populations; prevention and education are important components of invasive plant management, however,
and are ongoing on the Forests and the Grassland under Executive Order 13112 (1999), the R6 2005
ROD, and 2004 direction from the Regional Forester (see FSEIS Appendix G).

FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS

This decision is consistent with all other current laws, regulations and policies guiding invasive plant
programs and other management activities on National Forest System Jands including, but not limited to:
the National Forest Management Act; the Deschutes and Ochoco National Forest Plans and the Crooked
River National Grassland Plan; the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act; the Wilderness Act;
the National Historic Preservation Act; and Executive Orders 11988, 11990 and 12898. After
consideration of the discussion of environmental consequences (FSEIS Chapter 3), we have determined
the Selected Alternative is consistent with the intent of the Forest Plans’ long-term goals and objectives,
as amended. Also, we have determined the Selected Alternative is consistent with other laws and
regulations, as outlined in the FSEIS.

In April 2007, Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, the lead signer in the 1989 Mediated
Agreement, agreed it was willing to dissolve the Mediated Agreement for purposes of controlling
invasive plants in Region 6, The Portland Audubon Society (July 2, 2007) and the Oregon Environmental
Council (October 15, 2007) have also agreed in writing to dissolve the Mediated Agreement for invasive

plant control.

Consistency with National Forest Management Act/Forest Plans

All proposed treatments of invasive plants will occur on National Forest System (NFS) lands under the
Selected Alternative, All activities that will occur on NFS lands as described in this ROD and
accompanying FSEIS are in compliance with the relevant management requirements set forth in the
National Forest Management Act (36 CFR 219).

Alternative 2 is consistent with long term management objectives as discussed in the Deschutes and
Ochoco National Forest Plans and the Crooked River National Grassland Land and Resource
Management Plan, as amended, including PACFISH and INFISH. The applicable Forest Plan Standards
and Guidelines are listed in FSEIS, Appendix C, including Forest-wide standards and Management Area
standards related to the proposed activities. Except for the amendment to the Ochoco Forest and Crooked
River National Grassland Plans (see below), the Selected Alternative is consistent with the goals and
objectives for all Management Areas, including the standards and guidelines for the Northwest Forest
Plan Record of Decision, including subsequent amendments (FSEIS p. 495).

Aquatic Conservation Strategy

The Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) objectives are discussed in the FSEIS, Chapter 3.6.3. We have
considered relevant information from watershed analyses and we have also considered the existing
conditions of riparian reserves, including the important physical and biological components of and the
effects to riparian resources (Chapter 3.6 and 3.9). We find the Selected Alternative is consistent with the
recommendations of the watershed analyses and the riparian reserve standards and guidelines, and will
contribute to maintaining and restoring the watersheds over the long term. We also find that Alternative 2
is consistent with each of the ACS objectives and will not prevent attainment of ACS objectives; in fact,
by effectively treating the most acreage of invasive plant infestations in riparian areas, Alternative 2 best
contributes to attainment of the ACS objectives by controlling and/or eradicating invasive weed
populations and fostering the return of native species habitat and the species that depend on this habitat
(see FSEIS pp. 249-256),

~~ Record of Decision —
Page 18 of 45



Purpose

43.

44,

45.

46.

47.

48.
49.

50.

Si.

Project Design Feature

Use only aquatic formulations or low aquatic risk herbicides on saturated
soils, or those with seasonally high water tables, where label restrictions
allow. Land types in treatment areas identified as having a high water table
during parts of or all of the year would be field-checked; treatment methods
would be modified based on ground conditions.

43.1 No broadcast spraying of picloram, non-aquatic triclopyr, non-aquatic
glyphosate or sethoxydim on roads that have a high risk of delivery to water
(generally roads within RHCAs).

POEA and NPE surfactants would not be used in applications within 100 feet
of surface water, wetlands or along roads with ditches that feed into streams.

Do not use picloram, clopyralid or metsulfuron methyl on high porosity soils
(texture class 3 or 4) particularly where the water table is shallow. Exceptions
include heavily compacted sites located on artificially constructed road and
dam structures. See PDF 43 for further restrictions.

No more than one application of sulfometuron methyl would occur on a given
area in a calendar year, except to treat areas missed during the initial
application. No more than one application of picloram would occur on a
given area every two years, except to treat areas missed during the initial
application.

Do not use chlorsulfuron, picloram, and/or sulfometuron methyl on shallow
(<12” depth), scabland, or high clay content (texture class | — fine texture,
refer to Table 41 in Soil Section) soils with low infiltration rates where runoff
from storm events could reach surface waters. .

Deleted due to redundancy with PDF 47,

Ester formulation of triclopyr is not allowed within 150 feet of any perennial
water body for Alternative 2, and 300 feet for Alternative 3.

Outside of the 150 foot distance, the salt (aquatic) form of triclopyr is
preferred over the ester form of triclopyr where it is effective.

Apply erosion control measures (¢.g. silt fences or shut down periods) and
native revegetation (e.g., mulching, native grass seeding, planting) for manual
treatment where detrimental soil disturbance or de-vegetation may result in
the delivery of measurable levels of fine sediment to federally listed fish
species’ critical habitat.

Implement Mixture Analysis identified in Regional Fisheries Biological
Assessment for tank mixtures proposed. The sum of Hazard Quotients (HQ)
for tank mixtures shall not exceed 1, and no more than three herbicides may
be mixed.

Source/Comments

Source: SERA Risk
Assessments; R6 2005 FEIS
(Chapter 4.72 & 4.73) and
Fisheries Biological
Assessment & Biological
Opinion.

To ensure herbicide is not
delivered to streams in
concentrations that exceed
levels of concern.
Compliance with 2011
Biological Opinion Terms &
Conditions,

Protects aquatic organisms.
Width is more conservative *
than the effective buffer (45
feet) identified by Berg
(2004),

Label advisory. To avoid
excessive percolation to
groundwater or spring
sources,

To reduce potential for
accumulation in soil. Based
on label restriction.

Label advisory. To avoid
excessive herbicide runoff to
reduce potential for entering
surface or groundwater.

Deleted.

Width based on aquatic
influence zone. Lower risk
herbicides are preferred
where effective to protect
aquatic organisms, fish,
wildlife and human health.

Common measures to
minimize sedimentation.

RG 2005 ROD (Standard 16)
and Fisheries Biological
Assessment

~~ Record of Decision —
Page 39 of 45

i
i
i



Purpose

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

Project Design Feature

Use low nozzle pressure, apply as a coarse spray, and use nozzles designed

for herbicide application that do not produce a fine droplet spray, ¢.g., use a
nozzle diameter to produce a median droplet diameter of 200-800 microns,

with an objective of >500 microns.

No spraying would occur if measurable precipitation is occurring or is
predicted to occur within 24 hours within the given treatment area, or as label
directs. Local conditions to be monitored by the licensed applicators.

Choose transportation routes with fewer stream crossings, less traffic, and
fewer blind curves. Use a guide vehicle when more than one vehicle is
traveling to the site, or when large quantities or other circumstances dictate.
A spill cleanup kit would be available whenever herbicides are transported or
stored.

‘The licensed applicator is responsible for the immediate cleanup of all spills.
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.

= Estimate and limit the daily quantity of herbicides to be transported to
treatment sites.

* 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.

« Require that 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 300 feet of
surface water.

* Require safe disposal of herbicide containers, following label
instructions and State and local laws.

Source/Comments

Label advisory. These are
typical measures to reduce
drift. 500 micros minimum
selected because this size is
modeled to eliminate adverse
effects to non-target
vegetation 100 feet further
from broadcast sites (see Ch,
3 for details).

Label instruction. Reduces
potential for herbicide runoff
and ensures effective
treatment of target
vegetation.

To reduce likelihood of
spills.

To contain any accidental
spills. Source: FSH 2109,

Source: FSH 2109.14

Reduce likelihood of spills
and to contain any spills.
Reduce potential for adverse
effects from accidental spills.

— Record of Decision —
Page 35 of 45



Purpose

75.

76.

77.

2B.

79.

80.

81.

82.

83.

Project Design Feature

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.

Do not conduct any vegetation treatments or improvement project in breeding
habitats from February 15 — June 30.

Oregon and Columbia Spotted Frog
Do not broadcast spray POEA or NPE-based surfactants, in or within 100 feet
of occupied spotted frog habitat or suitable wetland habitat. Coordinate
treatment methods, timing, and location with local Biologist prior to
implementation,

American Peregrine Falcon

All invasive plant treatments would be seasonally prohibited within 0.5 miles .

of peregrine nest sites (primary nest zone).

Invasive plant treatments involving motorized equipment and/or vehicles
would be seasonally prohibited within 1.5 miles of known nest sites
(secondary nest zones). This may include activities such as mulching,
chainsaws, vehicles (with or without boom spray equipment) or other
mechanically-based invasive plant treatment.

Non-mechanized or low disturbance invasive plant activities (such as spot
spray, hand pull, etc.) may occur within the secondary nest zone, 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.

Seasonal restrictions would be waived within primary and secondary nest
zones if the site is unoccupied or if nesting efforts fail and monitoring
indicates no further nesting behavior.

Season restrictions would apply during the periods listed below based on the
following elevations:

Low elevation sites (1000-2000 ft) O1 Jan - 01 July

Medium elevation sites (2001 — 4000 ft) 15 Jan—31 July

Upper elevation sites (4001 + ft) Ol Feb— 15 Aug

Seasonal restrictions would be extended if monitoring indicates late season
nesting, asynchronous hatching leading to late fledging, or recycle behavior
which indicates that late nesting and fledging would occur.

Protection of nest sites shall be provided until at least two weeks after all
young have fledged.

Clopyralid would not be used within 1.5 miles of peregrine nest more than
once per year. Picloram would not be used more than once every two years.

Source/Comments

To avoid disturbance that
may interrupt males while
they are strutting on leks.
Source: USFS 2003,
Connelly et al. 2000.

To avoid disturbance during
breeding season. Source:
USFWS 2003, Connelly et al.
2000.

To minimize or eliminate risk
of exposure, Source: BE for
Deschutes/Ochoco Invasive
Plant FSEIS.

To minimize or eliminate
disturbance during breeding
season. Source: J. Pagel,
unpublished data.

Source: J. Pagel, unpublished
data.

Source: J, Pagel, unpublished
data.

To protect fledglings. Source:
J. Pagel, published data.

To minimize risk of exposure
to hexachlorobenzene (HCB).
Source: J. Pagel, unpublished
data.

Wetland Habitat (yellow rail, tricolored blackbird, and waterfowl)

Do not broadcast or spot spray NPE-based surfactants in or adjacent to
suitable habitat. Do not exceed typical application rates of glyphosate (2 Ibs
a.i/acre).

To eliminate risk of
exposure. Source: BE for
Des/Och Invasive Plant
FSEIS.

— Record of Decision —
Page 44 of 45



and mechanical treatment pose greater risks to terrestrial wildlife species of local interest than herbicide
use (FEIS p. 312). PDFs place restrictions on how and where herbicides are applied, minimize
disturbance, and prohibit use of certain surfactants in some habitats. Forest Plan standards and these PDFs
ensure that no alternative will adversely affect any federally listed species, result in a trend toward listing
of any sensitive species, nor adversely impact the habitat of management indicator species, landbirds, or
Birds of Conservation Concern (FSEIS pp 425-426; 433-436).

Consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has been completed for this project. A Biological
Assessment (BA) evaluating the Proposed Action was sent to the FWS (May 6, 2009). The BA provided
analysis and rationale for the determination that the Proposed Action may affect but is not likely to
adversely affect the northern spotted owl (a federally-listed Threatened species), and would have no effect
on designated critical habitat for spotted owls* (FSEIS p. 406). Ina letter dated December 14, 2011, FWS
described the informal consultation process by which the BA for spotted owls and critical habitat was
reviewed, and expressed concurrence with the Forest Service. The FSEIS indicates that Alternative 3
would also have no effect on spotted owls and their critical habitat (FSEIS p. 406).

Socio-Economic

Alternative 2 is the most cost-efficient alternative. The economic efficiency of the treatment methods are
also a concern for members of the public. People are interested in the cost of the project, whether jobs
would be created, and how effective treatments as well as early detection and rapid response would
maximize efficiency in invasive plant management.

The FEIS described the expected costs of each treatment method (pp. 341-342), The methods vary in cost,
which affects that amount of acreage that can be effectively treated each year. Early detection and rapid
response would improve the Forests’ ability to treat sites while they ave small, which would lower costs.
The difference in cost between the action alternatives is relatively small, particularly when compared to
the negative effect invasive plants currently cause to the value of Oregon’s resources (FEIS p. 341).

We acknowledge that Alternative 3 would have created more jobs — 112 as compared to 88 in the
Selected Alternative and 32 under No Action. Alternative 3 would involve more labor because of a
heavier reliance on manual treatment and/or hand application of herbicide near water, which are more
labor-intensive methods, However, we have decided based upon the analysis in the FSEIS that the
reduced effectiveness of manual treatments (as opposed to chemical treatments on some invasive species
sites) as well as the increased risk of affects to riparian habitats from manual treatments of emergent
invasive plants are concerns that outweigh the socio-economic benefit of 24 additional seasonal jobs

(FSEIS pp. 439-444).

Cultural

Both action alternatives include 14.3 acres of burning and mechanical treatments that may have the
potential to expose historic or prehistoric resources, PDFs are in place to fully protect these cultural
resources, There is no effective alternative to these integrated treatments in these sites.

Cultural plants may be affected by invasive plant treatments, however without treatment cultural plants
may be adversely affected by invasives. Alternative 2 does the most to prevent spread of invasive plants
into cultural plant gathering areas. PDFs are in place to protect non-target vegetation; PDF #41 addresses
time of herbicide application in cultural plant areas. Under Alternative 3, manual methods would not be as
effective in preventing invasive plant spread into cultural plant areas near streams.

Recreation and Scenery

> The northern spotted owl occurs on the Deschutes National Forest, but not on the Ochoco NF nor the Crooked River National
Grassland; designated critical habitat for the species is present on the Deschutes NF.

— Record of Decision —
Page 12 of 45



Table 1. Forest Plan standards and guidelines removed with this Forest Plan amendment.

Forest Plan Scope Deleted Standard and Guideline
igosted Forest-wide | Use chemical treatments only when other methods have proven
EA/DN Direction ineffective or impractical.

Och/CRNG | Grassland-
1995 Weed | wide
EA/DN Direction

The analysis in the FSEIS for the action alternatives assumed that these standards were removed, and the
alternatives would be consistent with the R6 2005 ROD standards.

Use chemical treatments only when other methods would be
ineffective or impractical.

The purpose of the amendments is to reconcile the Ochoco National Forest and Crooked River National
Grassland Plans with recent standards and guidelines established in the 2005 Invasive Plant Program
Record of Decision (USFS 2005b). The proposed changes are described in the table above. These
amendments will apply to the respective management areas throughout the Ochoco National Forest and
Crooked River National Grassland.

