plant that extend beyond 

the attacked seed head.

Leafy Spurge

Aphthona cyparissiae, 

Aphthona flava, 

Apthona nigriscutis,

Aphthona czwalinae,

Apthona lacertosa

Adults feed on foliage reducing the plant's 

production of sugars; larvae feed on root hairs and 

young roots reducing the plant's ability to take up 

water and nutrients.

Leafy Spurge Oberea erythrocephala

Larvae bore in the stems and roots of larger plants.

Adults girdle the top of the stalk before laying eggs 

in the stem.

Mediterranean Sage Phrydiuchus tau Adults feed on the leaves, and larvae feed in the 

root crown and petioles of large leaves.

Musk Thistle Urophora solstitialis Larvae cause galls in the seed heads that interfere 

with seed production and dissemination.

Spotted Knapweed

Diffuse Knapweed Cyphocleonus achates Larvae are root borers and adults feed on the 

leaves

Spotted Knapweed

Diffuse Knapweed Terellia virens The larvae feed on seeds in the flower head.

Spotted Knapweed

Meadow Knapweed

Diffuse Knapweed

Larinus obtusus Larvae consume the seeds and adults can 

defoliate plants when in large numbers.

Spotted Knapweed, 

Diffuse Knapweed Larinus minutus

Larvae feed in the flower head destroying most of 

the seeds. Heavy attack by adults can stunt or kill 

plants and delay flowering. 

St. Johnswort Chrysolina quadrigemina

Chrysolina hyperici Adults and larvae are foliage feeders.

Yellow Starthistle Chaetorellia australis Larvae tunnel into the center of the head, where 

they feed on the ovaries and developing seeds.

Yellow Starthistle Eustenopus villosus

Adults feed on developing buds, causing the buds 

to die. Larvae feed on the seed head and 

developing seeds.

Yellow Starthistle Larinus curtus Adults feed on the flowers and larvae feed on the 

seed head, reducing seed production.

10
Record of Decision

Target Species Agent Mode of Action

Yellow Toadflax Gymnetron antirrhini

Adult weevils emerge in late spring or early 

summer and feed primarily on young toadflax 

shoots and buds. Larvae hatch from eggs and feed 

on seeds.

Integrated Treatment Prescriptions (Common Control Measures) 

For 18 Primary Target Species

We developed common control measures for each of the 18 primary target species. Table 4 lists 

the 18 primary target species; common and scientific names, (scientific code), and growth habit; 

first-choice and other herbicides known to be effective on each species (or group of species); and 

detailed integrated prescription notes. 

We will apply aminopyralid to about 64 percent of the infested acreage for the first treatment 

entry (approximately 1,350 acres) and chlorsulfuron for the first treatment entry on 28 percent of 

the acres (approximately 591 acres). We will apply metsulfuron methyl for one target species –

sulphur cinquefoil, a species that covers an estimated 8 percent of the acres (approximately 186 

acres). We may use other effective herbicides in future re-treatments depending on the 

effectiveness of the first-choice herbicide.

Table 4. Common control measures

Primary Target 

Species

First-Choice 

Followed by 

Other 

Effective 

Herbicides3

Integrated Treatment Notes

Yellow star-thistle

Centaurea solstitialis

(CESO3)

Annual

aminopyralid

clopyralid

glyphosate

picloram

Early detection and treatment increase the chances of control. 

Treatment of small infestations in otherwise healthy sites should 

be a priority.

Biological control agents are available. 

Hand pull when soil is moist and remove all roots and flower 

and seed heads.

Common St. Johnswort

Hypericum perforatum

(HYPE)

Perennial with stolons 

and rhizomes

aminopyralid

glyphosate

metsulfuron 

methyl

picloram

Biological agents are available. 

Small infestations may be controlled by pulling or digging. 

Repeated treatments will be necessary because lateral roots 

can give rise to new plants. Bag and remove all plant parts from 

site.

3 Species order does not reflect priority. First choice herbicide is listed in bold followed by other effective 

herbicides in alphabetical order.

11

 
Malheur National Forest Site-Specific Invasive Plants Treatment Project

Primary Target 

Species

First-Choice 

Followed by 

Other 

Effective 

Herbicides3

Integrated Treatment Notes

Russian knapweed

Acroptilon repens

(ACRE3)

Long-lived creeping 

perennial

aminopyralid

chlorsulfuron

clopyralid

glyphosate

imazapyr

metsulfuron 

methyl

picloram

Hand pulling is effective only in the establishment year. 

Reproduces mainly by vegetative propagation from buds on 

creeping roots.

Biocontrol agents being developed.

Cutting or mowing several times per year will control top growth 

and seed production; re-emerging plants will have less vigor.

Lasting control requires an integrated approach; using 

mechanical or cultural measures with herbicide application, 

especially in late fall, is most effective.

Small, isolated infestations should be eradicated first. Then 

larger infestations should be controlled from the perimeter and 

eradicated when possible.

Spotted knapweed

Centaurea stoebe ssp. 

micranthos

(CESTM)

Taprooted perennial

aminopyralid

clopyralid

glyphosate

triclopyr

picloram

Treatment would focus on reducing seed production and 

preventing germination.

Biological agents are available.

Repeated manual pulling and digging may eliminate small 

infestations (2-4 times per year for multiple years). Pull prior to 

seed set. Bag and remove flower and seed heads.

Diffuse knapweed

Centaurea diffusa

(CEDI3)

Short-lived perennial, 

biennial or annual. 

Often with a long, stout 

taproot

Squarrose knapweed

Centaurea virgata ssp. 

squarrosa

(CEVIS2)

Taprooted perennial

Meadow knapweed

Centaurea jacea sensu 

lato

(CEJA)

Taprooted perennial

12
Record of Decision

Primary Target 

Species

First-Choice 

Followed by 

Other 

Effective 

Herbicides3

Integrated Treatment Notes

Canada thistle

Cirsium arvense

(CIAR4)

Rhizomatous perennial

aminopyralid

chlorsulfuron

clopyralid

picloram

Combining mechanical, cultural, biological, and chemical 

methods is best for effective control.

Biological agents are available, but use may affect native 

thistles. 

Mowing, cutting or pulling can be an effective control if repeated 

at about 1-month intervals throughout the growing season for 

several years. Combining mowing/cutting with herbicides (in the 

fall) will further enhance control of Canada thistle. Covering with 

plastic tarp (solarization) may be effective for small infestations.

Bull thistle*

Cirsium vulgare

(CIVU)

Taprooted biennial

aminopyralid

chlorsulfuron

clopyralid

glyphosate

picloram

triclopyr

Prioritize small infestations in otherwise healthy sites. Prioritize 

prevention of establishment and eliminating plants as soon as 

they are found.

Manually pulling rosettes or cutting stems 2”-4” below the soil 

surface before flower heads develop kills plants and prevents 

seed development. Roots may be left on site to dry; all flower 

and seed heads should be removed.

Covering disturbed sites, particularly small burn areas, with fine 

to medium sized organic matter may prevent or reduce the size 

of infestations. Please note, this was described as the “Canada 

thistle strategy” in the DEIS.

Scotch Thistle

Onopordum acanthium

(ONAC)

Taprooted biennial or 

short-lived perennial

Musk thistle

Carduus nutans

(CANU4)

Taprooted biennial or 

occasional annual

Leafy spurge

Euphorbia esula

(EUES)

Rhizomatous perennial

aminopyralid

glyphosate

imazapic

picloram

Early detection and rapid eradication is important since plant 

spreads rapidly by seeds and rhizomes. Continuous aggressive 

management is necessary to keep infestations under control (5 

– 10 years). Prioritizing treatment of small infestations, then 

treating large infestations from the outside edges is most 

effective. 

Biological control agents may reduce aboveground stems but 

do not kill root systems. 

Mechanical, cultural, or herbicide methods alone are rarely 

effective. Combinations of several herbicide treatments and 

planting grass seed may provide the best chance of controlling 

the species. Hand pulling and grubbing are not effective 

because of the extensive root system. Cutting and mowing 

reduce seed production and the plant’s competitive ability. 

Covering with weed cloth, plastic, or thick mulch may kill plants. 

Site can then be planted with native seed. If manual methods 

are used all plant parts should be bagged and removed since 

new plants may form from roots and rhizomes as well as from 

seeds. Plant’s milky sap may be irritating to skin, eyes, and 

digestive tract of humans and other animals.

13
Malheur National Forest Site-Specific Invasive Plants Treatment Project

Primary Target 

Species

First-Choice 

Followed by 

Other 

Effective 

Herbicides3

Integrated Treatment Notes

Houndstongue

Cynoglossum officinale

(CYOF)

Taprooted biennial or 

short-lived perennial

chlorsulfuron

imazapic

metsulfuron 

methyl

Mowing/cutting second year plants during flowering, but before 

seed maturation reduces seed production and may kill the 

plant. 

Pulling plants or cutting 1-2” below the soil surface have the 

best chance of eliminating plants. Cutting produces less ground 

disturbance than pulling. Bag and remove all flower and seed 

heads.

Dalmatian toadflax

Linaria dalmatica

(LIDA)

Perennial with taproot 

and extensive system 

of lateral roots

chlorsulfuron

imazapic

metsulfuron 

methyl

picloram

Dalmatian toadflax reproduces primarily by seed and partly by 

adventitious root buds. Yellow toadflax reproduces primarily by 

adventitious root buds on lateral roots.

Biological agents are available and may be very effective. If 

biocontrol agents continue to be effective, herbicide application 

may not be needed.

Manual pulling and digging may not be effective because of the 

deep (4-10 feet) and laterally extensive root systems (to 10 feet 

from plant). If manually removed, all roots and flower and seed 

heads should be bagged and removed. Cutting stems in spring 

or early summer would eliminate seed production, but not the 

root system.

Yellow toadflax

Linaria vulgare

(LIVU2)

Perennial with taproot 

and extensive system 

of vertical and creeping 

lateral roots

Whitetop

Cardaria draba

(CADR)

Rhizomatous perennial

chlorsulfuron

imazapic

imazapyr

glyphosate

metsulfuron 

methyl

These species are difficult to control because of their deep 

taproots (9 ft.) and ability to sprout from root fragments. Early 

detection and proactive management is most effective since 

established infestations are difficult to control. Frequent 

monitoring for new sites and prioritizing small infestations in 

otherwise healthy sites is important. Next priority would be for 

corridors, such as waterways and irrigations structures that 

have a high likelihood of spread.

Biological controls are not available.

Repeated pulling may control small, young infestations. 

Established plants are likely to resprout from deep roots. All 

roots and flower and seed heads should be removed. Mowing 

does not eliminate plants but removes thatch.

Perennial pepperweed

Lepidium latifolium

(LELA2)

Perennial with rhizome 

like creeping roots

Sulphur cinquefoil

Potentilla recta

(PORE5)

Taprooted perennial 

that may have several 

shallow, spreading 

branch roots but not 

rhizomes

metsulfuron 

methyl

glyphosate

picloram

triclopyr

Cultural treatments, such as seeding of native plants may be 

effective.

There are no approved biocontrols.

Small infestations may be controlled by hand digging if the 

entire root crown is removed.

For large infestations, selective herbicides are likely the only 

method of effective control (TNC 2004).

Repeated treatments are needed for the first couple of years to 

ensure re-establishment does not occur.

14
Record of Decision

Implementation Planning 

Treatments will be completed following steps outlined in the Annual Implementation Planning 

process and Common Control Measures, according to Project Design Features and Herbicide Use 

Buffers that limit the extent and method of treatment appropriate to site conditions. In addition to 

these steps, the Early Detection, Rapid Response Decision Process will be followed for sites that 

may be detected in the future. See Attachment 1 for details. 

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

Permit

A Clean Water Act (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System - NPDES) permit will be 

obtained for herbicide use that may directly enter streams. The permit is needed for herbicide 

treatments within 3 feet of streams, wetlands, and other seasonally wet areas when water is 

present, including conveyances with a hydrologic surface connection to a water body (e.g. near a 

road culvert that runs water to a creek). Treatments on small portions of infestations (currently 

mapped or detected in the future) may meet the criteria; however, the type of infestations 

currently found on the Malheur National Forest are not riparian dependent. The current mapping 

is not refined enough to determine whether a permit will ultimately be needed; however, NPDES 

Pesticide General Permits would be obtained prior to implementing any treatments in which 

herbicide could be directly introduced into surface waters. This generally includes treatment 

within stream banks or for target plants that emerge from or overhang water bodies. Pollution 

control requirements would be satisfied by the project design features in this project.

Clean Water Act compliance includes use of best management practices (BMPs). Specific BMPs 

are required for chemical use on National Forests (National BMP Technical Guide - USDA Forest 

Service 2012). The project design features in Chapter 2 integrate the national BMPs. Core 

objectives for chemical uses on National Forests are provided in the technical guide. These 

include:

♦ Use the planning process to develop measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse 

effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources from chemical use on NFS lands.

♦ Avoid or minimize the risk of soil and surface water or groundwater contamination by 

complying with all label instructions and restrictions required for legal use.

♦ Avoid or minimize the risk of chemical delivery to surface water or groundwater when 

treating areas near water bodies.

Monitoring

Monitoring would occur during implementation to ensure project design features are 

implemented as planned. Post-treatment reviews would occur to determine whether treatments are 

effective and whether or not passive/active restoration is occurring as expected. Post-treatment 

monitoring would also be used to detect whether pdfs were appropriately applied, and whether 

non-target vegetation impacts were within tolerable levels. 

We will ensure that herbicide-use buffers and design features are being properly implemented. If 

not, we will immediately adjust treatments to ensure proper implementation. In addition, if we 

find unexpected adverse effects despite proper implementation, we will adjust the herbicide-use 

buffers and design features until the effects are no longer occurring

15
Malheur National Forest Site-Specific Invasive Plants Treatment Project

Contract administration and other existing mechanisms would be used to correct deficiencies. 

Prescriptions would be refined over time based on post-treatment results as long as treatments 

remain within the scope of the EIS. For instance, an invasive plant population treated with a 

broadcast herbicide may be retreated with a spot spray, or later manually pulled, once the size of 

the infestation is sufficiently reduced following the initial treatment. Another example would be 

the use of another herbicide if the first choice is not effective. 

Treatment buffers would be expanded if damage was found outside herbicide-use buffers as 

indicated by a decrease in the size of any non-target plant population, leaf discoloration or 

chlorophyll change, or mortality to individual species of local interest or non-target vegetation. 

The findings would be applied to herbicide-use buffers for waterbodies. Herbicide-use buffers 

may be adjusted for certain herbicides/application methods and not others, depending on results.

Herbicide use will be reported as required by the FSH 2109.14 according to FACTS protocols. 

We will monitor treatment effectiveness as part of our annual accomplishment reporting. In 

accordance with national policy, at least 50 percent of all invasive plant treatments are monitored 

on the ground to determine treatment effectiveness. We will likely revisit most if not all treatment 

sites to determine need for follow up until the site is fully restored to its desired condition 

(depending on the capability of the site, the surrounding land uses, the nature of the infestation, 

and other factors – please see our implementation planning process outlined previously in this 

chapter).

We will follow the “Invasive Species Monitoring Plan; Southern Blues Restoration Coalition” 

(appendix B) to address the question: “What are the trends in the occurrence and distribution of 

invasive plants/noxious weeds at the project and landscape scales?”

Additional monitoring may occur as part of the R6 2005 ROD Monitoring Framework, and to 

ensure that water quality Best Management Practices are followed and effectively protect water 

quality. 

Land and Resource Management Plan Amendments

My decision includes amendments to the Malheur and Ochoco National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plans (LRMPs). These amendments would allow us to us aminopyralid to 

the integrated treatment toolbox for invasive plants for the Malheur National Forest and the Snow 

Mountain District of the Ochoco National Forest. Aminopyralid (also known by the trade name, 

Milestone®) was not available during the analysis process for the R6 2005 FEIS. The risk 

assessment completed in 2007 indicates that this herbicide will increase treatment effectiveness 

and decrease risk of adverse effects as compared to other herbicides authorized in the R6 2005 

ROD (FEIS, table 7, page 28). Thus, we propose to add aminopyralid to the list of approved 

ingredients in the LRMPs’ invasive plant standard 16. All other standards and guidelines for 

invasive plant management will remain the same (FEIS, Section 1.7).

U.S. EPA (2005) has concluded that the use of aminopyralid as a replacement for other herbicides 

will decrease risk to some non-target species:

“Aminopyralid is a Reduced Risk herbicide that provides reliable control of a broad 

spectrum of difficult-to control noxious weeds and invasive plants on rangeland and 

pastures, rights-of-way, and wildlife habitat areas. Aminopyralid is particularly effective 

for the control of tropical soda apple, musk thistle, Canada thistle, spotted knapweed, 

diffuse knapweed, yellow starthistle and Russian knapweed. Aminopyralid has a 

favorable human health toxicity profile when compared to the registered alternatives for 

16
Record of Decision

these use sites and will be applied at a lower rate. Its residual action should alleviate the 

need for repeat applications, resulting in a reduction in the amount of herbicides applied 

to the environment for the control of these weeds. Aminopyralid has been determined to 

be practically non-toxic to non-target animals at the registered application rates, 

compared to the alternatives, and is less likely to impact both terrestrial and aquatic 

plants.” 

Currently, Standard 16 reads as follows: 

Select from herbicide formulations containing one or more of the following 10 active 

ingredients: chlorsulfuron, clopyralid, glyphosate, imazapic, imazapyr, metsulfuron 

methyl, picloram, sethoxydim, sulfometuron methyl, and triclopyr...Additional herbicides 

and herbicide mixtures may be added in the future at either the Forest Plan [LRMP]or 

project level through appropriate risk analysis and NEPA/ESA procedures.

I have decided to amend Standard 16 by adding aminopyralid to the list of herbicide formulations. 

The amended standard will read as follows (changes are underlined): 

Select from herbicide formulations containing one or more of the following 11 active 

ingredients: aminopyralid, chlorsulfuron, clopyralid, glyphosate, imazapic, imazapyr, 

metsulfuron methyl, picloram, sethoxydim, sulfometuron methyl, and 

triclopyr...Additional herbicides and herbicide mixtures may be added in the future at 

either the Forest Plan or project level through appropriate risk analysis and NEPA/ESA 

procedures.

Page 33 of this ROD further discusses my finding that these Land and Resource Management 

Plan amendments are not considered to be significant amendments as defined by the 1982 

planning rule.

4

Rationale for Decision

I have selected alternative B because it has the best chance of effectively treating invasive plants 

using the widest range of treatment methods to meet invasive plant treatment needs. Alternative B 

favorably responds to issues about effects of herbicides on human health, non-target vegetation 

and pollinators, soils, water, aquatic organisms, wildlife, and special places. Treatments are 

relatively cost-effective and adverse environmental consequences will be minimized by project 

design features (pdfs) and herbicide-use buffers. All practical means to avoid or minimize 

environmental harm have been incorporated, while still allowing for effective treatments.

Alternative B is consistent with the Malheur National Forest LRMP management direction for 

invasive plant treatment. Alternative B would lead to a reduction in the extent and density of 

invasive plant species in the project area. 

Alternative B responds to public concerns about treatment effectiveness by authorizing a wide 

range of integrated treatment methods that will be prioritized, planned, and implemented in 

cooperation with our neighbors. The FEIS demonstrates that invasive plant treatment under

4 Under the 2012 Planning Rule (Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 219–Planning) the responsible 

official may complete and approve a plan amendment in conformance with the provisions of the prior 

planning regulation, including the transition provisions of the reinstated 2000 rule (36 CFR part 299, 

published at 36 CFR parts 200 to 299, revised as of July 1, 2010). The transition provisions allow the use 

of the 1982 planning procedures (See CFR parts 200 to 299, Revised as of July 1, 2000). See the following 

hyperlink for the 1982 planning procedures http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/includes/nfmareg.html

17

 
Malheur National Forest Site-Specific Invasive Plants Treatment Project

alternative B would benefit the environment and would not involve unnecessary or unreasonable 

risks. I considered the benefits of integrated invasive plant treatment and find that the benefits of 

treatment far outweigh the risks. 

In making this decision, I considered the policies and invasive plant management direction 

associated with invasive plants, the public scoping and DEIS comments, and the analysis in the 

EIS. 

Policies and Management Direction

Forest Service policies and management direction related to invasive plant treatment clearly 

supports taking action to contain or reduce density of invasive plants on National Forests. 

Prevention, early detection and rapid response, invasive plant control measures, restoration and 

organizational collaboration are all addressed in the Forest Service 2900 Manual. Forest Service 

Manual (FSM 2150) and Forest Service Handbook (FSH 2109) provide direction on safe use of 

pesticides, including direction on storage and transport, and development of safety plans and 

emergency spill plans.

The R6 2005 ROD also provides management direction for this project. The R6 2005 ROD lays 

out several objectives for invasive plant management including: 

Objective 1.3: Detect new infestations of invasive plants promptly by creating and 

maintaining complete, up-to-date inventories of infested areas, and proactively 

identifying and inspecting susceptible areas not infested with invasive plants.

Objective 1.4: Use an integrated approach to treating areas infested with invasive plants. 

Utilize a combination of available tools including manual, cultural, mechanical, 

herbicides, biological control.

Objective 1.5: Control new invasive plant infestations promptly, suppress or contain 

expansion of infestations where control is not practical, conduct follow up inspection of 

treated sites to prevent reestablishment.

Objective 3.1: Avoid or minimize public exposure to herbicides, fertilizer, and smoke.

Objective 3.2: Reduce reliance on herbicide use over time in Region Six

Objective 4.1: Maintain water quality while implementing invasive plant treatments.

Objective 4.2: Protect non-target plants and animals from negative effects of both 

invasive plants and applied herbicides. Where herbicide treatment of invasive plants is 

necessary within the riparian zone, select treatment methods and chemicals so that 

herbicide application is consistent with riparian management direction.

Objective 4.3 - Protect threatened, endangered, and sensitive species habitat threatened by 

invasive plants. Design treatment projects to protect threatened, endangered, and sensitive 

species and maintain species viability.

I find that the design of alternative B will help us meet these objectives. The objective of reducing 

herbicide use over time is best met by implementing effective, integrated treatments that may 

include chemical use, as has been proposed in alternative B. As discussed in FEIS Chapter 3.1.4: 

“The design of each alternative influences the cost of eradicating, controlling, and containing 

18
Record of Decision

invasive plants on the Malheur National Forest. The effectiveness of each treatment is influenced 

by the tools available for use; the more tools available, the greater the potential effectiveness of 

the treatment. If the toolbox is restricted and some situations cannot be effectively treated, the 

percentage of target population killed each year can be dramatically decreased. On page 4-18, 

the R6 2005 FEIS notes that “In general, alternatives that have the widest variety of herbicides 

and herbicide families available for use have the greatest potential to result in effective 

treatments.” In contrast, when herbicide use is more restricted, “...fewer acres would likely be 

achieved at a constant budget, and the years to control increases proportionally” (ibid. page 4-

21). Thus, a loss of effectiveness is likely if the most effective choice is not available for a given 

site.”

Alternative B is by definition the most cost-effective alternative because it allows for the widest 

range of treatment tools. 

Public Scoping and DEIS Comments

The project scoping input and comments to the DEIS illustrate the concerns people have 

regarding invasive plant management. Many of the public issues discussed in the R6 2005 FEIS 

were repeated at this project level, including concerns about the spread of invasive plants from 

land uses on the Forest, concerns about the effectiveness of treatment strategies, and concerns 

about the impacts of treatments, especially related to herbicide use. 

I believe that concerns about the spread of invasive plants from land uses are addressed through 

adherence to the R6 2005 ROD and other management direction ensuring that prevention 

measures are integrated into all projects and activities on the Forest. Some commenters remarked 

that changes in land uses and other measures should be applied to forest activities to prevent or 

slow the spread of invasive plants. Prevention applied to land uses is not a connected action to 

this project. The R6 2005 FEIS discussed the programmatic relationship between prevention, the 

spread of weeds, and the eventual need for treatment (Chapter 4.1.3). Causes and vectors of 

invasive plant spread are specifically addressed in the R6 2005 FEIS (Chapter 3 and appendices). 

This treatment project EIS is tiered to the R6 2005 FEIS and relies on these discussions where 

necessary to address the relationship between land uses and invasive plant spread. Treatment will 

continue to be needed; even with prevention measures applied to land uses (R6 2005 FEIS 4.1.3). 

I am making this decision in recognition that the current treatment approach (relying mainly on 

manual control) has not effectively reduced the extent or density of invasive plants. Experts in the 

field of invasive plant management have expressed that this project is necessary to meet invasive 

plant control objectives. For instance, the Directors and Staff of the Grant Soil and Water 

Conservation District noted that “Implementation of the proposed control measures will provide 

direct protection to desired native plant communities, reduce noxious weed seed sources that can 

migrate to neighboring lands, and contribute positively to sustaining essential watershed functions 

of the Forest.” 

The public comments also reflected public concern about the extent and impact of herbicide use 

proposed. Several alternatives were suggested to limit the type and amount of herbicide that may 

be used, the locations they may be used, and the application method. Explanations of how these 

alternatives were considered, and the reasons why they were not analyzed in detail, are included 

in the FEIS (Chapter 2.4).

Comments suggested that effectiveness of past treatments must be evaluated by a disinterested 

party before new treatments would be implemented. This is an opinion not supported by law or 

19
Malheur National Forest Site-Specific Invasive Plants Treatment Project

policy and would not address the need for treatment flexibility or rapid response to newly 

detected infestations. 

Comments suggested that maximum rates of any herbicide should not be used in any 

circumstances. A general limit on application rates was not considered for detailed study because 

it would not further minimize adverse effects, but could impede treatment effectiveness. 

Comments suggested an alternative requiring a mandatory decline in herbicide use over time. Due 

to uncertainty in funding and workforce capacity, the pattern of herbicide use over time cannot be 

precisely predicted. Thus, a mandatory decline on herbicide use each year at the project level is 

not possible and would not meet the purpose and need for timely and effective treatments. 

Comments suggested that herbicides only be used as a last resort or not used at all. Use of 

herbicides as a last resort was considered as an alternative in the R6 2005 FEIS and was rejected 

in the R6 2005 ROD (p. 27). Herbicide use in the context of integrated invasive plant 

management is supported by current policy and management direction on the Forest. 

Comments suggested that herbicide use be limited to a subset of target species considered the 

highest priority. However, treatment priority is based on site conditions as well as target species, 

and the use of herbicides would already be minimized by the project design features. Limiting 

herbicide use to high priority target species would not allow effective treatments in high priority 

areas threatened by invasive plants, such as wilderness trailheads and riparian zones. 

Comments included a number of suggestions about prohibiting herbicide use in a variety of areas, 

including riparian zones and other sensitive sites. When all of the areas are added together, this 

becomes an alternative very similar to eliminating herbicides from the treatment toolbox and 

would not meet the purpose and need for timely and effective treatment. I find that the project 

design features already limit the potential for impacts to fish and wildlife habitats and native plant 

communities with the Forest. 

Comments suggested that some of the proposed herbicides not be approved due to perceptions 

about their toxicity or risk of adverse impacts associated with their use. I considered dropping 

some of the herbicide ingredients from consideration to respond to these concerns. I have decided 

to retain the option of using any of the 11 proposed herbicides on this project to help increase the 

potential for success as the project is implemented over time. Having herbicide options is 

important should the first choice herbicides be found ineffective. The project has been designed 

to minimize the risks of any and all chemical use by restrictions on application method, rate, 

timing, and extent of use. Herbicides that pose relatively higher risks would be used less 

extensively and less frequently. I have dropped the use of certain herbicide additives (NPE, 

POEA) to reduce potential risks. These additives are not necessary for effective treatment. 

FEIS Appendix D provides detailed responses to comments made to the DEIS. The following 

section discusses the impacts of the project to further explain why I believe that alternative B will 

adequately minimize risk to people or the environment. 

EIS Analysis

I acknowledge that herbicide applicators and other people may be exposed to the herbicides used 

to treat invasive plants under alternative B (FEIS Chapter 3.2.3). However, the analysis indicates 

adverse effects to human health are unlikely. Human health risks have been minimized by the 

20
Record of Decision

design of the project, so scenarios that are associated with hazard quotients greater than 1 for 

human health are implausible or unlikely to actually occur. 

I recognize that some individual non-target plants may be killed or harmed during 

implementation of this project. However, sensitive plants would be protected by project design 

features (FEIS Chapter 3.3.3) and on the balance, reduction of invasive plant species would help 

restore native plant habitat and communities within disturbed areas. Treatments would have a 

beneficial impact on sensitive non-target plant species directly correlated with how many acres of 

invasive species are reduced or eliminated by effective treatments (FEIS Chapter 3.2.3).