This plan amendment is being prepared under the 2000 rule as amended with transition wording at 36
CFR 219.35 that allows the use of the 1982 rule procedures. (See 65 FR 67568, Nov. 9, 2000, as amended
at 66 FR 1865, Jan. 10, 2001; 66 FR 27554, May 17, 2001; 67 FR 35434, May 20, 2002; 68 FR 53297,
Sept. 10, 2003; 69 FR 58057, Sept. 29, 2004). The 1982 rule and the 2000 rule as amended are available
online at hitp://www.fs.fed.us/eme/nfma/2000_planning rule.html.

The regulations state: “If the change resulting from the amendment is determined not to be significant for
the purposes of the planning process, the Forest Supervisor may implement the amendment following
appropriate public notification and satisfactory completion of NEPA procedures” (36 CFR 219. 10(f)).
Additional guidance on amending Forest Plans is provided in the Forest Service Manual 1900-Planning:
Section 1926.51 and 1926,52, The manual describes non-significant amendments as:

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;

Minor changes in standards and guidelines; and/or

4. Opportunities for additional projects or activities that will contribute to achievement of the
management prescriptions.

The manual describes significant amendments as:

e Changes that would significantly alter the long-term relationship between levels of multiple-use
goods and services originally projected (36 CFR 219.10(e)); or

e Changes that may have an important effect on the entire forest plan or affect land and resources
throughout a large portion of the planning area during the planning period.

— Record of Decision —
Page 22 of 45


Purpose

S52.

53.

54.

5S.

56.

Project Design Feature

All herbicide storage, chemical mixing, refilling and post-application
equipment cleaning is completed at least 300 feet from live water, domestic
wells, or domestic spring boxes, and in such a manner as to prevent the
potential contamination of any riparian area, perennial or intermittent
waterway, ephemeral waterway, wetland, or drinking water.

Limit the number of workers and the number of entries in areas within 100
feet of streams.

Use of herbicides within 100 feet of perennial waterbodies only allowed up to
the typical application rate (see Table 12 and associated text).

Minimum distance to water is 10 feet for spot spraying herbicide. Within 10
feet, only hand application (e.g. wicking/wiping) is allowed in Alternative 2.
See Table 14 for fisheries-specific Project Design Features concerning
specific herbicides and use rates within certain watersheds.

Hand pulling of invasive plants adjacent to streams known to contain
spawning steelhead populations would be prohibited within the bankfull
channel from February 15" to July 15". Pulling of invasive plants adjacent to
streams known to contain spawning bull trout populations would be
prohibited within the bankfull channel from August 15" to May 15". -

Use selected buffers and application methods from Tables 14 and 15 below
for application of herbicides. Buffers can be increased on a sité specific basis
if analysis determines that characteristics such as soils, slope, groundwater
depth, etc indicate high potential for the contamination of groundwater or
surface waters.

Forest Service personnel will identify any steps necessary to identify riparian
areas prior to implementation of herbicide application. This may involve
flagging, particularly in listed fish habitat. Forest Service specialists will
work closely with herbicide applicators to ensure project design features are
implemented.

Source/Comments

To prevent water
contamination. 300 feet
includes Riparian Reserve
/RHCAs. Incorporates
Washington State wellhead
protection protocol.

To minimize trampling in
riparian areas and fish
habitat.

Further protects aquatic
organisms by reducing
amounts of herbicide applied
near waterbodies available to
runoff.

To reduce disturbance to
Threatened/Endangered fish
during spawning.

Based on label advisories and
SERA risk assessments.
Buffers correspond to
herbicide characteristics.
Complies with Standards #19
and 20 from the R6 2005
ROD.

To reduce likelihood that
herbicides will enter surface

* waters in concentrations of

concern.

To Ensure the Protection of Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive (TES) or Survey and Manage Plants

57.

Surveys will be conducted for Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive plants prior
to invasive plant treatments if: 1) the area has not already been surveyed for
these species; and 2) if the area contains likely habitat for any of these
species; and 3) if the proposed treatments are likely to have a negative impact
to individual plants. Surveys will be conducted in the area within 100 ft.
from where broadcast application of herbicides is planned and within 35 ft.
for all other treatment types (herbicide spot spray, manual, etc.).

Forest Service Manual 2670;
35 foot distance more
conservative than Marrs et all
(1989).

To ensure sensitive species
are protected and surveys are
conducted when appropriate.

2001 Survey & Manage ROD
as modified by 2011
Settlement Agreement.

— Record of Decision —
Page 40 of 45



SUMMARY

Based on our review of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS), we have
decided to implement Alternative 2, which will authorize invasive plant treatments on approximately
14,500 acres of mapped infestations, along with treatment of new sites or sites that are not identified in
the FSEIS and that are analyzed through the Early Detection/Rapid Response strategy. Responsible
officials for this project are the Forest Supervisor of the Deschutes National Forest, and the Forest
Supervisor of the Ochoco National Forest and Crooked River National Grassland, who are jointly
approving the decision. This Record of Decision (ROD) includes a non-significant amendment to the
Ochoco National Forest and Crooked River National Grassland Land and Resource Management Plans
(LRMP5) to align plan direction with the R6 2005 Invasive Plant Program ROD (USFS 2005b).

We are approving site-specific invasive plant treatments throughout the Deschutes National Forest, the
Ochoco National Forest, and the Crooked River National Grassland. Invasive plants are widely
distributed across the Forests; treatment is proposed in all management areas. The majority of the project
area is located in Deschutes, Jefferson, Crook, and Klamath Counties. Smaller portions are in Wheeler,
Grant, and Lake Counties. The Forests total a little more than 2.5 million acres (see Figure 1).

Invasive plant treatment methods include a combination of manual (¢.g., hand pulling, cutting),
mechanical (e.g. weed whacking), cultural (solarization), burning, and herbicide (e.g., ground-based
broadcast spraying, spot spraying) treatments. These methods are described in the FSEIS (pp. 33-36). The
treatments will be implemented over the next fifteen years according to Project Design Features (PDFs)
that minimize or eliminate adverse effects. Of the 14,500 acres, about 750 acres can be effectively treated
using manual, biological, or cultural methods; herbicides are not part of the initial treatment plan on these
acres, Otherwise, herbicide use is part of the integrated prescription on known sites.

New detections of invasive plant species or other invasive plant populations that are not identified in the
FSEIS are approved for treatment under the Early Detection/ Rapid Response strategy (EDRR). The
EDRR strategy will require annual review by a Forest Service team and approval by a Forest Service line
officer; new detections will be treated using methods approved by this Record of Decision only if the
associated site conditions are within parameters analyzed in the FSEIS and if treatment is consistent with
the Deschutes and Ochoco Forest Plans, as amended. Application of the EDRR strategy will include
notification of adjacent landowners, partners, the general public, regulatory agencies, and the Tribes;
consistency with the Endangered Species Act and other environmental law will be maintained (see FSEIS
pp. 499-500 and Appendix F), New invasive plant detections that are not within parameters analyzed in
the FSEIS will be subject to a new analysis and decision consistent with the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA).

All invasive plant treatments will be implemented in conjunction with on-going invasive plant
management efforts, including prevention practices; outreach and education, and use of grants,
- agreements, contracts, agency employees and volunteers to carry out the program.

We have reviewed the Invasive Plant Treatments FSEIS and associated appendices, including public
comment on the draft SEIS, We believe there is adequate information within these documents to provide
a reasoned choice of action. We are fully aware of the adverse effects that cannot be avoided that are
associated with the Selected Alternative (FSEIS pp 495 ~- 496). We are also aware of the concern some
members of the public feel for invasive plant treatments, and have balanced these concerns against the
need for long-term reduction in invasive plant populations to support sustainable habitats for fish, wildlife
and plant populations in the two National Forests and the National Grassland. Implementing the Selected
Alternative will cause no measurable unacceptable cumulative impacts to any resource.

— Record of Decision —
Page 3 of 45



APPENDIX 1. PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES

Purpose

Project Design Feature

Pre-Project Planning ~ To ensure project is implemented appropriately

1.

The nature of invasive plant management requires ongoing project review and
evaluation. The location of invasive plants in relation to various
environmental components (i.e, plant species of local interest, special forest
product gathering areas) is likely to change over the life of the project, thus
animal species/habitats of concern, watershed and aquatic resources of
concern (sensitive soils, streams, lakes, wetlands, high risk roadsides,
municipal watersheds, domestic water sources), places where people gather,
and range allotment conditions would be confirmed prior to treatment and
appropriate design features would be applied.

Apply PDFs (including Terms and Conditions from consultation with
regulatory agencies) depending on site conditions.

Source/Comments

This approach follows
several previous NEPA.
documents,
Impiementation Planning
discussed in Appendix F.

To Prevent Spread of Invasives from Treatment Activities or Re-Introduction on a Treated Site

2.

Vehicles and equipment (including personal protective clothing) used for
invasive plant treatment activities would be cleaned prior to entering National
Forest land.

Where practical, thoroughly clean and inspect all equipment and clothing
before moving off treatment areas.

All invasive plants that are manually excavated after flower bud stage will be
bagged and properly disposed of at an approved facility (e.g. landfill).

When applying herbicides, protect non-target vegetation whenever practical
in order to minimize the creation of exposed ground and the potential for re-
infestation, Minimize means reducing to the lowest level practical.

Deschutes & Ochoco Forest
Plan Standard (standard #2
from 2005 R6 ROD)

This is a common measure
used to prevent spread,
(Appendix G)

This is a common measure
used to prevent spread.

To reduce further invasive
plant infestation at the treated
site,

Coordination with other Landowners, Agencies — to ensure neighboring landowners ave fully informed about nearby
herbicide use and to increase the effectiveness of treatments on multiple ownerships

6.

‘The Forest Service would work with owners and managers of neighboring
lands to respond to invasive plants that infest multiple ownerships.
‘Treatments within 100 feet of Forest boundaries, including lands over which
the Forest has right-of-way easements, would be coordinated with adjacent
landowners. Irrigation ditches will be treated like intermittent streams, buffer
widths in Tables 15 and 16 will apply. :

6.1 Cooperators within the National Forest System will be informed of any
proposed treatments within their areas of interest (such as the PNW Research
Station for treatments within or adjacent to Research Natural Areas).

Herbicide use within 1000 feet (slope distance in source area) of known
domestic surface water intakes for in-home use would be coordinated with
known water user or manager.

Municipal watershed agreements would be followed. Coordination with water
boards, managing agencies or associations, would occur as required and
herbicide use or application method may be excluded or limited in some
areas.

To increase effectiveness of
treatments on multiple
ownerships and ensure
neighbors are fully informed
of nearby herbicide use.

1000 feet selected to respond
to public concern. Herbicide
use as proposed will not
contaminate drinking water
supplies.

See existing municipal
agreements, Current
agreements are in the project
file.

— Record of Decision —
Page 33 of 45



Survey and Manage Species

On December 17, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington issued an order in
Conservation Northwest, et al. v. Sherman, et al., No. 08-1067-JCC (W.D, Wash.), granting Plaintiffs”
motion for partial summary judgment and finding NEPA violations in the Final Supplemental to the 2004
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement to Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation
Measure Standards and Guidelines (USDA and USDI, June 2007). In response, parties entered into
settlement negotiations in April 2010, and the Court filed approval of the resulting Settlement Agreement
on July 6, 2011. Projects that are within the range of the northern spotted owl are subject to the survey
and management standards and guidelines in the 2001 ROD, as modified by the 201 Settlement

Agreement.

We have reviewed the Environmental Impact Statement for the Invasive Plant Treatments Project and
have determined it is consistent with the Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan
as amended by the 2001 Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey
and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines (2001 ROD), as
modified by the 2011 Settlement Agreement.

We have evaluated the scale, scope and intensity of proposed invasive plant treatments within the
Northwest Forest Plan area and determined these treatments will not have a significant negative impact on
habitat, life cycle, microclimate, or life support requirements for Survey & Manage species; therefore pre-
disturbance/equivalent effort surveys are not required. This determination was made for the following
reasons:

Scale

© The Deschutes NF has 776,514 acres of land within the Northwest Forest Plan area. Herbicide
treatments are proposed within 12,487 acres in Invasive Plant PAUs within the Northwest Forest
Plan (invasive plants are actually mapped on 260 acres). Of these 12,487 acres, 10,714 acres are
along roads and in rock quarries; these highly disturbed areas are not habitat for Survey &
Manage lichens, bryophytes, fungi, vascular plants, Crater Lake tightcoil snails, or great gray
owls. The remaining 1,773 acres (0.2% of the Northwest Forest Plan area) occur in forested areas
or along streams, lakes and wetlands. A very small portion of Northwest Forest Plan area would
be treated with herbicides; this would not constitute a significant habitat-disturbing activity to any
of the Survey & Manage species.

© Of the 776, 514 acres of land within the Northwest Forest Plan area, biological control is
proposed within 2,356 acres of PAUs (invasive plants actually occupy 77 acres). Of these 2,356
acres, the majority (1,968 acres) is road or rock quarry sites that are not habitat for Survey and
Manage lichens, bryophytes, fungi, vascular plants, Crater Lake tightcoil snails, or great gray
owls. The remaining 388 acres are general forest; a very small portion of the NWFP area would
be within PAUs proposed for biological control (0.05%). Because biological control targets the
invasive plant species and a very small area would be treated, this would not constitute a
significant habitat-disturbing activity to any of the Survey & Manage species.

© Manual treatments, such as hand-pulling are proposed at many sites as a follow-up to herbicide
sptaying to get individual plants missed by the herbicide treatment, or as the only treatment where
the invasive plant populations are small and the species can be effectively controlled manually.
Manual treatments are proposed within 14,106 acres of PAUs in the NWEP area (invasive plants
actually occupy 294 acres). Of these 14,106 acres, 10,714 acres are along roads and in rock
quarries, which are not habitat for Survey and Manage lichens, bryophytes, fungi, vascular plants,
Crater Lake tightcoil snails, or great gray owls. The remaining 3,392 acres of manual treatment
would occur within a small portion of the NWEP area (0.4%); this would not constitute a
significant habitat-disturbing activity to any of the Survey & Manage species.

— Record of Decision —
Page 19 of 45



The NMES found the conservation recommendations, plus terms and conditions
1-3 of the BIOP, are applicable to EFH conservation and recommended they be
adopted as EFH conservation measures. As noted above, these measures,
including the terms and conditions, have been incorporated in the project design.

In their BO dated 2/2/2012 (as updated by a letter dated 2/27/2012), NMES authorized incidental take of
juvenile Mid-Columbia River steelhead, and issued the following Reasonable and Prudent Measures and
Terms and Conditions, which have been incorporated into project design (NMFS BO pp. 67 — 71; letter
dated 2/27/2012).

Reasonable and Prudent Measures.
The Forests and Grassland shall:
1. Minimize incidental take by following the proposed PDFs described in the BA.

2. Minimize incidental take by avoiding and minimizing adverse effects on aquatic and riparian
habitats.

3. Minimize incidental take by ensuring completion of a monitoring and reporting program to
confirm that the take exemption for the proposed action is not exceeded.