Invasive plant treatments will not adversely affect soil biology or productivity. Restrictions on the 

rate, type, and frequency of specific herbicides (see pdf groups F and H, see Attachment 1) would 

reduce herbicide build up in the soil and impacts on soil organisms or productivity (FEIS Chapter 

3.4.3). Site specific modeling indicated that herbicides would not likely leach further than 36 

inches down into the soil (ibid). Proposed treatments would not create large bare areas or result in 

heavy disturbance to the soil surface (ibid).

Invasive plant treatments would not adversely affect water resources. To limit risk of off-site 

movement of herbicides, pdfs H5 and H6 (see Attachment 1 in this ROD) limit herbicide spraying 

in conditions of high water table or saturated soils, and H11 provides parameters on allowable 

weather conditions for spraying. I recognize that treatment on roads poses a risk to eventual 

surface water contamination because surface runoff from bare and or compacted surfaces within 

the road prism shed precipitation water more readily and frequently than natural slopes. To 

address this risk, pdfs and herbicide-use buffers apply to roadside ditches that drain into streams. 

The project design features, herbicide use buffers, and treatment caps are likely to prevent 

herbicide from reaching streams in measurable or harmful concentrations. Any herbicide reaching 

the stream would be quickly diluted as it moved downstream. Mixing and dilution of any trace 

amount of herbicide that may result from invasive plant treatment would occur quickly (FEIS 

Chapter 3.5.3).

Serious adverse effects on aquatic organisms, in the short or long term from this project are 

unlikely (FEIS Chapter 3.6.3). Concentrations of herbicides potentially delivered to any water 

body on the Forest would remain well below levels capable of measurably affecting aquatic 

organisms. I acknowledge that while sediment contribution from invasive plant treatments would 

be relatively minor, treatments in riparian areas could result in minor local changes to fish habitat

(ibid).

Invasive plant treatments proposed under alternative B would not alter habitat structure or 

composition for terrestrial wildlife species (FEIS Chapter 3.7.3). Most of the invasive plants on 

the Malheur National Forests are forbs, thus woody species, and shrubs and trees would not likely 

be affected by treatments. Impacts to non-target forbs and grasses would generally be minor and 

occur within treated areas or within short distances of treated areas (less than 100 feet, 15 feet for 

spot treatment). In some cases, removal of invasive plants could cause a localized decrease in the 

amount of vegetative cover provided. However, due to the patchy nature of invasive plant 

infestations, there would be little cover lost. Invasive plant treatments are not likely to reduce 

available habitat or prey availability (ibid).

Effective invasive plant treatments on grazing allotments would help retain and increase the 

native vegetation that provides livestock forage. Livestock exposure to toxic weed species would 

be reduced (FEIS Chapter 3.8.3). First-choice herbicides proposed for alternative B are expected 

21
Malheur National Forest Site-Specific Invasive Plants Treatment Project

to have no adverse effects to livestock. Herbicide impacts would be eliminated due the pdfs that 

keep rates low and the coordination with permittees that ensures pdfs and label requirements for 

moving livestock during spraying are followed (see N group in pdfs in attachment 1).

I understand that the use of herbicides in wilderness areas may reduce the wilderness experience 

for some users in the short term, but active treatment provides the best protection of wilderness 

character and values (FEIS Chapter 3.9.3). Invasive plants have an adverse effect by disrupting 

natural processes. Invasive species may alter native plant communities and have indirect effects 

with wildlife species that rely on the native plant communities. Invasive species may also alter 

fire regimes that may ultimately alter wilderness ecological processes.

Similarly, the use of herbicides in Wild and Scenic Rivers may reduce the ‘wild’ experience for 

some users in the short term especially in the Wild designated corridor, but active treatment 

provides the best protection of the outstanding and remarkable values. Treating Wild and Scenic 

River infestations would have short term adverse effects by introducing human manipulation, but 

would result in long term beneficial effects to wilderness character and values by restoring natural 

conditions (ibid.)

This project would result in recovery or protection of the scenic and natural appearing forest 

character (FEIS Chapter 3.9.3). I recognize that the visual impact of the short lived blue dye may 

result in visual impacts to the recreation experience of some visitors. However, these effects 

would be short term and limited to the vicinity of the treated site. Recreation sites undergoing 

treatment would be marked and forest visitors would be discouraged from recreating in the 

vicinity of sites recently treated and may choose to relocate to alternative recreation sites (ibid). I 

believe this inconvenience is outweighed by the ability to effectively treat recreation sites that are 

likely sources of invasive plant spread. 

Invasive plant treatments are unlikely to adversely affect heritage sites. Most of the treatment 

methods are not ground disturbing and therefore would have no direct or indirect effect on 

archaeological (cultural) resources. Weed wrenching and grubbing may disturb archaeological 

resources; however, the effects would be relatively minor (FEIS Chapter 3.10.3).

Alternative B is my selected alternative given the low likelihood of serious adverse effects. 

Alternative B has the greatest potential for positive benefits from treatment. 

Other Alternatives Considered

In addition to the selected alternative, we analyzed three other alternatives: no action (alternative 

A) and two action alternatives (alternatives C and D). Table 5 summarizes the activities included 

in each alternative analyzed in detail compared to the selected alternative. 

Table 5. Alternative comparison by activity

Activity Alternative B

(Selected 

Alternative)

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative C

(Strict 

Limitations on 

Herbicide Use)

Alternative D

(No LRMP 

Amendment, No 

Aminopyralid)

Authorizes EDRR Yes No Yes Yes

22
Record of Decision

Activity Alternative B

(Selected 

Alternative)

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative C

(Strict 

Limitations on 

Herbicide Use)

Alternative D

(No LRMP 

Amendment, No 

Aminopyralid)

Non-herbicide 

treatments

Non-herbicide 

treatments will be 

integrated with 

herbicide 

treatments

None5 Same as 

Alternative B, 

except only nonherbicide 

treatments would

be approved within 

100 feet of water 

bodies

Same as 

Alternative B

Maximum acres of 

proposed 

herbicide 

treatments during 

any year of 

implementation

2,124 0 735 Same as 

Alternative B

Number of 

herbicides 

available for use

11 0 10 (no picloram) 10 (no 

aminopyralid)

Forest LRMP

amendment to 

include 

aminopyralid

Yes No Yes No

Herbicide 

application rate 

and method

Lowest effective 

rate, broadcast

sprayers may be 

used where 

needed according 

to project design 

features

None Application rate 

would not exceed 

70% of typical 

broadcast rate, no 

boom or broadcast 

sprayers

Same as 

Alternative B , no 

aminopyralid

Biological control 

agents

Biological control 

agents may be 

released or 

redistributed

No biological 

agents would be 

released within the 

Forest boundaries

Same as 

Alternative B

Same as 

Alternative B

Prevention 

measures

Same as 

Alternative B

Measures applied 

to all land uses to 

prevent the 

introduction and 

spread of invasive 

plants.

Same as 

Alternative B

Same as 

Alternative B

Restoration Active and passive 

restoration with 

native plants 

would be 

encouraged

Same as 

Alternative B

Same as 

Alternative B

Same as 

Alternative B

Table 6 displays a comparison of the first year/first choice herbicide for each alternative. All 

action alternatives (B-D) will approve a range of treatments on all 2,124 currently infested acres. 

Alternative C is the only action alternative that would disallow herbicide use in specific areas to 

5 The analysis in Chapter 3 assumes that no action means no invasive plant treatments will occur. 

However, actions to prevent invasive plant spread would continue, and biological agents may occupy areas 

where their host species occur within the Malheur National Forest.

23

 
Malheur National Forest Site-Specific Invasive Plants Treatment Project

the degree that non-herbicide treatments would be the only methods allowed for these sites. 

Under alternative A (no action), no treatments would be approved. Under all alternatives (A-D), 

approved biological controls will continue to be released and help suppress toadflax, St.

Johnswort and other common invasive species. 

Table 6. Comparison of first year/first choice herbicide by alternative

First Year/First Choice Treatment Alternative 

A

Acres

Selected 

Alternative 

Acres

Alternative 

C

Acres

Alternative 

D

Acres

Broadcast Herbicide Application (total) 0 1,281 0 1,281

Aminopyralid 0 1,179 0 0

Chlorsulfuron 0 71 0 435

Glyphosate 0 0 0 3

Metsulfuron methyl 0 30 0 69

Picloram 0 0 0 36

Spot/Selective Herbicide Application (total) 0 843 735 1,581

Aminopyralid 0 168 560 0

Chlorsulfuron 0 519 142 595

Glyphosate 0 0 0 722

Metsulfuron methyl 0 156 33 238

Picloram 0 0 0 27

Non-herbicide Only 0 0 1,389 0

Alternative A – No Action

Alternative A is described in detail in section 2.3.1 of the FEIS. Under alternative A, the Forest 

Service would not treat invasive plants on the Malheur National Forest using integrated treatment 

methods. Invasive plant treatments would likely continue on state road rights-of-way and 

easements within the Forest because they are not subject to Forest Service control. Any future 

treatments would require separate environmental analyses. For example, categorical exclusions 

may be completed to authorize manual and limited mechanical treatments in site-specific areas. 

Why Alternative A was not Selected

Alternative A would have addressed some public concerns by eliminating most herbicide use on 

the Forest. There would be low or no risks or impacts from herbicides on human health, nontarget vegetation and pollinators, soils, water, aquatic organisms, or wildlife if no action were 

taken. However, the threats to the environment from invasive plants would have continued

unabated and policies related to invasive plant management would not be followed. Treatment 

along roads and near recreation areas is particularly important because these areas are most prone 

to perpetual disturbance that favors opportunistic invasive species and a high rate of propagule 

pressure (i.e. spread).

Since invasive plants often out-compete native plants, the risk to sensitive plants from invasive 

plants increases with the number of acres of invasive plant infestation. Up to 30,000 acres could 

be infested over a 15-year period if no treatment occurs and invasive plants spread at a rate of 10 

percent per year. Alternative A will not achieve the goal of reducing acreage or suppressing, 

containing, controlling or eradicating invasive plants. This alternative would not meet the desired 

24
Record of Decision

future condition “to retain healthy native plant communities that are diverse and resilient, and 

restore ecosystems that are being damaged, and to provide high quality habitat for native 

organisms throughout the forest, and assure that invasive plants do not jeopardize the ability of 

the forest to provide goods and services communities expect.” Without action, invasive plants

would continue to spread and could adversely impact sensitive species (FEIS Chapter 3.2.3).

Over time, invasive plants could out-compete desirable vegetation that helps maintain functional 

riparian areas and stream conditions (FEIS Chapter 3.3.5). Aquatic habitats are harmed when 

invasive species out-compete native vegetation. Native vegetation supports the biotic (e.g., 

invertebrate community) and abiotic (soil stabilization) attributes necessary for high quality 

aquatic habitat. Continued expansion of invasive plants, as is likely occur with no action, would 

continue to change near-stream biotic and abiotic attributes, and could result in degradation of 

aquatic and riparian habitats (FEIS Chapter 3.3.6). Under alternative A, the long-term loss of 

native vegetation and habitat due to continued encroachment of invasive plants would adversely 

affect species such as elk, antelope, grasshopper sparrow, greater sage grouse, upland sandpiper, 

bobolink, Columbia spotted frog, silver-bordered fritillary and several migratory birds of concern

(FEIS Chapter 3.3.7). For these reasons, I have decided not to select alternative A. 

Alternative C – Strict Limitations on Herbicide Use

Alternative C is described in detail in section 2.3.3 of the FEIS. We developed alternative C in 

response to public concerns about herbicide use on the Malheur National Forest. Alternative C 

would have imposed strict limitations on our ability to use herbicides to treat invasive plants. 

Compared to alternative B, alternative C would have addressed public concerns about herbicide 

impacts to human health, non-target vegetation, pollinators, potential water contamination, and 

herbicide effects on fish and wildlife while still allowing for some herbicide use. Approximately 

735 acres would have been approved for spot/selective herbicide use under this alternative. No 

herbicide would have been used on the remaining 1,389 acres to be treated.

Aminopyralid would have been one herbicide available for use, so this alternative would have 

included the same LRMP amendment as alternative B. Alternative C would have included all of 

the integrated treatment methods listed for alternative B, except broadcast treatment would not 

have been authorized and no picloram would have been used. Biological controls would have 

been released as described under alternative B.

Under alternative C, all of the alternative components and project design features for alternative 

B would have been followed, except that project design features related to broadcast spraying, use 

of picloram, and herbicide use within 100 feet of streams or other water bodies would have 

become non-applicable.

No herbicide use would have been allowed within the boundaries of any mapped infested area 

that at any point is within 100 feet of creeks, lakes, ponds and wetlands; or 200 feet of well 

source areas. Non-herbicide methods would have continued to be used within these areas. The 

buffer tables associated with alternative B would have become non-applicable since no herbicide 

use would have been allowed within 100 feet of streams. No herbicide use would have been

authorized within 100 feet of hydrologically connected roadside ditches when surface water is 

present.

Restoration would have been the same as described for alternative B.

Alternative C would have provided for treatment flexibility through the life of the project. Newly 

detected infestations could have been treated according to the project design features associated 

25
Malheur National Forest Site-Specific Invasive Plants Treatment Project

with this alternative. No broadcast treatments, use of herbicides within 100 feet of streams, or use 

of picloram would have been authorized for future year treatments. Selective and spot treatment 

of herbicide would have been limited to no more than 735 acres per year, or total 11,025 acres 

over the life of the project. No more than 50 acres of non-herbicide treatment (except biological 

controls) would have occurred annually within 100 feet of a stream or water body with any given 

sixth-field watershed. The total of non-herbicide and herbicide methods would not have exceeded

30,000 acres over a 15-year period.

These restrictions would have applied to known sites as they change over time, as well as new 

detections. The implementation planning process would have been similar to alternative B. 

However, the range of treatments that would have been allowed and the places, types and 

amounts of herbicide that might have been used would have been more restrictive. FEIS table 15

summarizes the herbicide ingredients that would likely have been most effective in alternative C, 

based on the target species within the mapped infested areas and the restrictions on herbicide use 

in this alternative.

Why Alternative C was not Selected

Several public comments indicated support for aspects of alternative C, including eliminating the 

broadcast application method, eliminating the use of the herbicide picloram, and eliminating all 

herbicide use within 100 feet of riparian areas. Many of the comments indicated this alternative 

was not restrictive enough and indicated a desire for more restrictions on herbicide use.