Terms and Conditions,

1. To implement reasonable and prudent measure #1, the Forests shall:
a) Follow all PDFs for each programmatic category provided in the proposed action section of
the BA and this Opinion,

2. To implement reasonable and prudent measure #2, the Forests shall:

a) Complete work within the active channel of streams occupied by MCR steelhead during the
ODFW preferred in-water work period, as appropriate for the action area. Exceptions must
receive NMFS’ concurrence in writing prior to work being performed.

b) Not apply herbicides in riparian areas, perennial streams, intermittent stream channels, or
ditches when soil is saturated, or when a precipitation event likely to produce direct runoff to
steelhead-bearing waters from the treated area is forecasted by NOAA’s National Weather
Service or other similar forecasting service within 48 hours following application. This term
and condition does not apply to the treatment of wetland and emergent plants as described in
the proposed action.

c) Limit treatments within stream channels to | acre or less per year, per 6th field HUC
subwatershed, for the duration of this Opinion.

3. To implement reasonable and prudent measure #3, the Forests shall:
a) Provide the following information in paper form to the NMFS Oregon State Habitat Office
(OSHO) for all herbicide projects by May 1, prior to each annual spray season:
i. Location: For each 5th or 6th field HUC watershed (depending on site resolution),

provide the 10-12 digit USGS code, and name of the watershed.

ii, Electronic maps of proposed treatment areas including distribution of MCR steelhead
and their critical habitat.

iii. | Anticipated treatment start and end dates

iv. Proposed herbicide treatments and mixtures, and any changes from mixtures
identified in the EIS and BA for this action.

y. Number of treatment acres by 6th field HUC watershed, number of treatment acres in
the aquatic influence zone, number of ditch miles to be treated, and number of stream
miles to be treated.

— Record of Decision —
Page 25 of 45



tightcoil. Invasive plant treatments will not remove or degrade the essential habitat components of
uncompacted soil, litter, logs, and other woody debris, nor alter water levels. The invasive plant
treatments proposed do not create habitat-disturbance or have a significant negative impact on the
Crater Lake tighcoil’s habitat, life cycle, microclimate, or life support requirements.

Treatment of invasive plants would not be habitat-disturbing or likely to have a significant
negative impact on the great gray owl, regardless of treatment method or alternative. None of the
treatments proposed would affect the essential habitat components of the great gray owl or its
prey. Invasive plant treatments would not modify or degrade nesting, roosting or foraging habitat
of the great gray owl or cut potential nest trees. Invasive plants do not provide habitat for the
great gray owl or their prey. The majority of treatments are along roadsides that do not provide
gveat gray owl habitat or habitat of their prey. The treatment of invasive plants would not
generate habitat-disturbance from noise or repetitive and continuous activity. Known nest sites
would be protected from habitat-disturbance by project design feature #94 which seasonally
restricts activities near nest sites. The invasive plant treatments proposed do not create habitat-
disturbance or have a significant negative impact on the habitat, life cycle, microclimate, or life
support requirements of the great gray owl.

Additional Information

Multiple layers of caution‘ are integrated into herbicide use. Project design features and riparian
buffers provide protection to non-target vegetation and Survey and Manage habitat, reducing
potential effects to Survey and Manage lichens, bryophytes, fungi, vascular plant habitat and
Crater Lake tightcoil habitat.

Treating invasive plants is important for protecting ‘native plant habitats.

o Invasive plants create a host of adverse environmental effects that are harmful to native
ecosystem processes (Sheley and Petroff 1999). Examples of these effects include:
displacement of native plants; reduction in habitat and forage for wildlife and livestock;
loss of threatened, endangered, and sensitive species; increased soil erosion and reduced
water quality; reduced soil productivity; and changes in the intensity and frequency of
fires. Invasive plants spread between National Forest and neighboring areas, affecting all
land ownerships. The problem is so great that in 2006, the Chief of the Forest Service
included invasive species as one of the “Four Threats to the Nation’s Forests and
Grasslands (http://www.fs.fed.us/projects/four-threats/).

Information concerning Survey and Manage Species is available in the FSEIS, Chapter 3.4 and 3.9 under
rare and uncommon species.

Forest Plan Amendment

The invasives treatment project is utilizing new tools made available to the Region with the R6 2005
ROD. Two standards and guidelines in the Ochoco National Forest and Crooked River National
Grassland Land and Resource Management Plans are not consistent with the R6 2005 ROD direction
(Table 1). We are removing both of these standards with this decision.

4 "These layers include State and Federal laws, EPA label requirements, SERA Risk Assessments, and the Region 6 Toxicity
Levels of Concern for Federally Listed anadromous fish; see FSEIS p. 176 for more information.

— Record of Decision —
Page 21 of 45



Purpose

Project Design Feature

Source/Comments

To Ensure Effective, Safe, and Proper use of Herbicides and to Limit Potential Adverse Effects on People and the

Environment

10.

12.

13,

14.

15.

Field Operations / Worker Safety

Herbicides would be used in accordance with label instructions, except where
more restrictive measures are required as described below. Herbicide
applications will only treat the minimum area necessary to meet site
objectives. Herbicide formulations would be limited to those containing one
or more of the following 10 active ingredients: chlorsulfuron, clopyralid,
glyphosate, imazapic, imazapyr, metsulfuron methyl, picloram, sethoxydim,
sulfometuron methyl, and triclopyr. Herbicide application methods include
wicking, wiping, injection, spot, and broadcast, as permitted by the product
label and these Project Design Features. The use of triclopyr is limited to spot
and hand/selective methods. Herbicide carriers (diluents) added by the
applicator are limited to water and/or specifically-labeled vegetable oil.

Herbicide use would comply with standards in the Pacific Northwest
Regional Invasive Plant Program — Preventing and Managing Invasive
Plants ROD (2005), including standards on herbicide selection, restrictions
on broadcast use of some herbicides, tank mixing, licensed applicators, and
use of adjuvants, surfactants and other additives.

Workers will use appropriate personal protective clothing and equipment at
all times during application. Traffic control and signing during invasive plant-
treatment operations will be used as necessary to ensure safety of workers and
the public.

Follow label advisory for effective rate. Lowest effective rates would be used.
Additional limits on application rates are as follows:

Spot herbicide applications would not exceed application rates for the
following herbicide:

¢ —Sulfometuron methyl would not exceed 0.2 Ib a.i./ac.

Broadcast application would not exceed application rates for the following
herbicides:

¢ — Picloram at any rate higher than 0.5 Ib. a.i/acre.

© —Sulfometuron methyl at any rate higher than 0.12 Ib ai. /acre.

¢ NPE surfactant at any rate greater than 0.5 Ib a.i/acre.

Use selective spray techniques, or other targeted application techniques when
practical and effective (cut stump, basal spray, etc.).

Favor salt/acid formulation of triclopyr (Garlon 3A) over the ester
formulation of triclopyr (Garlon 4) wherever equally or more effective.

Herbicide applications would occur when wind velocity is between two and
eight miles per hour. The less than 2 mph standard is to avoid spraying during
inversions. During application, weather conditions would be monitored.
periodically by (tained personnel.

Deschutes & Ochoco LRMP
Standard (standard #16 of
2005 R6 ROD); Pesticide
Use Handbook 2109.14

Limits potential for adverse
effects on people and the
environment.

R6 2005 ROD Standards 15,
16, and 18.

Limits potential adverse
effects on people and the
environment.

Label and MSDS
requirements, Reduces
potential for workers to be
exposed,

Limiting the application rate
for these active ingredients
will ensure their use stays
below levels of concern for
workers, the public, fish,
wildlife, and other aquatic
organisms; these rates are
based on results of the SERA
Risk Assessments.

To further reduce the amount
of herbicide applied per acre.

Garlon 3A has less concern
for human health

Typical measure to reduce
drift so that herbicide use is
avoided during inversions or
windy conditions.

— Record of Decision —
Page 34 of 45



Alternative 1
Invasive Plant Treatment

Under the No Action alternative, the Forests and Grassland would continue to treat invasive plant species
as authorized under existing NEPA documents, which is approximately 6% of currently inventoried
invasive plant sites. Details on the areas treated each year are available from the Forests and Grassland

Invasive Plant Program Manager.
Invasive plant treatments have been previously authorized under the following NEPA decisions:

© Ochoco National Forest and Crooked River National Grassland, Integrated Weed Management
Environmental Assessment and Decision Notice (1995) allowed the Forest Service to treat 34
noxious weed sites with a mix of manual, biological, and herbicide treatments. It also amended
the Ochoco/Grassland LRMP to include programmatic direction for Forest Plan desired future
conditions, goals, objectives, and standards and guidelines for noxious weed management.
Herbicides approved for use on the Ochoco National Forest and Crooked River National -
Grassland were dicamba, picloram, and glyphosate.

*  Ochoco National Forest and Crooked River National Grassland, 1998 Integrated Noxious Weed
Management Environmental Analysis and Decision Notice analyzed and authorized intensive
weed management on 72 sites, with herbicide, manual, and/or biological control. Based on
monitoring results of manual methods of weed sites treated under the 1995 BA, the 1998
expanded the area where herbicides could be used. Only dicamba, picloram, and glyphosate were
proposed.

¢ Deschutes National Forest Noxious Weed Control Environmental Assessment and Decision
Notice (USFS 1998a) authorized treatment at 98 noxious weed sites.on 901 acres with manual
treatment, 27 sites on 149 acres with biological agents, | site on 5 acres with prescribed burning,
and 40 sites on 476 acres with herbicides. Only dicamba, picloram, glyphosate, and triclopyr were
proposed.

¢ Turnpike Pit Medusahead Control, Environmental Assessment and Decision Notice (2005c)
authorized herbicide treatment (glyphosate) of medusahead at the Turnpike Pit material source
(used for the extraction of rock and gravel) and require monitoring of the site (Paulina Ranger
District, Ochoco NF).

¢ Various Categorical Exclusions and Decision Memos authorizing manual methods of weed
treatment across the two Forests and Grassland.

Early Detection / Rapid Response

New detections or newly inventoried invasive species sites would not be treated effectively. A NEPA
process to use herbicides on new sites would have to be initiated, taking several years.

Site Restoration

Site restoration is not specifically prescribed in the No Action alternative.

— Record of Decision —
Page 16 of 45



In response to public comments, we directed the interdisciplinary team to develop an alternative that
would reduce the use of herbicides near water; this new alternative became Alternative 3. Alternative 3
was not selected because implementation under Alternative 3 would cost about $500,000 more than under
the Proposed Action! and would be less effective in controlling invasive plants on 260 acres of riparian
areas. Alternative 3 would apply herbicide treatments to 260 fewer acres within 300 feet of water and
would not permit broadcast spraying within 300 feet of water; it would apply no herbicides within 10 feet
of water (see Table 16 in Chapter 2 of the FSEIS), Alternative 3 reduced the risk of potential impacts
related to herbicide use by restricting what herbicides could be used near water and imposing a buffer
where no herbicides could be used at all, but at the expense of reducing the effectiveness of invasive plant
treatment on 260 acres of emergent invasive species such as reed canarygrass and ribbongrass; manual
and mechanical methods may not be effective on the invasive plants that are growing within 10 feet of
perennial water (FSEIS p. 117). Ribbongrass and canary reedgrass are rhizomatous species that are
difficult to control by manual and/or mechanical methods; FSEIS model results predict that after 5 years,
about half the current acreage of riparian target species would remain without using herbicide treatments
(Table 26 on FSEIS p. 116). Ribbongrass and reed canarygrass are problematic in the riparian
environment because they replace native vegetation and decrease the ability-of riparian hardwoods to
become established and thrive, which can reduce stream shade (FSEIS p. 142). LaVergne and Molofsky
(2004) report that reed canarygrass invades quickly and its presence impacts the structure of natural
habitats. Reed canarygrass can persist as floating mats, which then form numerous nodes with
adventitious roots. Fragmentation at these nodes enhances the spread of the floating mat until it
completely chokes water circulation in ponds and along shores. By growing vigorously on stream banks,
reed canarygrass also increases sediment deposition, which further limits water circulation. Manual and
mechanical methods to control ribbongrass may result in unwanted environmental effects including short-
term (up to 6 months) contribution of sediment into the water and the downstream spread of the invasive
plant as rhizomes may fall into the water and be carried to new sites (FSEIS p. 167).

Although the risk of herbicides entering the water is eliminated with Alternative 3, the tradeoff is a
reduction in effectiveness of treatment and higher cost. The Proposed Action was designed to minimize
potential adverse effects to the aquatic environment. The risk that herbicide treatments under Alternative
2 will affect riparian and-aquatic systems is acceptably low, given the PDFs and buffers included in
Alternative 2, while the risk that invasive plant populations in riparian areas will affect riparian and
aquatic systems is unacceptably high. The added protection provided by additional buffers and restrictions
of herbicide treatments in riparian areas under Alternative 3 does not outweigh the benefits of effective
invasive plant reduction in riparian areas that will occur under Alternative 2.

The Invasive Plant Treatments FSEIS documents the analysis and conclusions upon which this decision is
based.

Treatment Effectiveness

Alternative 2 was selected because it offers the most effective suite of treatments for the situations known
on the forests. The public and other agencies expressed a strong desire to see the Forest Service utilize the
methods necessary to make substantial progress in effective treatment of invasive plant species. Some
members of the public felt that herbicide treatments were the most effective and efficient treatment
method, Treatment effectiveness was a key component in the development of the proposed action and is
discussed in detail in Chapter 3.3.

Treatment effectiveness is increased as the number of possible tools increases (R6 2005 FEIS, 4-15), thus
Alternatives 1 and 3 would be less effective than the Selected Alternative 2. This is because some species

' Alternative 2 is estimated to cost $2,205,290 to treat all sites in the first year while Alternative 3 would cost $2,724,590 (FSEIS
‘Table 18).

— Record of Decision —
Page 8 of 45



“y Project Location

Figure 1. Locator map of the Invasive Plant Treatments project area.

— Record of Decision —
Page 31 of 45



Civil Rights and 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. The FSEIS discusses the potential impacts of this project on these
groups (FSEIS Chapter 3.8). With the implementation of either action alternative, there is the potential for
some impact to Hispanic, Asian, and American Indian communities. Forestry workers, usually
disproportionately Hispanic, will have more exposure to the proposed herbicides than the population at
large. Also, harvesters of non-timber forest products tend to come from Asian, Hispanic, and American
Indian communities. These groups could be exposed to herbicide treatments in areas available for picking
or collecting their products, but the standards and guidelines and PDFs minimize potential impact to
human health; increased risk to human health from this project is unlikely, based on the herbicide

toxicology analysis in the SERA Risk Assessments, the R6 2005 FEIS, and the layers of caution added to
the project.

Prime Farmland, Rangeland and Forestland

No prime farmlands, rangelands, or forestlands exist within the project area. Therefore, there will be no
direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to prime lands.

Other Laws and Regulations

Our decision is consistent with all other laws, regulations, and policies guiding invasive plant programs
and other management activities on National Forest System lands within the Deschutes and Ochoco
National Forests and Crooked River National Grassland.