I did not select alternative C because it would have been less effective in reducing the density and 

extent of invasive plants. The analysis does not indicate that the restrictions associated with 

alternative C are necessary to minimize the adverse effects of treatments. 

Alternative C would have been more costly to implement, estimated at $722 per acre compared to 

$544 per acre in alternative B and would be less likely to meet control objectives in riparian areas

(FEIS Chapter 3.1.4). 

I acknowledge that use of spot or selective treatments (no broadcast) could have reduced the 

potential for vegetation or fruit to become contaminated with herbicide, compared to the selected 

alternative. Also, not using herbicide near streams would have reduced risk of consuming 

contaminated drinking water or eating contaminated fish. However, the risks associated with 

alternative B are already relatively low and unlikely or implausible to actually occur (FEIS 

Chapter 3.2.3). Thus, the loss of cost-effectiveness associated with alternative C is not warranted 

by the additional protections. 

Although the risk to sensitive plants is relatively lower under alternative C, the same potential 

sources of risk would have still applied. However, alternative C will not lead to as great of a 

beneficial impact as alternative B relative to native plant communities and sensitive plants. 

I acknowledge that the additional stream buffers associated with herbicide use in alternative C 

would have reduced the potential for herbicide to be delivered to surface waters on the Forest 

(FEIS Chapter 3.5.3). However, the risks associated with alternative B do not warrant the 

additional herbicide use buffers, which also would have potentially increased sediment delivery 

to streams from manual or mechanical treatments. Picloram would not be used at all so there 

would have been no potential for this herbicide to reach streams or other water bodies. There also 

would have been less short- and long-term benefit to the aquatic environment from effective 

treatment of invasive plants in riparian areas.

26
Record of Decision

There does not appear to be a benefit to alternative C regarding effects on wildlife. The likelihood 

of direct effects on wildlife would have been increased because manual/mechanical treatments 

can increase the likelihood of disturbance to less mobile wildlife species (FEIS Chapter 3.7.3).

I did not select alternative C because of it would reduce cost-effectiveness compared to the 

selected alternative and the additional restrictions are not warranted given the layers of protection 

included in the selected alternative. 

Alternative D – No LRMP Amendment, No Aminopyralid

Alternative D is described in detail in Chapter 2.3.4 of the FEIS. Alternative D was developed to 

evaluate the tradeoffs involved with adding aminopyralid to the list of available herbicides for use 

on the Malheur National Forest. Under this alternative, no aminopyralid would have been used, 

and no LRMP amendment would have been required.

All treatment methods listed for alternative B would have been approved. Biological controls 

would have been released as described under alternative B.

Integrated treatment prescriptions would have been similar to those listed for alternative B except 

that no aminopyralid would have been used to treat known sites or new detections. Compared to 

alternative B, more chlorsulfuron, glyphosate, metsulfuron methyl, and picloram would have 

been used in lieu of aminopyralid. In some cases, the first choice herbicide would not have been

approved for use near streams (e.g., picloram) and another herbicide (e.g., glyphosate) would

have become the first choice.

All of the project design features and herbicide-use buffers associated with alternative B would 

have applied, except for those that refer to use of aminopyralid.

The herbicide-use rates, project design features and herbicide-use buffers associated with 

aminopyralid would have become non-applicable. Much of the infested sites near streams and 

other water bodies would have been spot treated rather than broadcast as directed by the 

herbicide-use buffers associated with herbicides other than aminopyralid. 

Of the ten herbicides considered for use under this alternative, the first choice herbicides would 

have been most likely to be used. The herbicides sethoxydim, sulfometuron methyl, and triclopyr 

would have been the least likely to be used.

Passive and active restoration methods under alternative D would have been the same as 

alternative B. Treatment flexibility, early detection and rapid response, implementation planning, 

and monitoring would have been the same as under alternative B.

Why Alternative D was not Selected

I did not select alternative D because it would have been less effective, more costly, and would 

not have better addressed any public issue. 

Public Involvement

As described in the background, the need for this action arose in 2002 after a U.S. District Court 

required us to consider, evaluate, and disclose the individual and cumulative impacts of herbicide 

use in an environmental impact statement or supplemental environmental impact statement.

27
Malheur National Forest Site-Specific Invasive Plants Treatment Project

On March 31, 2006, we published a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an environmental impact 

statement (EIS) for this invasive plant treatment project (Federal Register Vol. 72, No. 62, pp. 

16281 -1628). We considered public scoping input and initiated an analysis. However, there was a 

delay in completing the NEPA process, so the proposed action was updated and a new NOI was 

published in the Federal Register on April 5, 2011, (Federal Register Vol. 76, No.65, pp. 18713-

18715) initiating new scoping input. In addition this project has been listed on the Malheur 

National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) initially in Spring 2006 and replaced in 

Spring 2011.

The Notice of Availability for the Draft EIS (DEIS) was published in the Federal Register 

(Federal Register Vol. 78, No. 217, pp. 67140 -67141).). We documented and responded to public 

comments to the DEIS, and recorded these in Appendix D of the FEIS.

We published a “Legal Notice of the Opportunity to Object” for this project in the Blue Mountain 

Eagle, the newspaper of record (78 FR 241, p. 76101, 12/16/2013) on ___ __, 2015. This 

provided notice to interested individuals, agencies, and organizations that the FEIS and draft 

record of decision were available and subject to pre-decisional administrative review and 

objection under Subparts A and B of 36 CFR Part 218. 

Issues

Scoping input from both 2006 and 2011 was used to develop issues and alternatives analyzed for 

the draft environmental impact statement. The following significant issues influenced the analysis 

of alternatives in the EIS (FEIS, Section 1.10):

• Treatment cost-effectiveness: Restrictions on herbicide use reduce treatment effectiveness 

and increase treatment costs.

• Herbicide impacts to human health: Human health may be harmed by herbicide exposure.

• Herbicide impacts on non-target vegetation and pollinators: Proposed herbicide use may 

harm non-target plants and/or pollinators, specifically sensitive and other special status 

species, cultural use plants, and special forest products.

• Herbicide delivery to water and impacts on fish: Proposed herbicide use may result in 

chemicals reaching streams and other water bodies (through drift, leaching and/or run off) 

and adversely affect fish and their habitat.

• Herbicide impacts on wildlife: Proposed herbicide use may result in harmful exposure to 

terrestrial wildlife (specifically species of conservation concern).

To address these concerns, the Forest Service created the alternatives described above. Table 7

summarizes how each alternative considered in detail addressed the issues.

28
Record of Decision

Table 7. Alternative comparison relative to significant issues

Issue Component Unit of Measurement Alt A

(No Action)

Alt B

(Proposed Action)

Alt C

(More Restrictive 

Herbicide Use)

Alt D

(No LRMP 

Amendment)

1 – Treatment Effectiveness

Restrictions on herbicide 

use reduce treatment 

effectiveness and 

increase treatment costs.

Average Cost per Acre of 

Effective Treatment of 

Known sites (includes retreatments and restoration)

0 $544 $722 $598

Total Cost of Effective 

Treatment of Know Sites 

(includes re-treatments 

and restoration)

0 $1,154,000 $1,472,900 $1,270,500

Ability to meet treatment 

objectives

Will not meet 

objectives

Tools adequate to meet 

treatment objectives

Tools may not be 

adequate to meet 

treatment objectives, 

especially near riparian 

areas

Tools adequate to meet 

treatment objectives, 

however opportunities to 

use most effective 

herbicide or application 

method may be forgone

2 – Herbicide Impacts to Human Health

Human health may be 

harmed by herbicide 

exposure.

Type (rate, method, 

chemical properties) and 

extent of herbicide use that 

could result in harmful 

exposure scenarios to 

people.

None

None of the herbicides

proposed for use are 

associated with harmful 

scenarios to the public.

Pdfs minimize or eliminate 

potential for harmful 

exposure by limiting the 

herbicide ingredient, rate, 

or method of application.

Workers need to take 

specific precautions to 

avoid herbicide exposure. 

Same as Alternative B, 

except that far less 

herbicide would likely 

be sprayed annually. 

The minimal risks 

associated with 

herbicide use under 

Alternative B would be 

further reduced. 

Same as Alternative B.

Where necessary, pdfs

minimize or eliminate 

potential for harmful 

exposure scenarios.

Qualitative assessment 

about the effectiveness of 

herbicide-use buffers and 

None

Risk assessments 

demonstrate that the type 

of herbicide use proposed 

Alternative C would 

have less risk of 

herbicide exposure 

Same as Alternative B, 

except opportunities to 

use aminopyralid would 

29
Malheur National Forest Site-Specific Invasive Plants Treatment Project

Issue Component Unit of Measurement Alt A

(No Action)

Alt B

(Proposed Action)

Alt C

(More Restrictive 

Herbicide Use)

Alt D

(No LRMP 

Amendment)

other project design 

features to prevent harmful 

herbicide exposure 

scenarios

poses relatively low risk to 

human health. The 

likelihood of harmful 

exposures is low, thus the 

design features have high 

likelihood of eliminating all 

potential adverse impacts 

from herbicide use. 

overall, especially to 

fish and water, due to 

restrictions on herbicide 

use near water. The 

buffers would eliminate 

all potential herbicide 

exposure near streams. 

While this alternative 

includes some 

additional design 

features that would 

comparatively reduce 

risk of harmful herbicide 

exposure, the risk is 

already low.

be foregone and in 

some cases, higher risk 

herbicides would be 

used. However, more 

spot treatment and less 

broadcasting would 

occur, which could result 

in less herbicide 

exposure, partly 

because less herbicide 

can be applied per day 

so the daily treatment 

extent would likely be 

less. For the project as a 

whole, the design 

features minimize 

adverse impacts to 

human health from 

herbicide use. 

Potential for Herbicides to 

Affect Drinking Water None

Drinking water quality 

would not be adversely 

affected. Restrictions on 

herbicide use near drinking 

water and well intakes 

further minimize risk. 

Herbicide transportation 

and handling safety plan 

would minimize potential 

for an herbicide spill.

Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative B

3 – Herbicide Impacts on Non-target Vegetation 

Proposed herbicide use 

may harm non-target 

plants, specifically 

sensitive and other 

species of conservation 

concern, cultural use 

Type and extent of 

herbicide use within 100 

feet of botanical special 

species of conservation 

concern, cultural use 

plants, and special forest 

None

Pdfs prohibit broadcast 

herbicide use within 100 

feet of sensitive plant

populations. Spot

applications will be used 

within 100 feet of sensitive 

plant populations. The pdf 

Same as Alternative B, 

less overall herbicide 

use

Same as Alternative B

30
Record of Decision

Issue Component Unit of Measurement Alt A

(No Action)

Alt B

(Proposed Action)

Alt C

(More Restrictive 

Herbicide Use)

Alt D

(No LRMP 

Amendment)

plants, and special forest 

products.

products. for use of blue dye will alert 

special forest product 

gatherers of herbicide 

spray areas.

4 - Herbicide Delivery to Water and Potential Impacts to Fish

Proposed herbicide use 

may result in chemicals 

reaching streams and 

other water bodies 

(through drift, leaching 

and/or run off) and may 

adversely fish and their 

habitat. 

Type and extent of 

herbicide use within 100 

feet of streams and other 

water bodies.

None

Aminopyralid could be 

broadcast up to water’s 

edge; however, no adverse 

impacts on fish are 

expected because the 

amount of herbicide that 

may reach streams is 

below a level that could 

harm fish. Herbicide-use 

buffers and other pdfs

reduce the rate, extent, or 

frequency of herbicide use 

that pose potential risks to 

fish.

Same as Alternative B, 

except no herbicides 

would be used within 

100 feet of streams and 

other water bodies. 

There potentially could 

be more sediment from 

non-herbicide methods 

required near streams. 

Same as Alternative B, 

except comparatively 

more use of higher-risk 

herbicides relative to 

fish. pdfs minimize risks 

and differences between 

alternatives.

Qualitative assessment 

about whether or not, and 

how fisheries might be 

affected

No impacts

Water concentrations from 

site-specific model runs at 

highest risk sites 

demonstrate that levels of 

herbicide that could reach 

streams and aquatic 

organisms are at least 3 

orders of magnitude less 

than levels of concern for 

fish and habitat. Treatment 

methods may result in 

minor amounts of sediment 

reaching streams.

Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative B

5- Herbicide Impacts on Wildlife and Pollinators

Proposed herbicide 

Type and extent of 

herbicide use within None This alternative has the most broadcasting, but the 

Spot application of 

herbicides would occur 

First-choice herbicides 

that pose a low risk to 

31
Malheur National Forest Site-Specific Invasive Plants Treatment Project

Issue Component Unit of Measurement Alt A

(No Action)

Alt B

(Proposed Action)

Alt C

(More Restrictive 

Herbicide Use)

Alt D

(No LRMP 

Amendment)

use may result in 

harmful exposure to 

terrestrial wildlife 

(specifically species of 

conservation concern).

specific wildlife habitats for 

wildlife of conservation 

concern

first-choice herbicides that 

would be used pose low 

risk to wildlife.

on 735 acres and the 

first-choice herbicides 

pose low risk to wildlife.

wildlife would be applied 

on 1,337 acres whereas 

moderate to risk firstchoice herbicides would 

be used on 787 acres. 

Less broadcasting than 

Alternative B, which 

reduces risk of drift.

Risk of HCB 

(hexachlorobenzene) 

contamination and effects 

on raptor eggs

None

No HCBs in first-choice

herbicides. Pdfs minimize 

risk to raptors to extremely 

low level.

Same as alternative B. 

No use of picloram 

reduces risk. 

Picloram is the firstchoice herbicide on 63 

acres, posing low risk of 

HCB’s; pdfs minimize 

risk to raptors to 

extremely low level.

Narrative assessment 

about whether or not, and 

how species of 

conservation concern and 

amphibians might be 

affected

None

All first-choice herbicides 

pose a low risk to wildlife. 

Pdfs that restrict timing and 

application of herbicides in 

sensitive habitats will 

minimize or eliminate the 

likelihood for any species 

to receive a harmful 

exposure to herbicides or 

disturbance.

Same as Alternative B, 

except greater risk of 

disturbance from nonherbicide treatments. 

Same as Alternative B, 

except less broadcasting 

and more use of 

herbicides that pose a 

comparatively greater 

risk to wildlife. 

32
Draft Record of Decision

Findings Required by Other Laws and 

Regulations

This decision to implement the Malheur National Forest Site-Specific Invasive Plants Treatment 

Project is consistent with the intent of the LRMP's long term goals and objectives listed on pages

IV-1 thru IV-23 (Malheur) and pages 4-1 thru 4-44 (Ochoco). This project has been designed to 

meet the invasive plant management direction in the R6 2005 ROD that amended the LRMPs. 

National Forest Management Act and Land and Resource 

Management Plan

Current guidance for amending Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMP) is provided by 

the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR Part 219). The 2012 planning rule allows plan amendments to 

be made using the procedures from the 1982 planning regulations during a transition period (36 

CFR § 219.14 (b)(2)). This amendment was first initiated in 2011and has been completed using 

the 1982 rule procedures. 6

The amendment itself is discussed at FEIS, Chapter 2.3.2; and on page 6 of this ROD. 

Four factors were used to determine that this is a non-significant LRMP amendment, as defined 

by the 1982 rule. 

1. Actions that do not significantly alter the multiple-use goals and objectives for long-term land 

and resource management.

2. Adjustments of management area boundaries or management prescriptions resulting from 

further on-site analysis when the adjustments do not cause significant changes in the 

multiple-use goals and objectives for long-term land and resource management.

3. Minor changes in standards and guidelines.

4. Opportunities for additional projects or activities that will contribute to achievement of the 

management prescription.

These factors are considered as follows:

1. Actions that do not significantly alter the multiple-use goals and objectives for long-term land 

and resource management.

These LRMP amendments enhance our ability to address invasive species management objectives

but does not alter multiple-use goals and objectives on the Malheur National Forest or Ochoco 

National Forest to any extent.

6 Under the 2012 Planning Rule (Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 219–Planning) the 

responsible official may complete and approve the plan revision in conformance with the 

provisions of the prior planning regulation, including the transition provisions of the reinstated 

2000 rule (36 CFR part 299, published at 36 CFR parts 200 to 299, revised as of July 1, 

2010). The transition provisions allow the use of the 1982 planning procedures (See CFR parts 

200 to 299, Revised as of July 1, 2000). See the following hyperlink for the 1982 planning 

procedures http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/includes/nfmareg.html

33

 
Malheur National Forest Site-Specific Invasive Plants Treatment Project

2. Adjustments of management area boundaries or management prescriptions resulting from 

further on-site analysis when the adjustments do not cause significant changes in the 

multiple-use goals and objectives for long-term land and resource management

The amendment would not change any LRMP management area boundaries or management 

prescriptions on the Malheur National Forest (or Snow Mountain District of the Ochoco National 

Forest). Amending the standard will not change the multiple-use goals and objectives for longterm land and resource management within the project area.

3. Minor changes in standards and guidelines.

The LRMP amendments authorize the use of a registered herbicide, aminopyralid. This herbicide 

is not currently listed among the ten herbicides approved by the Regional Forester in 2005 (R6 

2005 ROD). The Risk Assessment for aminopyralid (SERA 2007) was completed subsequently 

and demonstrates that use of this herbicide will not pose new or significant risks compared to the 

ten already approved. FEIS table 21 (Chapter 3.1.2) shows a comparison between aminopyralid 

and the herbicides already approved. Aminopyralid is generally a lower risk herbicide and the 

proposed use will not pose additional risks to human health or the environment.

4. Opportunities for additional projects or activities that will contribute to achievement of the 

management prescription.

The LRMP amendment allows more effective and efficient treatment of invasive plants by adding 

aminopyralid to the list of approved herbicides on the Malheur National Forest. Aminopyralid is 

an herbicide that is very effective for most of the invasive plant species found within the Malheur 

National Forest. 

It was developed specifically for wildland use and is effective at low rates. It requires less 

restrictions than most of the other herbicides already approved in the LRMP (for instance it can 

be broadcast sprayed to the water’s edge, which will improve treatment effectiveness and 

efficiency relative to other herbicides).

Authorizing the use of aminopyralid will not foreclose on opportunities for additional projects or 

activities that will contribute to achievement of the management prescription. It will make those 

projects more effective in controlling invasive plants.

Finding

On the basis of the information and analysis contained in the FEIS and all other information 

available as summarized above, I have determined that selecting alternative B will result in a nonsignificant amendment to the Malheur and Ochoco National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plans. This amendment will apply to all invasive plant treatments within the project 

area.

Endangered Species Act of 1973

My decision is consistent with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-

1544, 87 Stat. 884).

Plants

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) website indicates that whitebark pine 

(Pinus albicaulis) occurs in Baker and Grant County. This species is currently a candidate for 

federal listing. Whitebark pine is found throughout western North America in subalpine habitats, 

34
Draft Record of Decision

usually near the timberline (above 6,500 feet altitude). The plant association group where it 

occurs is cold upland coniferous forest. Sites are usually fairly dry with thin, rocky, cold soils. It 

is found from Canada south to central California, and east to Wyoming and Colorado. It occurs on 

all Blue Mountain Forests, including at scattered sites on the Malheur NF. Very few documented 

invasive plant sites occur in high elevation dry sites. Therefore, it is unlikely that any invasive 

plant treatments will occur in areas where whitebark pine is found.

The USFWS website indicates that Malheur wire lettuce (Stephanomeria malheurensis) occurs in 

Harney County. This species is federally listed as endangered. It is found in a very limited area 35 

miles south of the southern boundary of the Malheur National Forest. It grows only on volcanic 

tuffaceous soils. It is highly unlikely that there is any potential habitat for this species on the 

Malheur National Forest. 

The USFWS website indicates that Howell’s spectacular thelypody (Thelypodium howellii ssp. 

spectabilis) occurs in Baker County. This species is federally listed as threatened. It is found in a 

very limited area of the Baker Valley. The closest known population is over 35 miles northeast of 

the Malheur National Forest. This species grows only at relatively low elevations on moist 

alkaline plains, and in alkaline river valleys. It is usually found with black greasewood 

(Sarcobatus vermiculatus). All National Forest System land located on the Malheur National 

Forest in Baker County is in relatively high elevation in forested or open sub-alpine habitat types; 

therefore, potential habitat for this species is unlikely to be found. The USFWS website does not 

list any plants for Crook or Malheur Counties. 

For these reasons, consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service regarding 

federally listed plants was not conducted.

Fish

For federally listed species (steelhead, bull trout) and essential fish habitat (Chinook salmon), the 

potential for short-term adverse effects is greatest in four watersheds within the project area: Big 

Creek, Camp Creek, Middle South Fork John Day River, and Upper Middle Fork John Day River. 

Sediment produced from treatments in riparian areas, especially manual treatments, may affect 

listed fish in the short term. However, these impacts are expected to be minor and discountable.

The effects from sediment were further reduced with the addition of pdf E3 that provides for 

some erosion control in disturbed riparian areas. 

Potential effects to habitat indicators are not likely to adversely affect fish and their designated 

critical habitat. Consultation will be completed with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and 

the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on my selected alternative prior to a final agency 

decision. Consultation is underway with FWS and NMFS. This ROD will not be signed and 

action will not occur on the ground until consultation is completed. 

Wildlife

The wildlife biological assessment considered my decision’s effects on Canada lynx and greater 

sage-grouse. Canada lynx is listed as “Threatened,” and greater sage-grouse is proposed for 

listing under the Endangered Species Act. 

Canada lynx is not present in the project area. Lynx have not been documented on the Forest and 

suitable habitat will be unaffected by treatments. Greater sage-grouse habitat exists in the 

southeast portion of the Forest. Treatments in this area are not likely to affect sage brush or sagegrouse.

35
Malheur National Forest Site-Specific Invasive Plants Treatment Project

Gray wolf (Rocky Mountain Distinct Population Segment (DPS)) have been delisted (USFWS 

2007a, USFWS 20011a) and are currently managed as Region 6 sensitive species. The gray wolf 

outside the Rocky Mountain DPS, which is federally endangered, does not occur within the 

project area. 

No Section 7 consultation is required for any ESA listed wildlife species for this project. 

Wilderness Act of 1964

My decision is consistent with the Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136; 78 Stat. 890).

Our most current invasive species surveys have documented 2.2 acres of invasive plant 

infestations at 8 locations in the Malheur National Forest’s congressionally designated Wilderness 

areas. The wilderness surveys are not considered to be complete and ongoing awareness and 

additional surveying will be essential for managing invasive species within these special areas. In 

addition, invasive plant sites occur at or near some of the wilderness trail heads and on roads 

leading to, and adjacent to, the wilderness areas. It is likely more infestations will arise in the 

future. Higher use levels, such as near trail heads, along trails, in riparian areas, in recent burns, 

or in concentrated use campsites are known vectors for spread. 

Invasive species will continue to be pulled by hand or hand tools where practical. Cultural, 

mechanical and motorized control methods will not be utilized in wilderness areas. Herbicide 

application will be used in accord with the project design feature (FEIS, table 10, D1), by using 

non-motorized methods, such as spot spraying with backpack or mule packed application 

equipment.

Roadless Area Conservation Rule

My decision is consistent with the Forest Service’s Roadless Area Conservation Rule (36 CFR 

Part 294, Subpart B, 66 FR 9, pp. 3244-3273, 1/12/2001). Current invasive plant infestations in 

inventoried roadless areas total 25 acres comprised of 50 known locations. Additional infestations 

will most likely occur in areas receiving heavier visitor use, such as along trails, in riparian zones, 

in concentrated campsites, and in recent burns.

By utilizing the appropriate project design feature and treatment methods, it is anticipated 

invasive species infestations in inventoried roadless areas will be eliminated, reduced, and the 

rate of spread retarded.

Infestation sites in inventoried roadless areas will be treated by hand pulling, mechanical, 

motorized (where accessible), cultural, and herbicide application. Depending on the chosen 

alternative the treatment method will vary among alternative by the method and herbicide used.

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act

My decision is consistent with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 USC 1271-1287; 82 Stat. 906).

Current invasive plant surveys in congressionally designated Wild and Scenic River corridors 

indicate infestations totaling 0.9 acres. Additional infestation will most likely be associated with 

areas of heavier use, such as near trail heads, along the river riparian zones, along trail, in 

concentrated campsites, and in recent burns.

By utilizing the appropriate project design feature treatment methods it is anticipated invasive 

species infestations will be eliminated, reduced, and the rate of spread retarded.

36
Draft Record of Decision

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

My decision is consistent with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et 

seq.; 80 Stat. 915) because it will have no potential to affect historic resources. The USDA Forest 

Service, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), and the Oregon State Historic 

Preservation Office (SHPO), have a 2004 programmatic agreement addressing the management 

of cultural resources on national forests in the State of Oregon. There are several actions that were 

determined to have no potential to affect historic properties. Examples of these actions include 

invasive plant species eradication through the application of herbicides and hand removal 

(including hand tools such as shovels to dig up roots); recurrent brushing (hand, machine, 

chipping) activities to control vegetation within clearing limits of existing roads, trails, parking 

lots, and power line corridors; mulching and re-vegetating bare, erosion-prone surfaces such as 

cuts and fills; and re-introduction of endemic or native floral species into their historic habitats.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and Executive Order 

13186

My decision is consistent with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712; Ch. 128; 40 

Stat. 755) and Executive Order 13186. There will be no reduction in native vegetation, and all 

alternatives will help to reduce invasive plants and maintain migratory bird habitat.

Irreversible or Irretrievable Impacts

No irreversible or irretrievable uses of resources are associated with this project. This project 

restores native vegetation in areas where non-native plants have been introduced. Herbicide 

treatments in accordance with the alternatives will have relatively short-lived impacts; effects on 

non-target species will be minimized; such effects will not be permanent. No adverse impacts on 

roadless areas or degradation of roadless area quality will occur. 

Long-term Productivity

Soils will be protected in this project and no loss of long-term productivity is predicted. The noaction alternative could have negative impacts on long-term productivity if invasive plants 

become so dense as to change soil characteristics, and capacity for restoration to desirable plant 

communities is lost. 

The natural resources issues associated with this project have been resolved through adherence to 

project design feature (pdfs) that reduce or eliminate the potential for adverse effects. However, 

some adverse effects are inherent to invasive plant treatments and cannot be avoided. These 

include:

• Taxpayers will likely be responsible for the costs of some if not all of the treatments.

• Herbicide toxicity exceeding thresholds of concern are unlikely, but possible in the event of a 

large herbicide spill. The pdfs make the potential for a large spill extremely unlikely.

• Minor to moderate physical injuries during forestry work are possible.

• There may be temporary local effects on some groups of soil micro-organisms that are 

sensitive to certain herbicides. However, the pdfs address the potential for long-term impact 

to soil organisms or productivity. 

37
Malheur National Forest Site-Specific Invasive Plants Treatment Project

• Some common non-target plants are likely to be killed by their close proximity to treatments. 

This is most likely with broadcast herbicide treatments and less likely (but possible) for all 

other treatment methods. The adverse effects of the invasive plants themselves far outweigh 

the potential for adverse effects of treatment.

Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential

No unusual energy requirements are associated with this project. No unusual equipment will be 

used. 

Prime Farmlands

No prime farmlands will be adversely affected by this project. There could be a beneficial impact 

to the extent that the alternatives reduce the potential for invasive plant spread from the Malheur 

National Forest to prime farmlands.

Executive Orders 11988 and 11990: Floodplains and 

Wetlands

Floodplains and wetlands will not be adversely affected by this project. As discussed in Chapter

3.4 of the FEIS, adverse effects to water quality and the beneficial uses of water will be 

negligible. The extent of treatment and potential for water contamination is low, and all 

alternatives are designed to protect water resources on the Malheur National Forest. 

Executive Order 13112: Invasive Species

This project specifically addresses the duties of federal agencies to manage invasive plants. 

Specifically:

Sec. 2 (a)(2) (i) prevent the introduction of invasive species; (ii) detect and 

respond rapidly to and control populations of such species in a cost-effective and 

environmentally sound manner; (iii) monitor invasive species populations 

accurately and reliably; (iv) provide for restoration of native species and habitat 

conditions in ecosystems that have been invaded; (v) conduct research on 

invasive species and develop technologies to prevent introduction and provide for 

environmentally sound control of invasive species; and (vi) promote public 

education on invasive species and the means to address them; and (3) not 

authorize, fund, or carry out actions that it believes are likely to cause or promote 

the introduction or spread of invasive species in the United States or elsewhere 

unless, pursuant to guidelines that it has prescribed, the agency has determined 

and made public its determination that the benefits of such actions clearly 

outweigh the potential harm caused by invasive species; and that all feasible and 

prudent measures to minimize risk of harm will be taken in conjunction with the 

actions.

Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice

Executive Order #12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low Income Populations, directs federal agencies to address effects accruing in a 

disproportionate way to minority and low income populations. FEIS, Chapter 3.2.3 discusses the 

potential impacts of this project on these groups. The R6 2005 FEIS noted that some minority 

38
Draft Record of Decision

groups may be disproportionately exposed to herbicides, either because they are 

disproportionately represented in the pool of likely forest workers, or in the pool of special forest 

product or subsistence gatherers. The R6 2005 FEIS suggested that Hispanic/Latino forest 

workers and American Indians are minority groups that could be disproportionately affected by

herbicide use. For this project, Asian matsutake mushroom pickers and others who collect or use 

special forest products may also be disproportionately affected. 

The potential exposures and effects to minority groups who apply herbicides or gather or use 

forest products have been evaluated under the worker and public herbicide exposure analysis 

sections of the FEIS (Chapter 3.2). Even given plausible inadvertent acute or chronic exposures, 

minority forest workers, special forest product harvesters, and subsistence gatherers are not likely 

to be exposed to a dose that exceeds a threshold of concern. Project design features requiring 

public and tribal notification, use of dye in spray mixes, on-the-ground signing, and restrictions 

on herbicide and surfactant use will further reduce the potential for exposure. 

Executive Order 13443: Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and 

Wildlife Conservation

This order was signed on August 16, 2007 and directs Federal agencies that have programs and 

activities that have a measurable effect on public land management, outdoor recreation, and 

wildlife management, including the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture, 

to facilitate the expansion and enhancement of hunting opportunities and the management of 

game species and their habitat. The project is consistent with this order by improving wildlife 

habitat through the reduction of invasive plant infestations and the maintenance of native browse.

Environmentally Preferred Alternative

Alternative B is the environmentally preferred alternative in accordance with Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR Part 1505.2 (b)). Alternative B is preferable 

because it will most effectively reduce the presence and influence of invasive plants on National 

Forest System lands. It will also do the most to protect and allow for re-establishment of native 

plant ecosystems that have been or are in danger of displacement by invasive plant populations. 

This alternative utilizes herbicides and herbicide application methods to accomplish the project 

purpose and need. The project design features, herbicide use buffers and other limitations are 

intended to minimize risks to people and the environment, while allowing for timely and effective 

invasive plant treatment.

Pre-Decisional Administrative Review or 

Objection Opportunities

My decision selects a project or activity implementing a land management plan that is not 

authorized under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (Pub. L. 108-148, 117 Stat 1887). 

Therefore, my decision to authorize this project and effect non-significant LRMP amendments is 

subject to pre-decisional administrative review and objection pursuant to subparts A and B of 36 

CFR Part 218, subparts A and B. 

The Malheur National Forest Site-Specific Invasive Plants Treatment Project was originally 

scoped under the provisions of 36 CFR Part 215. For this project, individuals or organizations 

39
Malheur National Forest Site-Specific Invasive Plants Treatment Project

who submitted specific, written comments in response to scoping conducted under 36 CFR Part 

215 or provided comments to the draft environmental impact statement will be considered to have 

standing to object under 36 CFR Part 218, Subparts A and B.

Issues raised in objections must be based on previously submitted timely, specific written 

comments regarding the proposed project unless the issue is based on new information arising 

after the designated comment opportunities.

The following address should be used for objections sent by regular mail: Objection Reviewing 

Officer, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Pacific Northwest Region, USDA 

Forest Service, Attn: 1570 Appeals and Objections, PO Box 3623, Portland, OR 97208-3623. 

Objections delivered by mail must be received before the close of the fifth business day after the 

objection filing period.

Objections sent by private carrier or hand delivery must go to: Objection Reviewing Officer, 

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, 1220 SW 3rd Avenue, Portland, OR 97204. 

Hand deliveries can occur between 8:00 AM and 4:30 PM, Monday through Friday except legal 

holidays.

Objections can be faxed to the Objection Reviewing Officer, Attn: 1570 Objections at (503)-808-

2339The fax coversheet must include a subject line with “Malheur National Forest Site-Specific 

Invasive Plants Treatment Project” and should specify the number of pages being submitted.

Electronic objections must be submitted to the Objection Reviewing Officer via email to 

objections-pnw-regional-office@fs.fed.us, with “Malheur National Forest Site-Specific Invasive 

Plants Treatment Project” in the subject line. Electronic submissions must be submitted in a 

format that is readable with optical character recognition software (e.g., MS Word, PDF, Rich 

Text Format) and be searchable. An automated response should confirm your electronic objection 

has been received.

The objection must meet the content requirements of 36 CFR § 218.8(d), and include the 

following information: 1) the objector’s name and address, with a telephone number or email 

address, if available; 2) a signature or other verification of authorship upon request (a scanned 

signature for email may be filed with the objection); 3) when multiple names are listed on an 

objection, identification of the lead objector as defined in 36 CFR § 218.2 (verification of the 

identity of the lead objector shall be provided upon request); 4) the name of the project being 

objected to, the name and title of the responsible official, and the name of the national forest and 

ranger district on which the project will be implemented; 5) a description of those aspects of the 

project addressed by the objection, including specific issues related to the project and, if 

applicable, how the objector believes the environmental analysis or decision specifically violates 

law, regulation, or policy; suggested remedies that would resolve the objection; and supporting 

reasons for the reviewing officer to consider; and 6) a statement that demonstrates the connection 

between prior specific written comments on the particular project or activity and the content of 

the objection, unless the objection concerns an issue that arose after the designated opportunity 

for formal comment. With certain exceptions (36 CFR § 218.8(b)), all documents referenced in 

the objection must be included with the objection.

Objections, including attachments, must be filed within 45 days from the publication date of a 

“Legal Notice of the Opportunity to Object” for this project in the Blue Mountain Eagle, the 

newspaper of record (78 FR 241, p. 76101, 12/16/2013). Attachments received after the 45-day 

objection period will not be considered. The publication date in the newspaper of record is the 

40
Draft Record of Decision

exclusive means for calculating the time to file an objection. Those wishing to object this project 

should not rely upon dates or timeframe information provided by any other source.

It is the objector’s responsibility to ensure timely filing of a written objection with the reviewing 

officer pursuant to 36 CFR § 218.9. All objections are available for public inspection during and 

after the objection process. Responses that do not adhere to these requirements make review of 

an objection difficult and are conditions under which the reviewing officer may set aside an 

objection pursuant to 36 CFR § 218.10.

For more information or to request a copy of the FEIS and ROD, please contact Whitney Rapp, 

Invasive Plant Specialist by telephone at 541-575-3000 or by email at whitneysrapp@fs.fed.us or 

Joe Rausch, Forest Botanist by telephone at 541-575-3141 or by email at jhrausch@fs.fed.us

with “Malheur National Forest Site-Specific Invasive Plants Treatment Project” in the subject 

line.

Implementation 

The Malheur National Forest Site-Specific Invasive Plants Treatment Project may be 

implemented after the completion of the objection process and immediately upon my issuance of 

a signed Record of Decision. I will notify interested or affected parties of the availability of this 

ROD as soon as practicable after signing (36 CFR § 220.5(g)).

Contact Person

For additional information concerning this decision or the Forest Service pre-decisional 

administrative review and objection process, contact Janet Plocharsky, Forest Environmental 

Coordinator, Malheur National Forest, by e-mail at jlplocharsky@fs.fed.us or by telephone at 

541-575-3390.

STEVEN K BEVERLIN [DATE]

Forest Supervisor

Malheur National Forest

41
Malheur National Forest Site-Specific Invasive Plants Treatment Project

Attachment 1

Attachment 1 contains the project design features, herbicide use buffers, implementation planning 

process and decision protocol for the use of herbicides for the selected alternative. 

Table 1-1. Project Design Features for the Selected Alternative

PDF 

Reference Design Features Purpose of PDF Source of PDF

B – Coordination with Other Landowners/Agencies

B1

Coordinate treatments on neighboring lands 

and within municipal watersheds. For 

neighboring lands, base distances on invasive 

species reproductive characteristics, and 

current use. 

To ensure that 

neighbors are fully 

informed about 

nearby herbicide use 

and to increase the 

effectiveness of 

treatments on 

multiple ownerships. 

A variable distance 

based on site and 

species specific 

characteristics was 

chosen because it 

adjusts for various 

conditions that exist 

in these areas. All 

pdfs related to 

riparian areas and 

buffer distances will 

be followed.

C – To Prevent the Spread of Invasive Plants During Treatment Activities

C1

Ensure vehicles and equipment (including 

personal protective clothing) does not transport 

invasive plant materials. 

To prevent the 

spread of invasive 

plants during 

treatment activities

Common measure.

D – Wilderness Areas

D1

No use of black plastic for solarization, no use 

of motor vehicles or other mechanical transport

for access, and no motorized equipment will be 

used in wilderness areas. Manual treatments or 

those using non-motorized tools may occur. 

Herbicide use would be approved by the 

Regional Forester via a pesticide use proposal.

To maintain 

wilderness values, 

e.g., solitude, 

unimpeded natural 

processes—and 

comply with 

environmental laws 

and policies.

Wilderness Act,

1990 Malheur 

National LRMP

E – Non-herbicide Treatment Methods

E1

Treatments implemented below the ordinary 

high water mark will be applied from the bank 

and workers will not walk in flowing streams 

regardless of treatment method. 

To reduce the 

likelihood of causing 

negative impacts to 

fish and fish habitat.

Memorandum of 

Understanding 

between WDFW and 

USDA Forest 

Service, January 

2005. 

E2

Fueling of gas-powered equipment with tanks 

larger than 5 gallons would generally not occur 

within 150 feet of surface waters. Fueling of 

gas-powered machines with tanks smaller than 

5 gallons may occur up to 25 feet of surface 

waters.

To protect riparian 

and aquatic habitats. Common measure

E3

Within 15 feet of waterbodies, disturbed soils 

will be tamped down and covered with 

litter/mulch where available.

To reduce sediment 

entering aquatic 

habitats.

ESA Consultation 

with NMFS and 

FWS

F – Herbicide Applications

F1 Alkylphenol ethoxylate-based non-ionic (NPE) 

and ethoxylated fatty amine (POEA) surfactants 

To reduce risks 

associated with 

SERA and Bakke 

risk assessments

42
Draft Record of Decision

PDF 

Reference Design Features Purpose of PDF Source of PDF

would not be used. Vegetable oils/silicone 

blends that contain alkylphenol ethoxylate

ingredients may be used. 

surfactants 

F2

The least amount of a given herbicide would be 

applied as necessary to meet control objectives. 

In no case will imazapyr use exceed 0.70 lbs. 

a.i./ac. Broadcast application of clopyralid, 

glyphosate, picloram, sethoxydim, or 

sulfometuron methyl will not exceed typical 

rates across any acre. Spot spray of triclopyr 

would not exceed typical rates across any acre. 

To minimize

herbicide exposures 

of concern to human 

health.

SERA and Bakke 

risk assessments

F3

Do not apply herbicides when local weather 

forecast calls for a ≥ 50% chance of rain, or 

when wind speed at the site is less than 2 mph 

or in excess of 8 mph. During application, 

weather conditions would be monitored 

periodically by trained personnel. Herbicide 

application would cease during periods of 

unexpected rain.

To reduce potential 

for drift and run off. 

These restrictions 

are typical so that 

herbicide use is 

avoided during 

inversions or windy 

conditions. 

F4

To minimize herbicide drift, use low nozzle 

pressure; apply as a coarse spray, and use 

nozzles that minimize fine droplet spray, e.g., 

nozzle diameter to produce a median droplet 

diameter of 500-800 microns. 

To reduce potential 

for drift. 

These are typical 

measures to reduce 

drift. The minimum 

droplet size of 500 

microns was 

selected because 

this size is modeled 

to eliminate adverse 

effects to non-target 

vegetation 100 feet 

or further from 

broadcast sites (see 

chapter 3 for 

details).

F5

No use of sulfonylurea herbicides 

(chlorsulfuron, sulfometuron methyl and 

metsulfuron methyl) on dust-laden bare soils. 

Avoid bare areas >100 sq. ft. with powdery, 

ashy dry soil, or light sandy soil.

To avoid potential 

for herbicide drift to 

affect non-target 

plants.

Label advisory

F6 When herbicides are applied, a non-toxic blue 

dye will be used to mark treated areas. 

To ensure treated 

areas are obvious to 

people and prevent 

accidental ingestion 

by plant collectors.

Common measure

F7

Annually review any changes to herbicide 

regulations nationally, regionally, and locally, 

based on labels and tools such as Salmon 

Mapper (http://www2.epa.gov/endangeredspecies/salmon-mapper).

To ensure herbicide 

use is in accordance 

with all future 

limitations.

ESA Consultation 

with NMFS and 

FWS

G – Herbicide Transportation and Handling Safety/Spill Prevention and Containment

An Herbicide Transportation and Handling Safety/Spill 

Response Plan would be the responsibility of the herbicide 

applicator. At a minimum the plan would:

 Address spill prevention and containment.

 Limit the quantity of herbicides transported to treatment 

sites to the amounts estimated to be needed for any 

To reduce likelihood 

of spills and contain 

any spills.

FSH 2109.14

43
Malheur National Forest Site-Specific Invasive Plants Treatment Project

PDF 

Reference Design Features Purpose of PDF Source of PDF

given day.

 Require that impervious material be placed beneath 

mixing areas in such a manner as to contain small spills 

associated with mixing/refilling.

 Require a spill cleanup kit be readily available for 

herbicide transportation, storage, and application 

(minimum FOSS Spill Tote Universal or equivalent).

 Outline reporting procedures, including reporting spills 

to the appropriate regulatory agency.

 Ensure applicators are trained in safe handling and 

transportation procedures and spill cleanup.

 Require that equipment used in herbicide storage, 

transportation, and handling are maintained in a leak 

proof condition.

 Address transportation routes so that traffic, domestic 

water sources, and blind curves are avoided to the 

extent possible.

 Specify conditions under which guide vehicles would be 

required.

 Specify mixing and loading locations away from water 

bodies so that accidental spills do not contaminate 

surface waters.

 Require that spray tanks be mixed or washed further 

than 150 feet of surface water.

 Ensure safe disposal of herbicide containers.

 Identify sites that may only be reached by water travel 

and limit the amount of herbicide that may be 

transported by watercraft.

H – Soils, Water and Aquatic Ecosystems

H1

Follow herbicide-use buffers shown below. 

Tank mixtures would apply the largest buffer as 

indicated for any of the herbicides in the 

mixture. 