THE ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE

Under the National Environmental Policy Act, the agency is required to identify the environmentally
preferable alternative (40 CFR 1505.2(b)). This is interpreted to mean the alternative that would cause the
least damage to the biological and physical components of the environment, and, which bests protects,
preserves, and enhances, historic, cultural, and natural resources (Council on Environmental Quality,
Forty Most Asked Question Concerning CEQ’s National Environmental Policy Act Regulations, 46 FR
18026). Factors considered in identifying this alternative include: (1) fulfilling the responsibility of this
generation as trustee of the environment for future generations, (2) providing for a productive and
aesthetically pleasing environment, (3) attaining the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment
without degradation, (4) preserving important natural components of the environment, including
biodiversity, (5) balancing population needs and resource use, and (6) enhancing the quality of renewable
resources. An agency may discuss preferences among alternatives based on relevant factors, including
economic and technical considerations and statutory missions. {40 CFR 1505.2(b)}.

In the case of the Invasive Plant Treatment Project, we have determined that the environmentally
preferable alternative is the Proposed Action, Alternative 2. None of the alternatives would cause serious
damage to the environment, but Alternative 2 best protects, preserves, and enhances the natural resources
of National Forest System land by effectively treating existing invasive plant populations and
establishing a strategy for treating newly discovered and newly inventoried invasive plants while the

acreage is small.

— Record of Decision —
Page 28 of 45



diligent efforts using these methods of control, invasive plants have spread on the Forests and Grassland
at a rate of 1,200 acres per year. Our experience since 1998 demonstrates that herbicides are necessary, in
combination with other methods, to maximize effectiveness of treatment.

Invasive plants are dynamic and their spread is unpredictable, and treatments are more effective and
involve less inherent environmental risk when populations are small and not well- established. Weed
infestations change in density and location; even the most complete inventories will never identify all
infested areas, New infestations and new species are usually high priority for treatment. There is a need to
provide a mechanism to allow quick response to changing invasive plant infestations. Flexibility is
needed so that expanded and/or newly identified invasive plant sites can be treated in a timely manner.
Many current infestations occupy small areas less than one acre. Alternative 2 allows for the action
needed to control or eradicate these sites quickly before they grow too large, or become too costly or
impractical to manage. These infestations will continue to spread every year that an effective treatment is
not applied. .

DECISION

After careful review and consideration of the public comments and the analysis disclosed in the FSEIS
and project file, we have decided to select the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) as described in Chapter 2
of the FSEIS. We selected Alternative 2 because it is the most likely of the three alternatives to control
invasive plants that are degrading National Grassland and National Forest System lands, including special
areas and habitat for plants and animals. We considered the issues and’concerns raised by those who
participated and commented during this analysis in making this decision. Our conclusion is based‘on a
review of the environmental analysis that shows a thorough review of relevant scientific information, a
consideration of responsible opposing views, and the acknowledgment of incomplete or unavailable
information, scientific uncertainty, and risk (FSEIS pp. 496-497).

Invasive plant treatments will be capped at 16,000 acres annually and 240,000 acres for the life of the
project. These caps include the sum of EDRR sites as well as known sites.

Invasive Plant Treatment

Our decision approves treatment of the 1,892 inventoried invasive plant sites (across 14,547 acres) within
289 Project Area Units (PAUs). These sites and PAUs occur primarily along roads. Integrated weed
management methods will be used including herbicide method alone or in combination with non-
herbicide methods (manual, mechanical and cultural) on a total of 13,814 acres. Target species include,
but are not limited to, houndstongue, burdock, scotch broom, whitetop, yellow star-thistle, Canada thistle,
field bindweed, knapweeds, leafy spurge, yellow flag iris, Dalmatian toadflax, reed canarygrass,
ribbongrass, butter and eggs and others. These invasive species pose a threat to important forest and
rangeland resources, including native riparian and grassland vegetation. Selective herbicide application
using lower-risk herbicides, such as aquatic formulations of triclopyr, imazapyr and glyphosate, can occur
up to the water’s edge. Aquatic glyphosate and aquatic imazapyr are allowed to be ground-based
broadcast sprayed within 50 feet of streams. Glyphosate, picloram and sethoxydim are not allowed to be
broadcast sprayed within 300 feet of perennial water; they may be spot-sprayed or applied by hand
between 50 feet and 300 feet of perennial water.

Treatments have been designed to reduce the adverse effects to fish, wildlife, and sensitive plant species
by implementing Project Design Features (PDFs) 1-56 and 63-97 (FSEIS, Chapter 2.4 and attached to this
ROD in Appendix 1), while utilizing the most effective means to maximize reduction of the invasive
plants targeted. Appendix A of the FSEIS describes the site-specific treatment prescriptions. PDFs will be
implemented through project design and layout, contract specifications, contract administration, and
monitoring by Forest Service officers. We find that the PDFs adequately minimize or eliminate adverse
effects in accordance with Forest Plan standards. These PDFs are the result of interdisciplinary work since
2003 and are being applied to invasive plant treatment projects across the Pacific Northwest Region of the

— Record of Decision —
Page 5 of 45



BACKGROUND

Invasive species have been declared as one the four main threats to ecosystem health (USDA Forest
Service 2003). Invasive plants are defined as “non-native plants whose introduction do or are likely to
cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health” (Executive Order 13112). Invasive
plants displace or alter native plant communities and cause long-lasting economic and ecological
problems within and outside the National Forests. Invasive plants increase fire hazard, degrade fish and
wildlife habitat, compete with and displace native plants including rare plants, impair water quality and
watershed health, and adversely affect a wide variety of other resource values such as scenic beauty and
recreational opportunities. With their strong reproductive and competitive abilities, invasive plants have
spread rapidly across the land, unimpeded by ownership or administrative boundaries. Invasive plants are
displacing native plants and degrading habitats, resulting in loss of integrity of natural areas. Existing
populations can spread into neighboring lands.

To update management direction to respond to the threat of invasive plants, the Pacific Northwest Region
published the programmatic Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program: Preventing and
Managing Invasive Plants FETS in April 2005 (USDA Forest Service 2005a). The accompanying Record
of Decision (USDA Forest Service 2005b) was published October 2005 (also referred to as the R6 2005
FEIS and ROD). The R6 2005 ROD amended all Forest Plans in the Region, adding new direction for
containing, controlling or eradicating invasive plant species using prevention practices, various
mechanical and hand treatments, and chemical treatments. The invasive plant prevention standards
include requirements for applying invasive plant practices to all land uses and activities; specifically
cleaning heavy equipment; using weed-free straw and mutch; using pelletized or certified weed free feed;
and inspecting active gravel, fill, sand stockpiles, quarry sites, and borrow material. In addition, the
Forests employ local practices to prevent the invasion and/or spread of invasive plants (See FSEIS,
Appendix G). These practices are part of the invasive plant management program and will occur
regardless of alternative selected for this project, including no action. .

The Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests currently are treating about 6 percent of the total number of
currently mapped sites (1,892) with herbicides; of the approximately 1,600 acres per year that were
treated between 2000 and 2005, about 275 acres per year were treated with herbicides. This level of
treatment is not sufficient to control invasive plants; “control” is defined in the R6 2005 FEIS as the point
when acres controlled are equal or greater than acres of spread each year (R6 2005 FEIS pp. 4-8).

Herbicides have been effective at reducing invasive plant populations to a point at which they can be hand
pulled. For example, a 5+ acre patch of yellow starthistle on the Ochoco National Forest was reduced to
1/LOth of an acre in four years (1999-2002) of spraying the site with picloram. This small site is now
annually monitored and individual plants are hand-pulled. Herbicide treatments along Highway 97, a
major thoroughfare for motor vehicles (often a vector for spread of invasive plants), have resulted in a
reduction of spotted knapweed; 78 acres were treated in year 2000 and by 2005, 8 acres needed treatment.
The number of knapweed plants on the Deschutes National Forest has been documented to be reduced
following a combination of herbicide and manual treatments (see FSEIS p. 108).

Tn contrast, manual control on large, dense weed sites has led to little change in weed density or
perimeter. For example houndstongue, a biennial species, in the Roba area of the Paulina Ranger District
(Ochoco National Forest) has been treated manually by Forest Service personnel, youth crews and
volunteers for the past 9 years. For the Roba area alone, more than 17,842 person hours have been
expended on manual control, at an approximate cost of $322,860 yet the houndstongue population
continues to expand (see FSEIS p. 108).

In 1998, there were approximately 2,024 acres occupied by invasive species on the Deschutes and
Ochoco National Forests and Crooked River National Grassland; today approximately 14,500 acres are
occupied by invasive species. Current management direction to use herbicides as a last resort (choco NF
LRMP 1998 Amendment) resulted in an emphasis on manual and biological control methods. Despite

— Record of Decision —
Page 4 of 45



Monitoring
Ongoing monitoring under the Forest Plans would continue for projects under No Action.

Forest Plan Amendment
There would be no Ochoco Forest Plan amendment. The current standards would remain unchanged.

Alternative 3
Invasive Plant Treatment

This alternative would have modified the Proposed Action to reduce the amount, type, and method of
application of herbicide used near water. No herbicides would be used within 10 feet of perennial
waterbodies and no broadcast spraying would occur within 300 feet of perennial waterbodies. Within the
current inventory, non-herbicide use would be required on approximately 260 acres within 10 feet of
perennial streams. On the approximately 1,288 acres bewteen 10 and 300 feet of streams, the use of
herbicides would be restricted to hand or spot application. These buffers would also be applied to new
detections found within 10 feet of streams and between 10 and 300 feet of streams. In addition, the use of
certain herbicides (picloram, sethoxydim, and triclopyr) would not be allowed within 300 feet of streams.

Early Detection / Rapid Response

New detections or newly inventoried invasive species sites would have been treated using the EDRR
strategy following the restrictions on treatments near water that are part of Alternative 3.

Site Restoration
Site restoration would have occurred similarly to Alternative 2.

Monitoring
Monitoring would have occurred similarly to Alternative 2.

Forest Plan Amendment
Alternative 3 would have amended the Ochoco National Forest plan similarly to Alternative 2.

Alternatives not Considered in Detail

In addition to the alternatives described above, several alternatives were developed to address issues
raised by the public (see FSEIS Chapter 2.5). The themes of these alternatives included:

Emphasize methods other than herbicides.

Use herbicides only as a “last resort.”

Do not use certain herbicides,

No broadcast spraying of herbicides,

Prohibit biological control.

Maximize worker jobs by maximizing manual treatments.
Maximize cost efficiency by maximizing herbicide use.
Focus on education and prevention rather than treatment.

Chapter 2.5 of the FSEIS provides detailed explanation why these alternatives were not fully developed
and analyzed. In most cases, the alternative did not effectively meet the purpose and need. For instance,
prohibiting herbicides, restricting use of certain herbicides, precluding broadcast spraying, maximizing
manual treatments and prohibiting biological control would reduce the tools available for effective and
efficient treatment of existing and new invasive species infestations. Maximizing herbicide use rather than
focusing herbicides on sites and situations where they would be most effective would reduce cost-
efficiency as well as increase risk of undesirable environmental effects. Focusing on education and
prevention while precluding treatment would be ineffective in reducing the established invasive plant

eoocecereeeoe

— Record of Decision —
Page 17 of 45



Forest Plan Amendment

We have decided to include a non-significant amendment to the Ochoco National Forest and Crooked
River National Grassland LRMPs. The proposed amendment removes standards that were replaced by the
management direction provided by the Pacific Northwest Region: Preventing and Managing Invasive
Plants Record of Decision (2005). Removing these standards will allow, where appropriate, careful and
targeted herbicide use as part of an integrated weed management program. The amendment also changes
two standards and guidelines of the Ochoco National Forest and Crooked River Grassland LRMPs to
allow, where appropriate, careful and targeted herbicide use to treat invasive plants as part of an
integrated weed management program. The amendment aligns the LRMPs with the standards and
guidelines adopted with the R6 Invasive Plant ROD (USFS 2005b). The specifics of this Forest Plan
amendment will be discussed in the “Findings Required by Laws and Regulations” section of this Record
of Decision.

DECISION RATIONALE

This section of the Record of Decision presents the rationale behind our choice for Alternative 2 and our
reasons for not selecting any of the other alternatives. We discuss our decision relative to purpose and
need, environmental issues, and public comments to the project. In summary, we selected Alternative 2
because it allows for the most effective treatments that will reduce acreage of invasive plants. It is the
most likely of all the alternatives to control invasive plants that are degrading areas on the Forests and
Grassland and it provides the ability to quickly respond to newly discovered invasive plant sites. The
Ochoco Forest Plan and Crooked River National Grassland Pian amendments will make these plans
consistent with the 2005 FEIS. The FSEIS displays modeled results showing that under the selected
alternative, upland target populations could be reduced by 40 percent and riparian target species. reduced
by 88 in the first five years of treatment (FSEIS pp. 111-117).

We selected Alternative 2 because it best meets the purpose of this project: contro! of invasive plants in a
cost-effective manner that complies with environmental standards (relevant laws, policies, plans).
Invasive plant treatments are needed to eradicate, control, contain, or suppress target species at
approximately 1,892 invasive plant sites (14,500 acres) on the Forests and Grassland; without effective
treatment, these sites would continue to expand as they have since 1995.

Alternative 1 was not selected because it would have provided too few options to manage invasive plants.
With few effective control methods and the small acreage of sites that would have been approved for
treatment under Alternative 1, invasive species would continue their spread across the Forests and
Grassland at an estimated increase of 8 - 12% per year. Alternative | would minimize potential herbicide
exposure to non-target plants and animals because fewer acres would be approved for herbicide use.
However, threats to these plants and animals from invasive plants would not be abated. Under Alternative
1, approximately 13,640 acres of invasives would still be untreated five years from now. This is nearly
twice as many as in the selected alternative. About 98 percent of the existing upland target populations
and about 67 percent of the riparian target populations would not be effectively treated.

Alternative 1 would not control invasive plants in a cost-effective manner, nor would it comply with
management direction for invasive plants. It would not take advantage of the advances made both in
herbicide effectiveness and safety, because it would not allow the fuil suite of herbicides approved by the
RG Invasive Plant ROD (2005b). Alternative 1 is the least effective of the alternatives (FSEIS pp. 111-
117). Invasive plants would have continued to spread within the Forests and Grassland as would the
negative effects associated with them,

— Record of Decision —
Page 7 of 45



After review of the FSEIS and project record, we have determined that no other factors or unique
circumstances affecting the Forest Plan will occur from this amendment. This is a non-significant
amendment to the Ochoco National Forest and Crooked River National Grassland Plans. Our rationale for
this finding is based on the following:

© This amendment will not make changes in management area boundaries or prescriptions, but does
represent minor changes in standards and guidelines and provides for additional management
practices that could contribute to achieving management prescriptions.

¢ The minor changes to the standards and guidelines will not alter any of the multiple use goals or
objectives outlined in the Land and Resource Management Plans for the Ochoco National Forest
or Crooked River National Grasslands. To the extent that invasive plants may adversely affect the
multiple use goals of these management areas, however, allowing for the appropriate use of
herbicides to treat invasive plant populations in these areas could contribute to achieving multiple
use goals.