To reduce likelihood 

that herbicides 

would enter surface 

waters in 

concentrations of 

concern and ensure 

that the project does 

not hamper 

attainment of

riparian 

management 

objectives. 

Herbicide-use 

buffers are based on 

label advisories; 

SERA risk 

assessments; and 

Berg’s 2004 study of 

broadcast drift and 

run off to streams. 

Herbicide-use 

buffers are intended 

to demonstrate 

compliance with R6 

2005 ROD 

Standards 19 and 

20.

H2

In riparian and aquatic settings, vehicles 

(including all-terrain vehicles) used to access 

invasive plant sites, or for broadcast spraying 

will not travel off roadways, trails, and parking 

areas if damage to riparian vegetation, soil, and 

water quality, and aquatic habitat is likely.

To protect riparian 

and aquatic habitats.

Common protection 

measure

H3

Avoid using picloram and/or metsulfuron methyl 

on bare or compact soils, and inherently poor 

productivity soils that are highly disturbed. Poor 

soils include shallow soils less than 20 inch 

depth that lack topsoil and serpentine soils.

To preserve site 

recovery after 

disturbance, lessen 

offsite runoff and 

leaching. Poor soils 

will have longer 

Label advisory

44
Draft Record of Decision

PDF 

Reference Design Features Purpose of PDF Source of PDF

residence times with 

these persistent 

herbicides.

H4

Over any two consecutive calendar years, the 

sum of all applications in an area of imazapyr, 

metsulfuron methyl, or picloram would not 

exceed the maximum application rate for a 

single broadcast spraying. Aminopyralid would 

not be broadcast more than once per year. 

Multiple spot applications are permitted as long 

as the aggregate of applications is at or below 

the broadcast application rate.

Reduce potential for 

accumulation in soil.

SERA Risk 

Assessments. 

Based on 

quantitative estimate 

of risk from a 

maximum level of 

exposure.

H5

Limit herbicide offsite transport on sites with 

high runoff potential including sites with: shallow 

seasonal water tables, saturated soils (wet 

muck and peat soils), steep erosive slopes with

shallow soils and rock outcrop, or bare 

compacted and disturbed soils.

Limit runoff by applying herbicide during the dry 

season with the lowest soil moisture conditions, 

where > 50% groundcover exists on shallow 

slope sites, and > 70% on steep slope sites, 

and/or at reduced rates.

Reduce potential 

offsite runoff 

transport of 

herbicides.

SERA Risk 

Assessments and 

Label. Based on 

quantitative risk for 

erosion and runoff.

H6

For soils with seasonally high water tables, do 

not use picloram or triclopyr BEE and limit 

glyphosate use to aquatic label only.

Reduce the risk for 

contamination of 

groundwater and 

offsite runoff to 

aquatic habitat and 

fish.

Label advisory

H7

Do not remove more than 50 percent of the 

vegetative cover or apply herbicides to more 

than half the area within 100 feet of a lake or 

pond in a 30-day period. 

Limit the area 

treated within 

riparian areas to 

maintain refugia 

habitat for reptiles 

and amphibians.

SERA Risk 

Assessments. 

Based on 

quantitative estimate 

of risk from 

maximum herbicide 

exposure scenario 

and uncertainty 

regarding effects to 

reptiles and 

amphibians.

H8

Wetlands would be treated when soils are 

driest. If herbicide treatment is necessary when 

soils are wet, use aquatic labeled herbicides. 

Favor hand/selective treatment methods where 

effective and practical. No more than 10 

contiguous acres or fifty percent individual 

wetland areas would be treated in any 30-day 

period.

To reduce exposure 

to herbicides by 

providing some 

untreated areas for 

some organisms to 

use.

SERA Risk 

Assessments. 

Based on 

quantitative estimate 

of risk from 

maximum herbicide 

exposure scenario 

and uncertainty in 

effects to some 

organisms, and label 

advisories.

H9

Herbicide use would not occur within 100 feet of 

wells or 200 feet of spring developments. For 

stock tanks located outside of riparian areas, 

use wicking, wiping or spot treatments within 

100 feet of the watering source. 

To reduce the 

potential for 

herbicide delivery to 

wells and springs 

that provide drinking 

Label advisories and 

state drinking water 

regulations

http://www.deq.state

.or.us/wq/WhpGuide

45
Malheur National Forest Site-Specific Invasive Plants Treatment Project

PDF 

Reference Design Features Purpose of PDF Source of PDF

water, and to protect 

watering systems 

used for grazing 

animals.

/ch2.htm.

H10

Use of Triclopyr BEE is only allowed in dry 

upland areas that are not hydrologically 

connected to water bodies.

Reduce the risk for 

contamination of 

groundwater and 

offsite runoff to 

aquatic habitat and 

fish.

Label and 

quantitative 

assessment for risk 

to aquatic 

organisms.

I – Vascular and Non-Vascular Plant and Fungi Species of Concern

I1

A USDA Forest Service botanist would use 

monitoring results/adaptive management to 

refine herbicide-use buffers to adequately 

protect botanical species on the Regional 

Forester’s Sensitive List.

Minimizes repeated 

effects to sensitive 

botanical 

populations, thereby 

mitigating any longterm effects.

Uncertainty about 

effects on 

nonvascular plants 

would be addressed 

through monitoring.

Herbicide-use buffer 

sizes for broadcast 

of most herbicides 

are based on Marrs

1989 based on tests 

on vascular plants.

Spot and 

hand/select buffer 

distances are based 

on reports from 

experienced 

applicators.

I2

Botanical surveys will be conducted to 

document locations of sensitive plants if 

suitable habitat is within 100 feet of planned 

herbicide treatments

To ensure sensitive 

botanical species

are protected and 

botanical surveys

are conducted when 

appropriate

Forest Service 

Manual 2670 and 

applicable federally 

listed recovery plans

I3

Sensitive plants located within 100 feet of 

planned ground-based broadcast applications 

would be covered by protective barrier, or 

broadcast application would be avoided in these 

areas (spot or hand herbicide treatment, or nonherbicide methods may be used without 

covering sensitive plants).

To ensure sensitive 

botanical species

are protected

Forest Service 

Manual 2670 and 

applicable federally 

listed recovery plans

I4

hand/selective methods to treat invasive plants 

on wet soils within 10 feet of sensitive plant. 

This design feature does not apply to 

seasonally wet soils that are dry at the time of 

treatment.

To ensure sensitive 

botanical species

are protected

Forest Service 

Manual 2670 and 

applicable federally 

listed recovery plans

I6

Monitoring prework review would occur before 

implementation to ensure that prescriptions, 

contracts, and agreements integrate 

appropriate project design features.

To ensure sensitive 

botanical species

are protected

Forest Service 

Manual 2670 and 

applicable federally 

listed recovery plans

I7

Implementation monitoring would occur during 

implementation to ensure project design 

features are implemented as planned. An 

implementation monitoring form will be used to 

document daily field conditions, activities, 

accomplishments, and/or difficulties. Contract 

administration mechanisms would be used to 

correct deficiencies. Herbicide use will be 

reported as required by the Forest Service

Health Pesticide Use Handbook.

To ensure sensitive 

botanical species

are protected

Forest Service 

Manual 2670 and 

applicable federally 

listed recovery plans

46
Draft Record of Decision

PDF 

Reference Design Features Purpose of PDF Source of PDF

I8

Effectiveness monitoring would occur during 

and after treatment to determine whether 

invasive plants are being effectively controlled 

and to ensure non-target vegetation, especially 

sensitive species are adequately protected. 

To ensure sensitive 

botanical species

are protected

Forest Service 

Manual 2670 and 

applicable federally 

listed recovery plans

I9

The impacts of herbicide use on some sensitive 

botanical species are uncertain, especially nonvascular species. To manage this uncertainty, 

representative samples of herbicide treatment 

sites adjacent to sensitive botanical species 

would be monitored. Non-target vegetation 

within 100 feet of herbicide broadcast treatment 

sites and 20 feet of herbicide spot and hand 

treatment sites would be evaluated before 

treatment, immediately after treatment, and two 

to three months later as appropriate. Herbicideuse buffers would be expanded if damage is 

found as indicated by: 

•Decrease in the population of the species of 

conservation concern

•Leaf discoloration or chlorophyll change

•Mortality 

Monitoring would continue until three posttreatment visits (at one or more sites near each 

sensitive botanical species) confirm a lack of 

adverse effects.

To ensure species of 

listed interest (SOLI)

are protected and 

survey are 

conducted when 

appropriate

Forest Service 

Manual 2670 and 

applicable federally 

listed recovery plans

J – Wildlife Species of Local Interest

J1 Gray Wolf

J1-a

Treatments within 1 mile of active wolf dens or 

rendezvous sites would only occur outside the 

season of occupancy (April 1 through June 30).

Reduce impacts to 

active dens or 

rendezvous sites

Federal Register 

(USDI FWS 2003)

J2 Bald eagle

J2-a

Noise-producing activity above ambient levels 

would not occur near known winter roosts and 

concentrated foraging areas between October 

31 and March 31 during the early morning or 

late afternoon. Disturbance to daytime winter 

foraging areas would be avoided.

Minimize 

disturbance and 

energy demands 

during the winter.

Bald Eagle

Management 

Guidelines for ORWA (Dillon 1981); 

USDI FWS 2007, 

No, 62 4(d)

J2-b

Treatment of areas within 0.25 mile, or 0.50 

mile line-of-sight, of bald eagle nests would be 

timed to occur outside the nesting/fledging 

season of January 1 to August 31, unless 

treatment activity is within ambient levels of 

noise and human presence (as determined by a 

local specialist). Occupancy of nest sites (i.e.,

whether it is active or not) would be determined 

each year prior to treatments.

Reduce impacts to 

eagle nests and 

reproduction.

Bald Eagle

Management 

Guidelines for ORWA (Dillon 1981)

and, USDA Forest 

Service 2005a

J3 Peregrine Falcon

J3-a

Seasonal restrictions shall apply to all known 

peregrine falcon nest sites for the periods and 

elevations listed below:

a. Low elevation sites (1000-2000 ft.) – Jan 1st 

Reduce disturbance 

to nesting birds and 

protect eggs and 

nestlings.

Pagel 2006

Peregrine falcon 

nest site data, 1983-

2006.

47
Malheur National Forest Site-Specific Invasive Plants Treatment Project

PDF 

Reference Design Features Purpose of PDF Source of PDF

to July 1st 

b. Medium elevation sites (2001-4000 ft.) – Jan 

15th to July 31st 

c. Upper elevation sites (greater than 4000 ft.) –

Feb 1st to Aug 15th 

These restrictions may be waived if the site is 

unoccupied or if nesting efforts fail and 

monitoring indicates no further nesting 

behavior. Seasonal restrictions shall be 

extended if monitoring indicates late season 

nesting, asynchronous hatching leading to late 

fledging, or recycle behavior which indicates 

that late nesting and fledging will occur. 

Protection would be provided until at least two 

weeks after all young have fledged.

J3-b

All invasive plant treatments would be restricted 

within 0.5 miles of peregrine falcon nests 

(primary nest zone) during the nesting season 

(described above).

Reduce disturbance 

to nesting birds and 

young.

Pagel 2006

Peregrine falcon 

nest site data, 1983-

2006.

J3-c

Invasive plant treatments involving motorized 

equipment and/or vehicles would be seasonally 

prohibited within the secondary nest zone (0.5 

miles to 1.5 miles of known nest sites) during 

the nesting season. This may include activities 

such as mulching, chainsaws, vehicles (with or 

without boom spray equipment) or other 

mechanically-based invasive plant treatment.

Reduce disturbance 

to nesting birds and 

young.

Pagel 2006

Peregrine falcon 

nest site data, 1983-

2006.

J3-d

Non-mechanized or low disturbance invasive 

plant activities (such as spot spray, hand pull, 

etc.) may occur within the secondary nest zone 

(0.5 miles to 1.5 miles of known nests) during 

the nesting season, but would be coordinated 

with the wildlife biologist on a case-by-case 

basis to determine potential disturbance to 

nesting falcons and identify mitigating 

measures, if necessary.

Reduce disturbance 

to nesting birds and 

young.

Pagel 2006

Peregrine falcon 

nest site data, 1983-

2006.

J3-e

Picloram and clopyralid would not be used 

within 1.5 miles of a peregrine nest more than 

once per year.

Minimize peregrine 

exposure to HCB

Pagel 2006

Peregrine falcon 

nest site data, 1983-

2006.

J4 Greater Sage Grouse

J4-a

Glyphosate use would be limited to the typical 

application rate (within greater sage grouse 

habitat).

Minimize exposure

to herbicides and 

surfactants that 

could pose a risk.

Malheur Invasive 

Plant Biological 

Evaluation.

J4-b

Human activities within 0.3 mile of leks will be 

prohibited from the period of one hour before 

sunrise until four hours after sunrise and one 

hour before sunset until one hour after sunset 

from February 15 - May 15.

Minimize 

disturbance to 

breeding grouse

Connelly et al. 2000, 

USDI FWS 2003.

J4-c

Do not conduct any vegetation treatments or 

improvement projects in breeding habitats from 

February 15 – June 30.

Minimize 

disturbance to 

breeding grouse

Connelly et al. 2000

J5 Columbia Spotted Frog

48
Draft Record of Decision

PDF 

Reference Design Features Purpose of PDF Source of PDF

J5-a

Avoid broadcast spraying of herbicides, or spot 

spraying of sulfometuron methyl within 100 feet 

of occupied or suitable spotted frog habitat. 

Follow herbicide-use buffers in wetlands. 

Treatment methods, timing and location will be 

coordinated with a local biologist prior to 

implementation.

Reduce impacts to 

the Columbia 

spotted frog.

Appendix P of the 

R6 2005 FEIS; 

SERA 2003, 2004; 

Bakke 2003

J6 Silver-bordered fritillary

J6-a Within occupied sites, apply sensitive plant

design features to host/nectar plant species.

Reduce the 

likelihood 

host/nectar plants 

would be affected.

Malheur Invasive 

Plant Biological 

Evaluation.

J6-b

Do not use ester (BEE) formulations of triclopyr 

ester within occupied silver-bordered fritillary 

habitat

Minimize exposure 

of herbicides and 

surfactants that 

could pose a risk to 

the silver-bordered 

fritillary.

Malheur Invasive 

Plant Biological 

Evaluation.

J7 Pygmy Rabbit

J7-a

Within suspected burrow areas, activities will be 

restricted to manual techniques. Treatment 

methods, timing, and location will be 

coordinated with a local biologist.