© The minor changes to forest and grassland-wide standards do not change the overall intent of the
standards. The standards as written could mean that methods other than herbicides need to be
tried first on a weed site before herbicides could be used. In other words, they would be used only
as a last resort when other methods fail. That would contradict the Regional Forester’s direction
in the R6 2005 Record of Decision for the Invasive Plant Program (USFS 2005b). The Record of
Decision established that only allowing herbicides to be used as a method of last resort is
inconsistent with integrated weed management principles (R6 2005 ROD, p. 27).

The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act

Consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS,
also referred to as NOAA Fisheries) has been completed for this project. The Forest Service consulted
with these agencies during the planning process. Biological Assessments (BAs) evaluating the Proposed
Action identified actions that were determined both “not likely” and “likely” to adversely affect species
listed or proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act. In response to the BA(s), FWS and
NMES each prepared a letter of concurrence on the portions of the project they considered “not likely” to
adversely affect the species and a Biological Opinion (BO) for portions of the project they considered
“likely” to affect such species.

In their BO dated 12/14/2011, the FWS authorized incidental take of bull trout (FWS BO p. 55), and
issued the following Reasonable and Prudent measures (FWS BO p. 57), which are incorporated into
project design; the Forests and Grassland shall minimize incidental take of bull trout by:

1. Ensuring that treatment activities (from herbicides and manual/mechanical treatments)
implement precautionary measures that minimize the spread of invasive ve plants, keep
chemicals out of the water, and reduce erosion potential.

2. Reporting annual invasive plant control plans to the Service via the Level 1 Team by April 1,
prior to the start of the spray season (2012 to 2027). The plans should include the treatment
methods, herbicide application methods and rates, objectives of treatments, locations, maps of
treatment areas, acreages, proposed start and stop dates, and special mitigation measures that
will be applied.

3. Providing Project Consistency Evaluation Forms to the Service by January 31 on activities
implemented during the 2012 to 2027 seasons and the results of Regional monitoring efforts.
If no activities occur, a report of no action is still required by January 31, following each
spray season,

The following terms and conditions are non-discretionary and are incorporated into project design (see
EWS BO p. 68).

— Record of Decision —
Page 23 of 45



USDA
|
United States

Department of
Agriculture

Forest
Service

May 2012

Invasive Plant Treatments

Record of Decision

Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests,
Crooked River National Grassland

Deschutes, Jefferson, Klamath, Lake, Crook, Wheeler, and Grant Counties, Oregon

St. John’s-wort (Hypericum perforatum) on the Sisters Ranger District



As invasive plants decrease, native plants will benefit from increased available habitat. Alternative ! has
less potential for negative impacts to non-target vegetation from herbicide treatments than does the
selected alternative, as does Alternative 3, to a lesser degree; however, these alternatives would have a
corresponding decrease in treatment effectiveness (FSEIS pp. 153, 165 and 172). We find that while there
may be isolated impacts to non-target vegetation under the selected alternative, these effects would be
short-term and would not affect native plant populations, while the benefits to native plant populations
from reduction in invasive plants will be greater than the potential benefits under Alternatives | and 3.
The benefits to the sustainability of native plant populations under the selected alternative outweigh the
risk of isolated and short-term effects to non-target plants.

Effects to Soil

Alternative 2 addresses concerns about soils. The selected alternative would not result in any negative
effects to soil productivity. All three alternatives have a low risk of toxicity to soil microbes and effects to
soil productivity. The selected alternative has a lower potential for soil erosion due to treatment methods
than would either Alternative | or Alternative 3, because both Alternatives | and 3 would emphasize
manual treatments that disturb soils, while the selected alternative includes staggered herbicide and
follow-up treatments, with less soil disturbance (see FSEIS PDF #43-50, Table 18, and Soils discussion in

Chapter 3.5).
Water Quality & Aquatic Species

Alternative 2 addresses concerns about water quality and aquatic species. Members of the public are
concerned the use of herbicides in riparian areas has the potential to contaminate water and cause
mortality to fish and other aquatic species. They also expressed concern about contamination to drinking
water. Non-herbicide treatment methods also have potential for impacting water quality, fish and other
aquatic species by creating sediment, disturbing riparian structure, and removing vegetation along
streams. To respond to this issue, the selected alternative includes PDFs that protect drinking water
quality, aquatic organisms, and their habitats (see FSEIS Chapter 2.4). Domestic wells and municipal
water intakes would be buffered and there would be coordination with water users in the event herbicides

are needed.
In addition, herbicide treatment for existing sites as well as future treatment under EDRR will be subject
to an annual limit in areas adjacent to water:

© Inareas above bankfull but within the aquatic influence zone’, herbicide application is limited to
10 acres per year per 1.5 miles of stream within any 6"-field subwatershed,

© Inareas below bankfull, herbicide application is limited to | acre per year within any 6"-field
subwatershed.

The analysis demonstrated that in no case will the proposed application of any herbicide result in further
degradation of waterbodies that are categorized as water-quality limited by the Oregon DEQ (303(@)-
listed). PACFISH/INFISH and Northwest Forest Plan riparian management objectives, standards, and
guidelines would be met, The FSEIS describes how the invasive plant treatments will restore riparian
conditions where they have been degraded by invasive plant species (FSEIS pp. 209-256).

Alternative 3 would have reduced the amount of herbicide that would be used in riparian areas and
therefore there would have been less potential herbicide exposure. Alternative 2 will allow herbicide
treatment on 260 acres that would have been treated with non-herbicide methods under Alternative 3.
There would have been additional limitations under Alternative 3 resulting in slightly less risk from

? The aquatic influence zone is defined as the inner half of a riparian reserve or ‘riparian habitat conservation area on Class 1, 2, 3,
and 4 streams, lakes and wetlands.

— Record of Decision —
Page 10 of 45



(e.g. medusahead and ribbongrass) and some types of infestations (e.g. large and densely populated) are
difficult to effectively treat without the use of herbicides, to the point that non-herbicide treatments _
become counter-productive or cost-prohibitive (FSEIS pp. 61, 62, 402). Herbicides are often the only
known effective way to control, contain, or eradicate some species (FSEIS p. 106, Appendix B). The
more herbicides available for each situation, the less likely repeated treatments on the Forest will lead to
herbicide resistance (FSEIS Table 18 and p. 113, R6 2005 FEIS p. 3-93, 3-94).

In addition, by implementing effective treatments as early as possible, less treatment will eventually
become necessary and we will reduce the amount of herbicides used over time at known sites (FSEIS pp.
123, 126). Together with applying invasive plant prevention practices to projects and activities on the
Forests and Grassland, implementing the selectéd alternative will facilitate meeting Forest Plan Goal #1
for invasive plants: “Protect ecosystems from the impacts of invasive plants through an integrated
approach that emphasizes prevention, early detection, and early treatment. All employees and users of the
National Forest recognize that they play an important role in preventing and detecting invasive plants.”

Some members of the public have questioned why herbicides are a part of both action alternatives, and
why prevention practices are not prescribed for this project. As stated in the public comment responses,
new invasive plant sites have continued to spread due to several factors: 1) the lengthy NEPA process,
which allows invasive plants to increase in size making them more difficult to treat; 2) we have not had
the ability to employ an Early Detection/Rapid Response strategy that allows rapid control of newly
discovered sites while they are small and while treatment strategies would affect fewer acres; and 3) we
currently have limited ability to use the most effective tools for each species and situation. The R6 2005
ROD amended Forest Plans in Region 6 to stipulate that prevention standards and local prevention
guidelines be applied to land use projects in the planning and implementation stages. Examples of our
prevention efforts include setting up vehicle washing stations for all large wildfires, requiring timber sale
contractors to clean logging equipment before leaving roads, and requiring weed-free hay in wilderness
areas (see FSEIS Appendix G for more detail on the Forests and Grassland invasive plant prevention
practices). Prevention strategies have been employed but prevention alone has not been effective in
solving the existing invasive plant problem. More effective and efficient treatments are necessary to
eliminate existing invasive plant populations.

Actions that may be taken to prevent the spread of invasive plants relative to specific land uses are not
connected actions to this project. This project would be needed regardless of decisions made regarding
access and travel management and other activities. As shown in Table 4 of the FSEIS, about 70% of the
project areas occur along roadsides, many miles of which are major thoroughfares such as State Highways
97, 58 and 26. Vehicles travelling through the Forests and vehicles used by forest visitors are a continuing
vector of weed introduction and spread, and under all alternatives, the Forest Service will continue to use
non-herbicide methods where they are cost-effective and prevention measures will be applied to land uses
and activities according to forest plan standards (see FSEIS Appendix G).

Effects to Native Vegetation

Alternative 2 was selected because it minimizes adverse effects on native vegetation. The analysis in
Chapter 3.4 concludes the selected alternative would provide the most options for effective and efficient
treatment of invasive plants that are threatening sensitive plant populations and their habitat. PDFs
minimize or eliminate effects from treatments to sensitive and survey and manage plant species (FSEIS
pp. 52-53, 123-176; Table 34). More herbicide options provide an increased ability to select an herbicide
that has a lower risk to non-target plants of concern.

When considering invasive plant treatments, particularly the use of herbicides, there is concern over what
harm the non-target plants may incur. Culturally significant, sensitive, or survey and manage plants are of
particular concern. Different herbicides have varying degrees of potency and selectivity, and application
methods vary in the potential for off-target effects.

— Record of Decision —
Page 9 of 45



Purpose Project Design Feature

64. Do not apply imazapic to areas treated within the previous 18 months with
chlorsulfuron, metsulfuron methyl, sulfometuron methyl, or imazapyr in areas
where reseeding of susceptible species is to occur.

65. When using sulfonylurea herbicides (chlorsulfuron, metsulfuron methyl, and
sulfometuron methyl), use lowest application rates that will still be effective
and do not use within 50 feet of known Sensitive, Survey and Manage
species, and other unique plant species identified by Forest Service botanists
for protection.

To Ensure Protection of Heritage Resources

66. Do not use harrowing or discing methods in eligible or unevaluated
archaeological sites. Refer to implementation plan for avoidance measures in
specific Project Area Units.

67. Do not use prescribed burning where unevaluated or known significant
historic materials are present.

To Ensure Protection of Range Resources

68. Permittees will be made aware of annual treatment actions at the permittee
annual operating plan meetings and/or if requested, notified in advance of
spray dates.

69. Protection Buffer Widths apply to permanent water sources used for
livestock watering, such as water troughs associated with spring
developments, reservoirs, trick tanks, and other sources developed for range
use and listed as a range improvement. Temporary watering developments
such as watersets will have no restrictions except when in use and as needed
to follow label restrictions. ,

Greater than 100 feet: All treatments permitted.

100 to 10 feet: All treatments, except broadcast spraying permitted.
For herbicide treatment, use protective measures such as low-pressure
spot-spray, directed spray applications, backpack applications, and/or
protective barrier to prevent herbicide residues from impacting these
areas,

Less than 10 feet: Use selective hand application methods such as

wiping and wicking.

70. Some of the approved herbicides have use restrictions associated with
domestic livestock that will be followed on public rangelands as listed in
Grazing Restrictions Table, Appendix D

Source/Comments

To avoid damage to non-
target plans, Label caution
states “for the previous year”.
18 months provides higher
level of protection,

To protéct non-target
vegetation from drift effects
including wind erosion. More
conservative than Mars et al
(1989).

To protect cultural resources.

To protect cultural resources.

The range label restrictions
are included in herbicide
info table (Appendix D to
the R6 FEIS),

The measure will also
protect wildlife that may use

stock watering sources.

Label restrictions.

— Record of Decision —
Page 42 of 45



IMPLEMENTATION DATE

This project is expected to start in 2012 and run for fifteen years, depending on funding, environmental
changes, and other factors. Minor changes may be needed during implementation to better meet on-site
resource management and protection objectives. In determining whether and what kind of further NEPA
action is required, the Responsible Official will consider the criteria for whether to supplement an existing
Environmental Impact Statement in 40 CFR 1502.9(c) and FSH 1909.15, sec. 18, and in particular,
whether the proposed change is a substantial change to the intent of the Selected Alternative as planned
and already approved, and whether the change is relevant to environmental concerns. Connected or
interrelated proposed changes regarding particular areas or specific activities will be considered together
in making this determination. The cumulative impacts of these changes will also be considered.

Appendix F of the FSEIS displays the implementation plan that will guide site-specific treatments
covered under this decision.

CONTACT

For additional information concerning the specific activities authorized with my decision, you may
contact: Deb Mafera, (541)416-6500. Additional information is also available on the project website at:

http://fs.usda.gov/goto/centraloregon/invasive-plants-projects.

2 -2.-2Zoj2—

Date

Kate. Co Sa] 12
Kate Klein Date

Forest Supervisor
Ochoco National Forest and Crooked River National Grassland

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, S.W., Washington, D.C, 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is
an equal opportunity provider and employer.

— Record of Decision —
Page 30 of 46


Of the alternatives considered, Alternative 2 best balances NEPA’s goals of: 1) attaining the widest range
of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable
and unintended consequences; and 2) preserving important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our
national heritage, and maintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity, and variety
of individual choice. Our rationale for selecting the Proposed Action is as follows:

e Allows the most effective invasive plant treatments of the 1,892 invasive plant sites to remove
and/or reduce invasive plant infestations and to allow the opportunity for native plants to
revegetate the treatment areas;

e Permits the most effective invasive plant treatments of newly discovered/newly inventoried
invasive plant infestations under the Early Detection/Rapid Response strategy (EDRR) which
ensures that invasive plants can be treated quickly and efficiently in the future;

e Complies with the goals and objectives of the Deschutes & Ochoco Land and Resource
Management Plans (Forest Plans) and the Crooked River National Grassland Land and Resource
Management, Plan; and,

¢ Reflects consideration of the comments expressed by the public agencies, state and local
governments, Tribes, and members of the interdisciplinary team.

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW (APPEAL) OPPORTUNITIES

This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to 36 CFR'215. The 45-day appeal period begins the day
following the date the legal notice of this decision is published in The Bulletin, Bend, Oregon. Only
individuals or organizations that submitted comments during the 45-day comment periods (beginning
February 2, 2007 and June 10, 2009) may appeal. Notices of appeal must meet the requirements of 36
CFR 215.14, Appeals can be submitted in several forms, but must be received by the Appeal Deciding
Officer, Regional Forester, within 45 days from the date of publication of notice of the decision in The
Bulletin, Bend, OR. Appeals may be:

1). Mailed to: Appeal Deciding Officer, Pacific Northwest Region, USDA Forest Service, Attn. 1570
Appeals, PO Box 3623, Portland, OR 97208-3623;

2) Emailed to: appeals-pacificnorthwest-regional-office @fs.fed.us. Please put APPEAL and the
project name in the subject line. Electronic appeals must be submitted as part of an actual e-mail
message, or as an attachment in Microsoft Word (.doc), rich text format (.rtf), or portable document
format (.pdf) only. E-mails submitted to addresses other than the ones listed above or in formats other
than those listed above or containing viruses will be rejected. It is the responsibility of the appellant to
confirm receipt of appeals submitted by electronic mail. For electronically mailed appeals, the sender
should normally receive an automated electronic acknowledgement from the agency as confirmation
of receipt. If the sender does not receive an automated acknowledgement of the receipt of the appeal,
it is the sender’s responsibility to ensure timely receipt by other means;

3) Delivered to: Pacific Northwest Regional Office, 333 S.W. First Avenue, Robert Duncan Plaza
Building, Portland, Oregon 97204-3440 between 7:45 AM and 4:30 PM, Monday through Friday
except legal holidays; or

4) Faxed to: Regional Forester, Attn; 1570 APPEALS at (503) 808-2339.