Minimize chances a 

burrow would 

collapse.

Malheur Invasive 

Plant Biological 

Evaluation.

J8 Upland Sandpiper

J8-a

In order to avoid disturbance or potential 

trampling of nesting upland sandpipers, no 

treatment would occur on sites that have 

historic or recent documentation of upland 

sandpipers during the nesting season (April 1st 

to August 1st), unless the site has been 

surveyed and no nesting is occurring.

Minimize likelihood 

that nests would be 

disturbed during 

treatment.

Malheur Invasive 

Plant Biological 

Evaluation.

J9 Grasshopper Sparrow

J9-a

In order to avoid disturbance or potential 

trampling of nesting birds during the nesting 

season (May 1st to August 1st), no treatment 

would occur on sites where grasshopper 

sparrows have been documented.

Minimize likelihood 

that nests would be 

disturbed during 

treatment.

Malheur Invasive 

Plant Biological 

Evaluation.

J10 Harney Basin Duskysnail

J10-a

If an occupied site is proposed for treatment, a 

local biologist would be consulted to determine 

protection measures, if necessary. These 

measures may include limitations on vehicle 

entry, modifications to treatment type or timing, 

or implementation of buffers.

Minimize likelihood 

that snails would be 

harmed from 

treatment

Malheur Invasive 

Plant Biological 

Evaluation

J11 Featured Species: Raptors and Osprey

J11-a

Active raptor nest sites will be protected during 

implementation. If a raptor nest is found within 

0.50 mile of a site proposed for treatment, a 

wildlife biologist will be consulted to determine 

appropriate seasonal restriction dates and 

buffer distances, if necessary.

Reduce impacts to 

raptor nesting and 

reproduction.

Malheur and 

Ochoco LRMP

49
Malheur National Forest Site-Specific Invasive Plants Treatment Project

PDF 

Reference Design Features Purpose of PDF Source of PDF

J12 Big game

J12-a

Restrict off-highway vehicle use within MA 41 

(big game winter range) between December 1 

and April 1.

Reduce disturbance 

to wintering elk and 

deer.

Malheur LRMP

J12-b

To prevent harassment in designated calving 

areas, restrict off-highway vehicles and other 

motorized traffic use to designated roads and

trails from May 1 to June 31.

Reduce impacts 

during elk calving. Malheur LRMP

J13 Yellow-billed Cuckoo

J13-a

If a known breeding site is proposed for 

treatment, a biologist will be contacted to 

determine protection measures. These 

measures may include limitations on vehicle 

entry, modifications to treatment type or timing, 

or implementation of buffers. Protection 

measures would be coordinated with the 

USFWS. 

Minimize likelihood 

that nests would be 

affected by 

treatment

Professional 

judgment 

K – Public Notification

K1

High use areas, including administrative sites, 

developed campgrounds, visitor centers, and 

trailheads would be posted in advance of 

herbicide application. These areas may remain 

open, or could be closed during and

immediately after herbicide application.

Postings would indicate the date of treatments, 

the herbicide used, and when the areas are 

expected to be clear of herbicide residue.

See also L2 for special products and M1 for 

cultural plants.

To ensure that no 

inadvertent public 

contact with 

herbicide occurs.

These are common 

measures to reduce 

conflicts. 

K2

The public would be notified about upcoming 

herbicide treatments via the local newspaper or 

individual notification, fliers, and posting signs.

Forest Service and other websites may also be 

used for public notification. 

To ensure the public 

is informed about 

upcoming herbicide 

treatments.

R6 2005 ROD 

Standard 23 (see 

table 1). 

L – Special Forest Products

L2

Specific edible/medicinal plant collection areas, 

along with specific areas of cultural or spiritual 

value, may be identified by the public. These 

areas would be specifically posted prior to 

spraying. Postings would indicate the date of 

treatments, the herbicide used, and when the

areas are expected to be clear of herbicide 

residue.

To minimize 

potential for public 

exposure to 

herbicides and 

acknowledge the 

public’s need to 

know whether 

herbicide may be 

used in specific 

areas where they 

harvest medicinal or 

edible plants.

R6 2005 ROD 

Standard 23

L4

Flyers indicating upcoming herbicide treatments

and explaining the use of blue dye may be 

included with mushroom and special forest 

product collection permits, in multi-lingual 

formats if necessary. See section K.

To minimize 

potential for public 

exposure to 

herbicides

R6 2005 ROD 

Standard 23

50
Draft Record of Decision

PDF 

Reference Design Features Purpose of PDF Source of PDF

M – American Indian Tribal and Treaty Rights and Archaeology

M1

American Indian tribes would be notified 

annually as treatments are scheduled so that 

tribal members may provide input and/or be 

notified prior to gathering cultural plants. 

Cultural plants in areas identified by tribes 

would be buffered as above for botanical 

species of concern; (see section I2, I3, and I4).

To ensure that no 

inadvertent public 

contact with 

herbicide occurs and 

that cultural plants 

are fully protected. 

Government to 

government 

agreements 

between American 

Indian tribes and the 

Malheur National 

Forest.

N – Range Resources

N2

Permittees will be notified of annual treatment 

actions at the annual permittee operating plan 

meeting, and/or notified within 2 weeks of 

planned treatments of infestations > 1 acre in 

size.

To ensure permittee 

has knowledge of 

activities occurring 

within the allotment

Common practice 

N3 Follow most current EPA herbicide label for 

grazing restrictions. 

To ensure grazing 

animals are not 

exposed to 

chemicals

EPA labeling 

requirements

Herbicide-use buffers (in feet) for streams, wetlands, lakes, ponds and roadside ditches with water 

present at the time of treatment. Measured in feet from the edge of surface water. Herbicides in 

bold are those most likely to be used.

Table 1-2. Herbicide Use Buffers When Water is Present

Herbicide

Streams, wetlands, lakes and ponds 

and hydrologically connected roadside ditches 

with surface water present

Broadcast Spot/Hand/Select

Aquatic Glyphosate 50 Water’s edge

Aquatic Imazapyr 50 Water’s edge

Aquatic Triclopyr-TEA Not Allowed 15

Aminopyralid Water’s edge Water’s edge

Clopyralid 100 15

Imazapic 100 15

Metsulfuron Methyl 100 15

Imazapyr 100 50

Sulfometuron Methyl 100 50

Chlorsulfuron 100 50

Picloram 100 50

Sethoxydim 100 50

Glyphosate 100 50

Triclopyr-Bee Not Allowed 150

51
Malheur National Forest Site-Specific Invasive Plants Treatment Project

Herbicide-use buffers (in feet) for stream channels that are dry at the time of treatment. Measured in 

feet from the edge of the channel as defined by the high water (bankfull) mark. Herbicides in bold are 

those most likely to be used.

Table 1-3. Herbicide Use Buffers When Water is Not Present

Herbicide

Intermittent and Ephemeral Streams (Dry at time of 

treatment) 

Broadcast Spot/Hand/Select

Aquatic Glyphosate Bankfull No buffer

Aquatic Imazapyr Bankfull No buffer 

Aquatic Triclopyr-TEA Not Allowed Bankfull

Aminopyralid No Buffer No Buffer

Imazapic 50 Bankfull

Metsulfuron Methyl 50 Bankfull

Clopyralid 50 Bankfull

Imazapyr 50 15

Sulfometuron Methyl 50 15

Chlorsulfuron 50 15

Picloram 100 50

Sethoxydim 100 50

Glyphosate 100 50

Triclopyr-BEE Not Allowed 150

Implementation Planning

This section outlines the process that would be used to ensure that the selected alternative is 

properly implemented. The methodology follows integrated weed management principles (R6 

2005 FEIS, 3-3) and satisfies pesticide use planning requirements atFSM 2150 and FSH 2109.14. 

It applies to currently known infestations and new sites found within or outside currently mapped 

treatment areas during ongoing inventory. Appropriate Forest Service staff would develop annual 

treatment prescriptions to ensure that project design features are appropriately incorporated. This 

process applies to invasive plant treatments planned as a part of other projects (such as a 

mitigation measure associated with a thinning or road decommissioning) or on a stand-alone 

basis. The priority, strategy, and timing of treatment are influenced by the potential for 

disturbance, especially where seed beds are in the soil and invasive plant growth may be triggered 

by the disturbance. See chapter 3.1.5 for more information about the spread of invasive plants 

along identified vectors. The range of treatment methods considered herein are based on effective 

treatments (common control measures, see table 9) needed for the current inventory of 18 primary 

target species across the Malheur National Forest. New situations could lead to the need for 

additional integrated treatment methods within the scope of the selected alternative.

1. Characterize invasive plant infestations to be treated

1. Identify target species, location, density, and extent. 

2. Identify adjacent land uses and vectors for invasive plant spread 

3. Determine treatment objective and priority. 

52
Draft Record of Decision

2. Develop site-specific prescriptions 

• Consider whether active restoration may be necessary 

• Review the common control measures and update as needed using Integrated Weed 

Management principles. Identify effective integrated treatment method depending on the 

target species and surrounding environment. 

• Determine whether herbicides are needed and which application method is needed based 

on the biology of the target species and size and distribution of the infestations. See 

figure 4 below showing how the decision to use herbicides would be made on a case by 

case basis. 

• Apply appropriate pdfs based on:

• Past treatment history and response to past treatment 

• Proximity to species of local interest or their habitats

• Proximity to streams, lakes, wetlands

• Proximity to vectors and potential for persistent disturbance;

• Surrounding National Forest land uses and activities 

• Soil conditions

• Municipal watersheds and/or domestic water intakes

• Recreation areas, special forest product and special use areas

• First-choice or other effective herbicide

• Application rate and method 

Once the treatment prescription has been refined, we will: 

• Complete Form FS-2100-2 Pesticide Use Proposal. This form lists treatment objectives, 

specific herbicide(s) that would be used, the rate and method of application, and pdfs that 

apply. 

• Determine need for pre-project surveys for species of local interest and/or their habitats.

• Coordinate with adjacent landowners, water users, agencies, partners, and tribal 

governments.

• Initiate public notification 

3. Accomplishment and Compliance Monitoring

• Develop a project work plan for herbicide use as per FSH 2109.14.3. This work plan 

presents organizational and operational details including the precise treatment objectives, 

equipment, materials, and supplies needed; the herbicide application method and rate; 

field crew organization and lines of responsibility; and interagency coordination.

• Ensure contracts and agreements include appropriate prescriptions and that herbicide 

ingredients and application rates meet label requirements, R6 2005 ROD, and sitespecific pdfs. Contracts and agreements will include the appropriate pdfs, herbicide-use 

buffers, including herbicide and additive limitations.

• Document and report herbicide use and certified applicator information in the National 

pesticide use database, via the Forest Service Activity Tracking System (FACTS). A 

pesticide use report extracts data from FACTS.

53
Malheur National Forest Site-Specific Invasive Plants Treatment Project

4. Post-treatment Monitoring and Recurring Treatments

• Monitoring would occur during implementation to ensure project design features are 

implemented as planned. Post-treatment reviews would occur to determine whether 

treatments are effective and whether or not passive/active restoration is occurring as 

expected. 

• Contract administration and other existing mechanisms would be used to correct 

deficiencies. Herbicide use would be reported as required by the FSH 2109.14 and 

FACTS.

• Post-treatment monitoring would also be used to detect whether pdfs were appropriately 

applied, and whether non-target vegetation impacts were within tolerable levels. 

• Prescriptions would be refined over time based on post-treatment results as long as 

treatments remain within the scope of the EIS. For instance, an invasive plant population 

treated with a broadcast herbicide may be retreated with a spot spray, or later manually 

pulled, once the size of the infestation is sufficiently reduced following the initial 

treatment. Another example would be the use of another herbicide if the first choice is not 

effective. 

• Treatment buffers would be expanded if damage was found outside herbicide-use buffers

as indicated by a decrease in the size of any non-target plant population, leaf 

discoloration or chlorophyll change, or mortality to individual species of local interest or 

non-target vegetation. The findings would be applied to herbicide-use buffers for 

waterbodies. Herbicide-use buffers may be adjusted for certain herbicides/application 

methods and not others, depending on results.

54
Draft Record of Decision

The Decision to Use Herbicides 

Is the target invasive species population associated with a size, phenology, density, or 

distribution that warrants herbicide use (alone or in combination with other methods)?

Yes: To determine appropriate herbicide, review common control measures coupled with local 

experience. Use first choice or other effective herbicides based on their properties, risks, label 

directions, and project design features. Consider non-target vegetation surrounding treatment 

sites and use more selective herbicides as appropriate. Consider soil conditions at the treatment 

site. Consider previous treatments that have occurred on the site. Were they effective? Would 

another herbicide or combination of methods be more effective? Consider wildlife habitats in the 

area and implement seasonal restrictions if required. Consider proximity to water and fish 

species of conservation concern.

No: Would use of herbicides substantially increase cost-effectiveness of treatment? Consider 

whether volunteers may be available to reduce the cost of manual treatments.

Yes: To determine appropriate herbicide, review common control measures coupled with 

local experience. Use first choice or other effective herbicides based on their properties, 

risks, label directions, and project design features. Consider non-target vegetation 

surrounding treatment sites and use more selective herbicides as appropriate. Consider soil 

conditions at the treatment site. Consider previous treatments that have occurred on the site. 

Were they effective? Would another herbicide or combination of methods be more 

effective? Consider wildlife habitats in the area and implement seasonal restrictions if 

required. Consider proximity to water and fish species of conservation concern.

No: Use non-herbicide (manual, mechanical biological or cultural) methods.

Process for Prescribing Broadcast Herbicide Application Method 

Do the size, density, and/or distribution of invasive plants warrant broadcast application? 

No: Use application methods other than broadcasting

Yes: Is the Site within 100 feet of streams and water bodies? Does the area provide habitat for 

fish species of conservation concern?

Yes: Apply buffers and other pdfs as appropriate. If broadcast is no longer an acceptable 

method given pdfs, choose an application method other than broadcasting. 

No: Are there botanical species of conservation concern within 100 feet of the proposed 

broadcast site? 

Yes: survey as needed for botanical species of concern within suitable habitats.

Apply botanical buffers as appropriate. Broadcast may still be acceptable if 

botanical species of conservation concern are covered by barriers. Apply 

remaining project design features. If broadcast is no longer an acceptable 

method, choose an application method other than broadcasting.

55
Malheur National Forest Site-Specific Invasive Plants Treatment Project

56