~~ Record of Decision —
Page 29 of 45



Forest Service. The PDFs are based on previous invasive plant treatment projects, field experience,
consultation with regulatory agencies, and scientific reasoning (Desser 2008). Table 32 in the FSEIS
describes how the PDFs would minimize or eliminate effects to non-target plants. Herbicides and
surfactants will be used at rates low enough, or methods selective enough, to avoid exposures over a
threshold of concern for human health (see FSEIS Chapter 3.8).

Early Detection / Rapid Response

We have decided to authorize the treatment of new and/or previously unanalyzed detections using the
EDRR strategy. We have decided to include EDRR in our decision because it will allow us the flexibility
to treat new invasive plant infestations before they become large, therefore reducing the time and cost
associated with treatment as well as the potential damage to the ecosystem from the new infestation.
Mehta (2007) found that early detection and rapid response increases managers’ chances to successfully
restore invasive plant sites, which supports our decision. EDRR will be applied in cases where a review
team determines that environmental effects ate consistent with those disclosed in the FSEIS, as described

in Appendix F of the FSEIS.

Site Restoration

Each invasive plant site has a restoration objective, which is part of the long-term strategy to reduce
inyasive plants and to reduce the need for herbicide treatments in the future. Passive restoration assumes
the treatment area will revegetate from existing non-invasive vegetation without active work such as
mulching, planting, or seeding; passive restoration is also assumed on road shoulders or other areas that
do not require revegetation. Active restoration is proposed in certain site-specific instances and those are
described in‘FSEIS Appendix A, Table A-3. Appendix E of the FSEIS provides guidelines for
revegetation planning. .

Monitoring

Monitoring for this project is defined by national policy and Forest Plan guidance. Forest Service policy
requires annual reporting of treatment effectiveness in the Forest Activity Tracking System (FACTS)
database. FACTS protocols require at least half of all treatment areas to be visited and treatment
effectiveness and efficacy reported. This means that each site may be visited several times in the event
that repeated treatments are needed.

The R6 2005 ROD Monitoring Framework (R6 2005 ROD Attachment 2) includes implementation /
compliance and effectiveness monitoring components. Documentation regarding compliance may be
reviewed as part of the regional framework. In addition, high risk projects may be monitored during
operations. The Regional Monitoring Framework will be applied as directed by the Terms and Conditions
listed in the Biological Opinions from the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine
Fisheries Service, as described in the “Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations” section of this
ROD. Details of the Monitoring Framework are found in the 2005 R6 FEIS Chapter 2 and Appendix M,
the R6 Invasive Plant Monitoring Plan (2011) and FSEIS Appendix F.

In addition, changes to upland and riparian native plant communities following treatment will be observed
over time. Changes in plant non-target species composition and abundance will be specifically
documented in Research Natural Areas treated under this decision.

Frequency and extent of monitoring would depend on annual funding, with the top priority issues and
treatment sites being accomplished first. Monitoring required by this decision is included in current
funding estimates described in Chapter 3.10.

— Record of Decision —
Page 6 of 45



Scope

¢ On the Forest, invasive plants generally occur in open, disturbed areas that are not habitat for
Survey & Manage species. Survey & Manage species are closely associated with late-
successional or old-growth forests (USDA, USDI 2001). Invasive plants on the Forest most often
occur where soils are disturbed and often highly compacted, such as road shoulders; these areas
are not typical habitats occupied by Survey & Manage species. There are about 82,504 acres of
old growth forests in the NWEP area on the Deschutes National Forest. Of these 82,504 acres,
1,899 acres of old growth are scattered across 48 Invasive Plant Project Area Units (invasive
plants occupy 327 acres in these 48 PAUs). Invasive plant infestations within or adjacent to old-
growth habitats are small, patchy and scattered and do not occur in large continuous blocks.
Treatment of small patches is unlikely to disturb survey and manage species because of the low
likelihood of overlap between small scattered patches of weeds and the presence of Survey and

Manage species.

* Invasive plants do not provide the essential native habitat components that sustain Survey and
Manage populations. Some invasive plants may harm or degrade habitat components needed by
Survey and Manage species.

¢ Invasive plant treatments would not remove or degrade late-successional or old-growth forest
habitats.

Intensity

¢ Herbicide treatment caps further limit the scope and scale of treatments. There is a 16,000-acre
yearly treatment cap for the entire project area (two Forests and the Grassland). Herbicide
treatment (for existing sites as well as future treatment under EDRR) is further subject to an
annual limit for areas adjacent to water: for treatments above bankfull, but still within the aquatic
influence zone, herbicide application is limited to 10 acres per year per 1.5 miles of stream,
within any 6"-field subwatershed. Treatments below bankfull would be restricted to 1 acre per
year within any 6"-field subwatershed. The aquatic influence zone is defined as the inner half of a
riparian reserve or riparian habitat conservation area on Class 1, 2, 3, and 4 streams and lakes and

wetlands.

¢ Herbicide treatments are limited to hand application within 50 feet of water, which minimizes
potential impacts to Survey and Manage species.

¢ Herbicide and manual treatments are often repeated in the same year to eradicate individual plants
missed by earlier treatments. Herbicide treatments would likely be repeated several years in a row
until the invasive plant population is controlled. The amount of herbicide used at each site each
year would be reduced as the invasive plant population is controlled.

© Treatment of invasive plants would not be habitat-disturbing or likely to have a significant
negative impact on the Crater Lake tightcoil, regardless of treatment method or alternative. The
Crater Lake tightcoil may be found in perennially moist situations within 10 meters (m.) of open
water. Riparian habitats in the Eastern Oregon Cascades that are suitable for this species are often
much less than 10 m. from open water. Treatments of any type greater than 10 m. from surface or
perennial water, including the broadcast application of herbicide would not be habitat-disturbing
and would have no effect to the Crater Lake tightcoil. Invasive plants that are found in
perennially wet areas include reed canary grass and ribbongrass. These species are located in
areas that are seasonally flooded (spring run-off and high water events) and have large
fluctuations in water level. These areas are unsuitable as habitat for the Crater Lake tightcoil, The
other invasive plants to be treated within 10 m. of water are found in disturbed habitats that
generally have lower soil moistures that also render these areas unsuitable for the Crater Lake

— Record of Decision —
Page 20 of 45



Purpose

29.

29.1

29.2

30.

31.

32.

33,

34.

35.

Project Design Feature

Public Health / Other Drinking Water Sources

No herbicide will be applied within 100 feet of a known domestic wells or
200 feet of a domestic spring box. No broadcast application of herbicides or
use of picloram or clopyralid wiil occur within 200 feet of a known domestic
well.

Well and spring box locations needing field verification will be delineated
before herbicides are applied within 0.25 mile of approximate point of use.
The no herbicide use area for springs may be adjusted to reflect the field
verified recharge area.

Invasive plant treatments would not occur adjacent to waterbodies during
Public Health Advisory periods for blue-green algae.

The special use permit holder or agency department of record (e.g. recreation
or facilities) responsible for the well or spring box will be notified prior to
application of herbicides and will mark the diversion point so it can be
avoided by the applicator and permittee can modify their use if so desired.

Public Health / Recreation or other High Use Sites

High use areas, including administrative sites, developed campgrounds,
visitor centers, and trailheads would be posted in advance of herbicide
application or closed. Areas of potential conflict would be prominently
marked on the ground or otherwise posted. Postings would indicate the date
of treatments, the herbicide used, Forest Service contact information, and
when the areas may be reentered.

When possible and treatment will still be effective, timing of treatments
within high use recreation sites will avoid the normal high use period between
June 15 and September 15, (peak use is in July and August).

For herbicide use within 100 feet of high-use recreation sites, selective
application methods at typical or lower rates of application will be used.

Gathering areas, campgrounds, and administrative sites may be closed during
and immediately after triclopyr application to eliminate accidental exposures.
Extent of closure would be dependent on nature of herbicide used.

Limit the number of people, machineries, the number of entries, and by using,
light-weight machinery within 100 feet of recreation sites.

Source/Comments

To respond to public concern.
Based on label advisories and
other state drinking water
regulations.

To prevent accidental
overspray of domestic wells
and springs.

To respond to public concern.
Based on advisories and
other state water regulations,

To ensure users are informed
and implementation follows
PDF #29.

Reduces conflicts and
ensures no inadvertent public
contact with herbicides.

To reduce conflicts with
forest users,

To reduce drift in areas of
high use.

To reduce conflicts with
forest users.

To reduce impacts to
recreation areas by
minimizing trampling and
soil disturbance and visual
impacts.

Public Health / Special Forest Products Including Cultural Use Plants

— Record of Decision —
Page 37 of 45



Purpose

36.

37.

38.

39,

Al.

Project Design Feature

Do not apply NPE surfactant at any rate greater than 0.5 Ib a.i./acre in known
areas of wild food collection. Favor other classes of surfactants wherever they
are expected to be effective.

In areas of known special forest products or other wild foods collection
application of triclopyr will be limited to direct application to target
vegetation only; do not exceed FS typical rate (1.0 cre); favor sait/acid
formulation of triclopyr over the este formulation of triclopyr wherever it is
expected to be effective.

Peak seasons would be avoided when possible (PDF 41), and known cultural
plant gathering sites, popular berry and mushroom picking areas would be
posted or otherwise marked where treatment with herbicides is occurring
during harvest season. , .

Special forest product gathering areas may be closed for a period of time to
minimize inadvertent public contact with herbicide.

Special forest product gatherers would be notified about current herbicide
treatment areas when applying for their permits. Such information would be
provided in multi-lingual formats depending on the known clientele for the
forest.

Do not use herbicides where cultural use plants are present during their
season of collection, where possible (mostly spring and-early summer for root
plants and late summer to fall for berries). Fiber and medicinal plants may
have different harvest seasons. This measure applies to known collecting
areas.

Annually consult with Native American Indian tribes so members can be
notified prior to gathering cultural plants. When plants are identified by
tribes, buffer as for botanical special status species.

To Protect Soils, Water Quality, Fisheries and Aquatic Organisms

42.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) Guidelines for Timing of
In-Water Work Periods will be followed or negotiated with ODFW for
pulling invasive plants located below the bankfull channel or ordinary high
water mark. The ODFW in-water work timing guidelines can be found at:
http:/Avww.dfw.state. or.us/lands/inwater.

Source/Comments

‘To protect public/worker
health. Rate is below
thresholds of concern for
workers, the public, fish, and
other aquatic organisms; rate
based on results of USFS
2003 Risk Assessment.

To eliminate scenarios where
people could be exposed to
harmful doses of triclopyr.

From Appendix Q of R6
2005 FEIS. Eliminates any
scenario where people may
be exposed to herbicide.

To eliminate scenarios where
people could be exposed,

To ensure no inadvertent
public contact with herbicide.

To ensure no inadvertent
public contact with herbicide
occurs and so that cultural
use plants are fully protected.

To reduce potential for
causing negative impacts to
fish and fish habitat, In-water
work periods are designed to
protect spawning fish or eggs
incubating in the stream.

— Record of Decision —
Page 38 of 45



b) Use the NMFS Public Consultation Tracking System - Consultation Initiation and Reporting
System (CIRS), when this online system becomes available, and the Forests’ staff have been
trained to use it, to enter the information described in 3(a) above.

c) Require that site-specific information be recorded by each applicator for treatment sites that
may affect MCR steelhead, including the following information:

i. GPS locations of treatment areas in riparian areas, streams, and roadside ditches that
may affect MCR steelhead and their critical habitat. Include names and USGS codes
of 6th field HUC(s) that are treated.

ii. |The number of acres treated within the aquatic influence zone.
iii, |The number of acres treated at or below bankfull elevation.
iv. The number of feet of wet or dry intermittent stream channels and roadside ditches
treated with herbicide.
vy, | The GPS locations and sizes of emergent plant treatment areas. /
vi. The product names and herbicide formulations used, including mixtures, adjuvants
and surfactants.
vii. The herbicide application rate.
viii. | The herbicide application method.
r Estimated wind speed at time of application.
Description of meteorological conditions.
d) Annually report to NMFS by February 28, following the end of each spray season for the
duration of this Opinion (2012-2027 spray seasons), the results of the reporting requirements
described in term and condition 3, and the following information:
i. A list of herbicide applications conducted over the reporting period, including
information requested in 3(c) above.
ii, The results of the previous years’ monitoring program.
iii. | The annual report shall be sent to:

National Marine Fisheries Service

Oregon State Habitat Office

Attn: 2009/03048

1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., Suite 1100

Portland, OR 97232

e) Comply with the requirements of the USFS Region 6 invasive plant monitoring plan. The
Forests should conduct a data review of the pesticides that are proposed for use, or may be
used, on the Forests each year. The review should include:

i. Any new scientific data regarding non-target fish species effects or environmental
fate, including peer-reviewed studies and other forms of scientific evidence that may
be relevant to Pacific salmon and steelhead.

ii. Any changes to EPA-approved pesticide labels (ESA-related and other).

iii, | Any new-legal findings relevant to the use of pesticides.

The National Historic Preservation Act

” State Historic Preservation Office consultation has been conducted under the Programmatic Agreement
among the USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, and the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) regarding Cultural Resources
Management in the State of Oregon by the USDA Forest Service (2004). PDFs require avoidance of
impacts to any historic properties or potential historic properties. The Oregon SHPO has received our
determination of “no effect” for the action alternatives. Actions with the potential to impact heritage
resources under EDRR will be reviewed for effects in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement.

— Record of Decision —
Page 26 of 45



TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY...
BACKGROUND...

DECISION......
DECISION RATIONALE...
PUBLIC INVOLVEMEN
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS

THE ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE .....
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW (APPEAL) OPPORTUNITIES...

IMPLEMENTATION DATE
CONTACT ..ssssesseees
LITERATURE CITED......
APPENDIX 1, PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES...

— Record of Decision —
Page 2 of 45



Purpose Project Design Feature
Yellow Rail

84, At known breeding sites, no disturbance between May 15 and September, 15,
unless local biologist evaluates sites to modify permitted disturbance dates.

85. Do not use NPE-based surfactants in known breeding or foraging areas.

Pygmy Rabbit

86. Activities in’ suitable burrowing habitat for pygmy rabbits will be restricted to
one or two persons within suspected burrow areas, no heavy equipment, and
manual or herbicide techniques only.

87. Do not use NPE-based surfactants in areas where pygmy rabbits may forage.
(Consult District Wildlife Biologist)

Raptors and Great Blue Heron

88. Active nest sites should be protected from disturbance above ambient levels
during the dates specified. Local biologist will determine appropriate
distances for planned operations prior to implementation.

* Golden eagle February 1 — August 15
° Osprey April 1 — August 31

© Red-tail hawk March 1 — August 31

* Northern goshawk = March 1 - August 31

¢ Cooper’s hawk April 15 ~ August 31

¢ Sharp-shinned hawk April 15 - August 31

© Prairie falcon March | — August |

* Great gray owl March 1 — June 30

* Great blue heron March | - August 31

To Protect Air Quality

89. All prescribed burning operations would be coordinated with the Oregon
State Department of Environmental Quality and the Oregon State Department
of Forestry through the State of Oregon smoke management program.

90. Burn areas adjacent to private land would be patrolled following ignition and
daily thereafter until the prescribed fire manager determines there is no threat
to private land.

91, Site-specific information (including fuels loads) about all prescribed burning

units would be entered into the State of Oregon’s regional smoke
management database, along with observations of environmental conditions
taken during burn implementation. This information would be used to
determine the amount of emissions produced, and ensure compliance with
Oregon smoke management guidelines and the annual limitation on emissions
entered into with the other Oregon Blue Mountain Forests.

Source/Comments

To avoid disturbing nesting
birds of crushing nests or
eggs. Source: Popper & Stern
2000; J. Kittrell, pers. comm.

To eliminate risk of
exposure. Source: BE for
Des/Och Invasive Plant
FSEIS.

To minimize chances of
burrow collapse from
individuals walking in
burrow areas, Source:
professional judgment.

To eliminate risk of
exposure. Source: BE for
Des/Och Invasive Plant
FSEIS.

To minimize or eliminate
disturbance to nesting raptors
and herons. Source:
Deschutes LRMP.

State requirement

Standard precaution for
prescribed burning

State requirement

— Record of Decision —
Page 45 of 45



Purpose Project Design Feature

To Protect Wildlife

Northern Spotted Owl

71. _ Disturbing work activities (i.e, chainsaw, heavy equipment, etc) will not
take place within 1/4 mile of the nest site or activity center of all known
pairs or resident singles between March | and September 30. If
activities occur within the nesting period, further consultation is
required. The boundary of the 1/4-mile area may be modified by the
District Wildlife Biologist based on topographic breaks or other site-
specific information (generally, a 125-acre area will be protected). This
condition may be waived in a particular year if nesting or reproductive
success surveys reveal that spotted owls are non-nesting or that no
young are present that year. Waivers are valid only until March 1 of the
following year.

Please note: there is no seasonal restriction on the use of roadside
broadcast sprayers, as they fall within ambient noise levels,

Source/Comments

To minimize or eliminate
disturbance as required by the
Programmatic BA (USFS
2010); distance is known to
reduce sound levels and
therefore disturbance.

Source: Livezey 2003, USFS
2010.

Disturbance/disruption distances for Northern spotted owls during the breeding period (March 1 — September 30):

gisturbance Disruption Distances
Activit; i i Spotted owl Remainder of the
" (Men epee critical breeding | spotted owl breeding
September 30) period (March 1 period
P ~ July 15) (July 16 — September 30)
Use of i
Chainsaws 440 yards (0.25 mile) | 65 yards 0 yards
Use of heavy 7
equipment 440 yards (0.25 mile) | 35 yards 0 yards

A.

Northern Bald Eagle

72. Invasive plant treatment activities that cause disturbance in excess of
base levels that were occurring in 2001 will not take place within 1/4
mile non line-of-sight or 1/2 mile line-of-sight of known bald eagle
nests between January | and August 31. This condition may be waived
in a particular year if nesting or reproductive success surveys reveal that
bald eagles are non-nesting or that no young are present that year.
Waivers are valid only until January | of the following year.

73, Project activities that have potential to disturb bald eagle winter roosts,
shall be restricted within 1200 ft of the roosting area from November |
to April 30th.

Greater Sage Grouse

Do not use glyphosate or NPE-based surfactants in areas where sage grouse
may forage (consult with District wildlife biologist). Limit the application
rate of glyphosate to the typical rate of 2 Ibs a.i./acre

‘To minimize or eliminate
disturbance as required by
Programmatic BA (USFS
2006f) and National Bald Eagle
Guidelines (USFWS 2007).

To minimize or eliminate
disturbance. Source:
Programmatic BA (USFS
20068).

To eliminate risk of
exposure. Biologist consult is
to determine areas where
grouse forage. Source: BE for
Des/Och Invasive Plant
FSEIS

— Record of Decision —
Page 43 of 45



Under Alternative 2, there could be short term effects (1-2 growing seasons) of dead vegetation along
access and transportation corridors, Short periods of interaction between recreationists and weed-control
crews and temporary closures of recreation sites during herbicide application work are possible. These
periods would have been slightly increased in Alternative 3 especially where manual treatments would
have taken the place of herbicide treatments (e.g. on 260 acres within 10 feet of streams). However, under
No Action, without effective treatments, invasive plants could alter the scenic pattern, form and texture of
the landscape.

Congressionally Designated Areas

Wilderness: There are three PAUs within or partly within designated Wilderness on the Ochoco
National Forest (Mill Creek and Black Canyon Wilderness Areas); no PAUs are located within
Wilderness on the Deschutes NF. Only manual treatments will be implemented within Wilderness
boundaries; however, herbicide treatment will be used outside the Black Canyon Wilderness boundary at
the trailhead. Additional herbicide and manual treatments will be implemented along roads that are
parallel to Wilderness boundaries on the Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests. Due to the presence of
invasive species along Wilderness trails and at a trailhead, as well as the proximity of additional
populations near Wilderness areas, there is a risk of spread of invasives into Wilderness areas. Treatments
implemented under the selected alternative will reduce this risk, as well as eradicate existing populations
and preserve Wilderness values. A visitor’s sense of solitude may be affected by the short-term presence
of a person manually removing invasives within Wilderness; however, project design features will
minimize this risk due to signage and implementing treatments outside of high-use periods. The same
treatments would have been implemented under Alternative 3. The No Action alternative would preclude
any treatments in Wilderness areas and most of the treatments outside and adjacent to Wilderness, except
those approved in previous decisions use in wilderness; therefore, Alternative 1 would maintain existing
populations and increase the risk of introduction (see FSEIS pp. 482-484).

Oregon Cascades Recreation Area: Cultural and manual methods will occur in the selected alternative
to treat invasive plants, having short-term effects to the recreation experience from reed canarygrass
solarization control techniques and resulting dead patches of vegetation, Alternative 3 would have been
similar. Under No Action, reed canarygrass and other species would continue to spread within Big Marsh,
and this alternative poses the greatest threat to the goals established for the area, and its unique values.

Wild and Scenic Rivers: Herbicide treatments may have short-term effects to scenic values, however
Alternative 2 will have a long-term benefit to native plant communities and associated scenic values.
Alternative 3 would have had slightly less benefit due to less effective treatments. No Action would have
continued the risk of affecting the Outstanding and Remarkable Values (ORV) for all Wild and Scenic
Rivers in the project area, from continued spread of invasive plants.

Research Natural Areas: Under both action alternatives, herbicide use would occur within the Ochoco
Divide RNA. There would be minor, short-term effects to native vegetation from herbicide use and a
long-term benefit to maintaining natural conditions by controlling weeds on adjacent roads, and by
implementing EDRR. Under No Action, Research Natural Areas would continue to be at risk from spread

of invasive plants.

Newberry Crater Voleanic Monument: Under both action alternatives, herbicide use is proposed along
major access roads to the Monument and the 10-mile Sno-Park would have short-term visual effects.

PuBLic INVOLVEMENT

The NEPA scoping process (40 CFR 1501.7) was used to invite public participation, refine the scope of
this project, and identify preliminary issues to be addressed. The Forest Service sought information,
comments, and assistance from Federal, State, and local agencies, the tribes, and other groups and
individuals interested in or affected by the Proposed Action. The scoping process began on February 23,

— Record of Decision —
Page 13 of 45



‘The scoping input received on the original and supplement EIS was used to develop the alternatives and
analysis elements that form the basis for the DSEIS. The DSEIS included additional analysis and sought
to better explain the alternatives and analysis.

On June 10, 2009 a letter was sent to 89 individuals, organizations, tribes, and other agencies asking for
comments on the DSEIS; Alternative 2 was identified as the preferred alternative. On June 26, 2009, the
Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement appeared in
the Federal Register Volume 74, No. 122 on p. 30570; publication of the NOA initiated the 45-day

. comment period.

The results of the 45-day public comment period are described in Appendix J of this Final SEIS; the
Forest Service received 19 responses. The majority of comments expressed concern for effects on human
health and non-target species from toxicity of herbicides and the effectiveness of treatment methods. The
comments expressed concern about impacts to forest workers; those who use the forest; and the forest
environment, including wildlife, soils, water, and aquatic biota. Many comments focused on the types of
herbicides and where to use them. Comments generated from this public input resulted in additional
analysis in the FSEIS to clarify and augment the analysis disclosed in the DSEIS and additional
restrictions on the use of particular herbicides on porous or shallow soils to better protect groundwater.

One individual wrote two comment letters expressing concern about glyphosate and other herbicides
proposed, Many website and other citations were provided in the letters. The websites and reports were
reviewed; generally they provided information that was consistent with information already included in
the Invasive Plant Treatments analysis and provided no new information; for a more complete review of
these websites and citations, see Appendix J in the FSEIS.

Another commenter expressed the opinion that herbicide use should be severely restricted and only used
as a last resort, aiid not applied on National Forest System lands because they provide habitat for wildlife
and fish. This alternative was considered as discussed in the FSEIS (p. 63). The commenter also
expressed concern with the implementation plan and the ability of the Forest Service to adequately apply
PDEs to site-specific situations so that impacts are minimized, Appendix F was modified in response to
this comment to demonstrate how PDFs would be applied to a difficult and complex site-specific
situation; a representative site was visited by the commenter and weed specialists from the Forest Service

and state agencies.

An issue expressed by one commenter is the relationship between invasive plant prevention practices
during land uses and actions needed to control invasive plants. Integrated invasive plant management
includes invasive plant prevention practices (FSEIS Appendix G). Prevention is an important component
of invasive plant management and integral to implementing successful treatments. The R6 2005 ROD
amended Forest Plans in Region 6 and stipulated that prevention standards and local prevention

- guidelines be applied to land use projects in the planning and implementation stages. While some
members of the public suggested that site specific application of prevention standards should be the focus
of this EIS, these are not connected actions because they could occur regardless of the treatments
proposed or approved (separate utility). Prevention activities are applied to land use activities considered

in the cumulative effects analysis.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

In addition to the selected alternative, I considered two other alternatives, which are discussed below.
Alternative 2 is the environmentally preferred alternative. A more detailed comparison of these
alternatives can be found in the FSEIS on pp. 66-74.

— Record of Decision —
Page 15 of 45



RECORD OF DECISION
INVASIVE PLANT TREATMENTS
U.S. FOREST SERVICE

DESCHUTES AND OCHOCO NATIONAL FORESTS AND CROOKED RIVER
NATIONAL GRASSLAND

CROOK, DESCHUTES, GRANT, JEFFERSON, KLAMATH, LAKE AND
WHEELER COUNTIES, OREGON

— Record of Decision —
Page 1 of 45



Purpose

21.
22.

23.

24,

26.

27.

28.

Project Design Feature

Estimate and limit the daily quantity of herbicides to be transported to
treatment sites.

Spray equipment would be calibrated prior to seasonal start-up and
periodically throughout the season to assure accuracy in applications.

Minimize traffic in riparian reserves/RHCAs where appropriate.

Exact fueling sites will be identified prior to implementation of the project,
and would be at least 150 feet from lakes, wetlands, or stream channels,

Some sites may only be reached by water or by crossing streams on foot. The
following measures would be used to prevent a spill during water transport.
e. Herbicide would be carried in | gallon or smaller plastic containers,
The containers would be wrapped in plastic bags and then sealed in a
dry-bag. The dry bag would be secured to the watercraft.
¢ Personnel applying herbicide by hand or with a backpack sprayer, or
personnel manually pulling or grubbing invasive plants, would avoid,
to the extent possible, standing or walking in wetted streams or other
water bodies. .

Public Health / Public Notification

The public would be notified about upcoming herbicide treatments via the
local newspaper, Forest Service website, fliers, individual notification, or
posting signs,

Public Health / Municipal Watersheds

Broadcast application of herbicides will not occur in municipal watersheds
without consulting the water agency/association. Herbicide application will
be to individual plants by spot spraying, stem injection, wicking or wiping.
Invasive species treatments other than manual (hand pulling) and biological
(insects) will be coordinated with the municipal department in charge of the
water system.

Herbicides will not be applied within 100 feet of the municipal water intake
or within 100 feet of the stream for the first 600 feet above the intake.

Source/Comments

To reduce potential for large
spills.

To ensure proper application
of herbicide.

To minimize trampling,
protect riparian habitat, and
prevent potential invasive
plant spread in riparian areas,
RR/RHCA widths
incorporates the aquatic
influence zone.

To minimize risk of fuel
entering water. The 150°
width incorporates the
aquatic influence zone.

To reduce potential for spill
in water.

Standard #23, R6 2005 ROD.

To ensure no inadvertent
public contact with
herbicides.

To ensure neighbors are
informed; meet requirements
of existing municipal
agreements.

To respond to public concern.
Herbicide use as proposed for
this project would not
contaminate drinking water
supplies,

— Record of Decision —
Page 36 of 45



1. The following terms and conditions are necessary for the implementation of RPM 1:

Ensure vehicles and equipment do not transport invasive plant materials,

Ensure that treatments below bankfull are conducted during the instream work window.

Do not use any products other than those products evaluated in this Biological Opinion.

Ensure that herbicide application methods are more restrictive in proximity to water.

Herbicide applicators will obtaina weather forecast for the area prior to applying

herbicides to ensure no imminent precipitation or wind events are likely to occur during

or immediately after spraying.

f. No broadcast of high aquatic risk herbicides on roads that have a high risk of delivery to
water (generally roads in RHCAs). These herbicides are picloram, non-aquatic triclopyr
(Garlon 4), non-aquatic glyphosate, and sethoxydim.

g. Ensure that foaming only be used on invasive plants that are further than 150 feet from
streams and other water bodies.

eaegse

2. The following terms and conditions are necessary for the implementation of RPM 2:

a. Present annual invasive plant treatment plans with the Level | team, including treatment
methods, herbicide application methods and rates, objectives of treatments, locations,
maps of treatment areas, acreage, proposed start and completion dates, sensitive areas,
and special mitigation for activities involving herbicides by April 1, prior to the spray
season. We recognize that not all treatments under the EDRR program may be identified
prior to April 1. Actions under EDRR should be submitted in the Project Consistency
Evaluation Forms to the Forest Level 1 representatives by November L, as stated in the
biological assessment. PCEFs will be compiled and submitted to the Service by January
31st each year. The pre-project reporting requirement will commence prior to initiation of
treatments in 2012; will follow for each subsequent spraying season on April 1; and will
end for this consultation on December 31, 2027. The annual invasive plant treatment
plans should contain the following information for projects planned in bull trout core area
watersheds:

Location: 6th field HUC, 12 digit code, and name

Timing: Anticipated project start and dates

Treatment/Restoration Type: Identify all proposed activity types that apply.

iv. Project Description: Brief narrative of the project and objectives

y. Extent: Number of stream miles or acres of below-bankfull treatments, and number
of riparian acres to be treated.

vi. Species Affected: Listed fish-and or wildlife species or critical habitat effected by
the project.

3. The following terms and conditions are necessary for the implementation of RPM 3:

a. Using the format of the PCEF in Appendix E of the biological assessment, annually
report to the Service by January 31, following the end of each spray season for the
duration of this Opinion (2012 to 2027 spray seasons), the results of the project
implementation and results of Regional monitoring efforts for projects implemented in
bull trout core area watersheds:

Timing: Actual project start and end dates

Deshutes/Ochoco NF contact information: Project lead name

Post-project assessment: Report the results of monitoring efforts completed under

the Regional Monitoring Framework. Send reports to the USFWS Bend Field

Office, 63095 Deschutes Matket Road, Bend, OR 97701.

iv. The National Marine Fisheries Service also completed an essential fish habitat
(EFH) consultation, prepared in accordance with section 305(b)(2) of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) (16
U.S.C. 1801, et seq.) and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600 (BIOP p. 58).

— Record of Decision —
Page 24 of 45





LITERATURE CITED

Desser, R. 2008. Source and effectiveness of project design features/criteria for herbicide use in invasive
plant treatment projects. Forest Service Region Six.

LaVergne, S, and J. Molofsky. 2004. Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) as a biological model in
the study of plant invasions. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 23(5).4 15-429,

Mehta, S.V., R.G. Haight, F.R. Homans, S, Polasky, and R.C. Venette. 2007. Optimal detection and
control strategies for invasive species management. Ecol, Econ. 61:237-245.

USDA Forest Service. 2005a. Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants Final Environmental Impact
Statement. Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program.

USDA Forest Service. 2005b. Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants Final Environmental Impact
Statement: Record of Decision. Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program.

— Record of Decision —
Page 32 of 45



Purpose

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

Project Design Feature

Within TES and Survey and Manage plant populations, prior to herbicide
treatments where there are potential effects from the herbicide, a USDA
Forest Service Botanist will identify the steps that need to be taken to protect
these plants. This may involve avoiding these plant populations or individuals
(i.e., identify/map areas around TES plant populations that must be avoided,
or flag individual plants), and/or altering treatments (¢.g., switching from
herbicide to manual treatments within and adjacent to a TES plant
population). Forest Service Botanists will work closely with herbicide
applicators to ensure project design features are implemented, will monitor
and document the results, and use adaptive management to refine treatments
as needed to adequately protect TES and Survey and Manage plants.

For manual treatments within TES and Survey and Manage plant populations,
a Forest Service Botanist will instruct workers in the proper identification of
plant species to be avoided and will monitor the manual treatments to ensure
that individual TES plants are protected.

Forest Service Botanists will determine if buffers are needed to protect TES
and Survey and Manage plant species from herbicide spraying. The need for
buffers will depend on the species to be protected, the invasive plant species

, to be treated, and the type of treatment that would be used. If buffers are

determined to be needed, the buffer widths in PDF 67 will be employed.

Protection buffer widths for TES and Survey and Manage plant species:
Greater than 100 feet: All treatments permitted. All herbicides are
permitted.

100 to'35 feet: No herbicide broadcast spraying. Spot spray and other
selective herbicide techniques can be used.
Between 35 and 0 feet: No use of chlorsulfuron, imazapic, imazapyr,
metsulfuron methyl, picloram, and sulfometuron methyl permitted.
Clopyralid, sethoxydim, and triclopyr may be utilized if plant is not
susceptible to these selective herbicides. Spot spray of glyphosate may
be used if conducted when a rare plant is shielded or covered.
For herbicide tréatment, use protective measures such as low-pressure spot-
spray, directed spray applications, backpack applications, and/or protective
barrier to prevent herbicide residues from impacting these species.

In order to protect TES and Survey and Manage plants in saturated or wet
soils at the time of application, do not use picloram or imazapyr due to their
mobility.

Use of sulfonylurea herbicides (chlorsulfuron, sulfometuron methyl,
metsulfuron methyl) will require soils, adjacent vegetation, and site
conditions to be evaluated prior to treatment. Use spot spray or wick method
for 1-2 years after a severe disturbance (eg wildfire) or until the area is
revegetated. Do not use herbicides when exposed soils are powdery and dry
and rainfall is likely to be of high intensity.

Source/Comments

Standard practice by
Deschutes & Ochoco
botanists for managing rare
plants per Forest Service
Manual 2620. To ensure
appropriate steps are taken
during implementation to
protect sensitive plants.

Involvement of professional
botanists to ensure that TES
and other rare plants are not

- pulled or otherwise damaged

during manual treatments,
Standard practice on the
Forests.

Standard practice on the
Forests. To ensure protection
of TES and Survey and
Manage plants.

Minimize likelihood of
herbicides inadvertently
reaching TES and Survey and
Manage plants.

Buffer distances based on
Thistle (2006) and Marrs et
al. (1989).

Label advisories to reduce
potential for runoff and
effects to non-targets.

To reduce potential for wind
and water transport,
providing protection to non-
target plants,

— Record of Decision —
Page 41 of 45



Clean Wat ct arid Safe Drinking Water Act
The selected alternative will protect beneficial uses and meet water quality standards (FSEIS Chapter
2.4). This determination was made because conditions of implementation greatly reduce the likelihood
that proposed activities would be capable of exacerbating watershed conditions and affecting water
quality:
1. PDFs were designed to minimize or eliminate negative effects, Chapter 2.4. Treatment methods,
application rates, and buffers make it highly unlikely that herbicides would contaminate water at
any measurable level.

2. Within Riparian Reserves and Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas, hundreds of acres are
compromised by the presence of invasive plant species (Tables 45 and 46, Chapter 3.6, FSEIS).
The proposed treatments will restore species composition and improve riparian conditions.

3. All planned activities within the Northwest Forest Plan area have been determined to meet or do
not prevent attainment of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives and comply with LRMP
standards and guidelines (FSEIS pp. 249-256).

A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is required for herbicide use into
water or adjacent conveyances with a hydrologic surface connection to water at the time of herbicide
application. This applies to creeks, rivers, lakes, riparian areas, wetland, and other seasonally wet areas
when water is present. Project design features and buffers are intended to minimize any pollution
discharge to the extent practicable and this project is consistent with current requirements. This 2300-A
general permit will be obtained before herbicide is used within 3 feet of waters of the state or flowing
ditches that are connected to the waters (http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/waqpermit/indinfo.htm), The
information in the FSEIS is sufficient to support the permit application.

Executive Orders 11988 and 11990: Floodplains and Wetlands

The selected alternative does not involve any construction of improvements in wetlands, nor destruction
or modifications in wetlands. No floodplain will be occupied, developed or modified. The selected
alternative is therefore consistent with these executive orders.

Invasive plant treatments will be implemented using the standards from the 2005 R6 Invasive Plant ROD
and site-specific Project Design Features in Chapter 2.4 of the FSEIS.

Invasive plant treatments within riparian areas are discussed in the FSEIS, Chapter 3.6 and 3.7, The
selected alternative will promote healthy, invasive species-free riparian areas, but has the highest potential
for short-term water quality effects due to dripping of herbicides, localized reductions in shade, and
exposed soils, while Alternative 3 has the highest potential for short-term water quality effects due to
increased turbidity; effects would last less than six months and there will be no measurable long-term
increase in sediment, turbidity, or water temperature, and no measurable change in chemistry (see Table
18, FSEIS). No adverse effects are anticipated to occur to wetlands and floodplains with any of the
alternatives.

— Record of Decision —
Page 27 of 45


herbicide exposure, slightly greater risk from manual/mechanical treatments and less cost-effectiveness.
On the whole, the increase of effectiveness (and better chance of riparian restoration) associated with
Alternative 2 outweighs the slight increase in risk compared to Alternative 3. This is even more
pronounced between Alternative 2 and Alternative 1, where riparian restoration would be unlikely, and
the risk to riparian areas from herbicides would be nearly eliminated.

Consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) was completed for bull trout (federally listed
Threatened species) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS, also referred to as NOAA Fisheries)
was completed for Mid-Columbia River steelhead trout (federally listed Threatened species). A
Biological Assessment (BA) evaluating the selected alternative was sent to the FWS and NMFS (May 6,
2009). The BA provided analysis and rationale for the determination that the selected alternative may
affect and is likely to adversely affect (LAA) bull trout and steelhead trout, due to possible disturbance,
trampling, and reduction in cover from treatment of ribbongrass, reed canarygrass, and yellow iris on the
Metolius River, as well as possible future treatments of emergent invasive plants along other waterways

that are identified and treated under the EDRR process. The selected alternative may affect and is likely. to _

adversely affect critical habitat for bull trout and steelhead and may adversely affect Essential Fish
Habitat for Chinook and coho salmon due to short-term cover reduction on the Metolius, as well as
possible future treatments of emergent invasive plants if they occur in these habitats and are treated under
EDRR. All effects to listed fish species and their habitats were determined to be short-term, with a
corresponding long-term beneficial effect associated with removing invasive species and encouraging the
re-establishment of native vegetation (FSEIS pp. 302-304 and 310-320).

In response to the BA, FWS and NMFS each prepared a Biological Opinion; these documents and the
associated Terms and Conditions are described under “Findings Required by Other Laws” later in this
Record of Decision.

Between DSEIS and FSEIS, determinations regarding effects of Alternative 3 on bull trout and steelhead
trout were changed to LAA, due to potential for increased disturbance from non-herbicide treatments in
specific situations; the FSEIS indicates that manual treatments of emergent vegetation may cause greater
effects to fish and habitat than chemical treatments, due to increased physical disturbance and risk of

trampling (FSEIS p. 318).
Human Health-Exposure to Herbicides

Herbicide exposure in Alternative 2 (as well as Alternatives 1 and 3) is associated with low risk to human
health. People continue to raise concerns about potential effects of herbicide use to human health, either
through drinking contaminated water, eating contaminated food, direct contact with herbicides during
their application or contact with vegetation that has been sprayed. This issue was largely addressed in the
R6 2005 ROD, which approved only the use of low toxicity herbicides. PDFs additionally minimize
herbicide exposure. Table 89 shows how the PDFs minimize the few exposure scenarios of concern
identified in the R6 2005 FEIS (Appendix Q). Media postings, signing, or personal notification will
inform the general public and special forest product collectors of when and where herbicide application
will take place. We feel that the risks to human health and safety have essentially been eliminated and
human health and safety will be maintained throughout all stages of implementation.

Effects to Wildlife

Alternative 2 would not adversely affect local wildlife species. The public expressed concern that the use
of herbicides could harm wildlife species through direct contact or. ingesting plants that have herbicide on
them. There is potential for disturbance to wildlife during implementation. Conversely, invasive plants are
causing impacts to wildlife habitat and to wildlife directly where they can cause injury or poisoning.

The wildlife analysis (SEIS Chapter 3.9) is tiered to analysis in the R6 2005 FEIS (2005a), which
included a Biological Assessment and SERA risk assessments; the 2005 FEIS thoroughly evaluated in
detail the effects of invasive plant treatment methods to wildlife and concluded disturbance from manual

— Record of Decision —
Page 11 of 45

i
i



2004, with the Federal Register publication of a Notice of Intent to prepare an environmental impact
statement. This Notice of Intent was updated on October 21, 2005 (Vol. 70, #203). A letter describing the
purpose and need and the proposed action, dated August 19, 2005, was mailed to approximately 700
individuals, organizations, agencies, businesses, recreation residence owners, and local and Tribal |
governments. A comment form was provided that could be filled out and mailed back to the Forests.

The Forest Service received 28 responses to this initial scoping effort. The largest number of comments
addressed treatment effectiveness, urging that the project go forward in a timely manner. Prevention and
monitoring were suggested for long-term site goals. A large number of comments expressed concern for
social and economic factors, stating that inter-agency as well as partnerships with private groups with the
same goals be explored for the sake of saving time and money. Effects on human health and non-target
species from herbicides were other concerns expressed during this process. Implementing herbicide
application methods that reduce the threat to forest workers and those who use thé forest, as well as the
forest environment, including wildlife, soils, water, and aquatic biota were advised. Still others felt that
herbicides should not be used at all. Issues generated from this public input facilitated project design
development, alternative development, effects analysis of the alternatives, and selection of a preferred
alternative.

Additional scoping activities were conducted to solicit public input. These activities included:

* A project website was maintained throughout the process so that project documents, maps, and
information were available (http://www. fs.fed.us/r6/invasiveplant-eis/site-specific/DES).

« A description of the alternatives to be analyzed in the Draft EIS was mailed to approximately 700
individuals, organizations, and agencies on March 22, 2006.

* Various meetings were held with county and state noxious weed coordinators.

¢ Project updates were provided on two occasions to the Deschutes Provincial Advisory
Committee. . .

¢ A meeting was held in the field with representatives of the Friends of the Metolius, Sierra Club,
and Metolius Homeowners Association.

¢ The interdisciplinary team met with representatives of the Confederated Tribes of the Warm
Springs Indian Reservation.

¢ The interdisciplinary team leader met with representatives of the Crook County Natural
Resources Advisory Committee.

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Invasive Plant Treatments, Deschutes and Ochoco
National Forests and Crooked River National Grassland was released to the public in February 2007.
Approximately 100 individuals, organizations, and other agencies received the DEIS or notification of its
availability. The Notice of Availability was published in the Federal Register on February 2, 2007. In
addition, a legal notice appeared in The Bulletin (Bend, Oregon) and informational articles appeared in
The Bulletin and The Central Oregonian (Prineville, Oregon).

During the 45 day comment period, we received comments from 17 individuals, organizations, and
agencies through mail and email. All comments were reviewed and substantive comments received the
focus during this comment analysis to determine whether to: 1) modify existing alternatives; 2) develop
new alternatives; 3) supplement, improve, or modify the analysis; or 4) make factual corrections.
Substantive comments and the Forest Service response to each were included in Appendix I of the 2008
FEIS.

A Final EIS and Record of Decision were released in January 2008. Following an administrative appeal,
the ROD was withdrawn and the Forests began work on a Supplemental EIS. A Notice of Intent to
prepare a Supplemental EIS was published in the Federal Register on October 21, 2008 (Vol. 73, No. 204,
p. 62461). The Forest Service received one response to this second scoping effort.

— Record of Decision —
» . Page 14 of 45