United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest 

Service 

Southwestern 

Region 

Record of Decision 

Final Environmental Impact 

Statement for Integrated 

Treatment of Noxious or 

Invasive Weeds 

Coconino, Kaibab, and Prescott National 

Forests within Coconino, Gila, Mojave, 

and Yavapai Counties, Arizona 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and 

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, 

sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (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 TTY). 

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-

W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 

720-5964 (voice and TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 

Printed on recycled paper • January 2005 

Record of Decision 

Decision and Reasons for the Decision 

Background 

Early recognition of the weed invasion on the three national forests started in 1986 when noxious 

and invasive weeds (weeds) were discovered along roadways in northern Arizona. It was not 

until completion of surveys on the Coconino National Forest in 1995 and on the Kaibab and 

Prescott in 1997 that the overall seriousness of the problem was recognized. Additional 

monitoring results during 1999 revealed that the rate of spread of these weeds was higher than 

originally suspected along transportation corridors. 

There were many efforts to control the weeds, including working with partners, volunteers, and 

various organizations. The complexity of the project grew as the number of infested acres 

increased. Currently, approximately 187,500 acres within the three national forests have some 

degree of infestation by weeds. These weeds pose a serious threat to ecosystem diversity and 

have a high potential to harm native plants and wildlife including threatened, endangered and 

sensitive species if they are left untreated. 

While infestations of weeds have developed on these three national forests in Arizona, other areas 

of the country have incurred larger and more drastic infestations. Nationwide, there are 

approximately 2,000 nonnative plants, about 400 of which are considered invasives. Invasive 

plants now cover about 133 million acres in all ownerships nationwide and infest about 1.7 

million acres per year. The Chief of the USDA Forest Service, Dale Bosworth, recognized this 

growing problem and in 2003, declared invasive species as one of four major threats to the health 

of the national forests. 

Within the Southwestern Region of Arizona and New Mexico, the Regional Leadership Team and 

Regional Forester Harv Forsgren agreed upon a central priority that they believe is the most 

significant achievable conservation opportunity within the Region – the restoration of the 

ecological functionality of our fire adapted ecosystem. The removal of existing noxious or 

invasive plants from the three forests plus the removal of new infestations of other invading 

species tiers to both the National and Regional initiatives. Allowing these weeds to expand their 

current infestations and continue to alter the forest ecosystems would have long-term negative 

impacts on the people, wildlife, and resources found on the three national forests. While change 

within the forests through natural evolution is expected and desirable, the changes that will occur 

from the introduction of and continued expansion of these weed populations is undesirable. 

Some weeds produce large numbers of seeds that remain viable in the soil for up to 10 years for 

some species and even longer for others. Yellow starthistle can produce up to 150,000 seeds per 

plant, and seed viability has been suspected to be as long as 30 years. Several species have 

extensive root systems that sprout if the main stem is cut or broken off. The degree of difficulty 

to control the growing infestations of weeds necessitates utilization of multiple treatment methods 

and continuous monitoring to insure that new infestations don’t become established. 

Many weeds have severe toxicities associated with them. The latex in leafy spurge is toxic to 

livestock, wildlife, and people. The plant is irritating to the skin, it can cause temporary blindness 

if gotten into the eyes (from hands touching the plant, then the eyes), it is particularly harmful to 

those with sensitive skin such as the very young or old or those with multiple chemical 

sensitivities. While some weeds have attractive foliage or flowers, they have contaminated the 

northern Arizona ecosystem and are changing it. 

Record of Decision, Integrated Treatment of Noxious or Invasive Weeds 1 
The purpose and need of this project is to prevent any new weeds from becoming established, 

contain or control the spread of 14 known invasive species, and to eradicate 8 species which are 

the most invasive and pose the greatest threat to biological diversity within the Coconino, Kaibab, 

and Prescott National Forests. 

Alternatives 1 (both High and Low), 3, and 4 would require nonsignificant amendments to all 

three national forests’ land and resource management plans. This determination of 

nonsignificance was made following the guidelines established in Forest Service Handbook 

1909.12, Chapter 5.32 and is based upon the: (1) timing; (2) location and size of the project; (3) 

goals, objectives and outputs; and (4) management prescription. The evaluation of this project is 

included in Appendix A of the “Environmental Impact Statement for Integrated Treatment of 

Noxious or Invasive Weeds.” 

This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) evaluated four alternatives in detail. Two additional 

alternatives were considered but eliminated from detailed study. 

Alternative 1 was the Proposed Action that proposed authorizing new treatments of noxious 

weeds on a series of infestations ranging from an estimated low of 2,000 acres per year to a 

projected high of 10,000 acres per year. At the high level, this alternative would treat 34,130 

weed-infested acres on the ground, with 3 or 4 repeat visits to each site over the next 10 years, 

approximately 116,000 acres of treatment would occur, including an estimated 8,000 acres of 

manual treatment, 5,000 acres of mechanical treatment, 14,000 acres of cultural treatment, 14,000 

biological, and 75,000 acres of herbicidal treatment. There would be no aerial or aquatic 

application of herbicides. This alternative would require a nonsignificant forest plan amendment 

to all three national forest land and resource management plans. 

Alternative 2 is the No Action alternative that is required by NEPA regulations CFR 1502.8. 

Under this alternative, there would be no integrated weed management treatments applied to any 

National Forest System lands except those parcels under the authority of the Federal Highway 

Administration. 

Alternative 3 would rely on manual, mechanical, cultural, and biological methods to control 

weed infestations. No herbicides would be used. This alternative would treat 23,410 weedinfested acres on the ground with repeat treatments over the next 10 years. This would require 

approximately 211,000 acres of total treatments (or more than 8 revisits per site), including 

39,000 acres of manual, 132,000 acres of mechanical, 23,000 acres of cultural, and 17,000 acres 

of biological treatments. This alternative would require a nonsignificant forest plan amendment to 

all three national forest land and resource management plans. 

Alternative 4 uses all the treatment methods from Alternative 3, but would also include the use 

of herbicides. This alternative would treat 31,047 weed-infested acres on the ground with 

repeated visits over the next 10 years. This would require approximately 124,080 acres of 

infestations including: 14,000 acres of manual, 18,000 acres of mechanical, 14,000 acres of 

cultural (including revegetation), 16,000 acres of biological and 57,000 acres of herbicidal 

treatments. Limited spray zones would be established adjacent to and within 1 mile of 

communities, recreation sites, trailheads, and scenic overlooks. Sites where other treatment 

methods will be effective due to species, population size or site factors will be targeted for all 

integrated weed management methods except herbicides. Adaptive management principles apply 

and if the selected integrated weed management method does not work, then other methods, 

2 Record of Decision, Integrated Treatment of Noxious or Invasive Weeds 
including herbicides, could be used. Herbicides would be authorized in limited spray zones if the 

inventoried species include deep-rooted perennial species that cannot reach treatment objectives 

using manual techniques (such as camelthorn, Russian knapweed, leafy spurge, tamarisk, and tree 

of Heaven). Any proposed use of herbicides in rights-of-way corridors under national forest 

jurisdiction would be coordinated, publicly posted, and completed in such a manner that 

alternative routes would remain accessible until the manufacturer’s re-entry period is met, so 

individuals with multiple chemical sensitivity could still access recreational and other facilities 

found within the project area. This alternative would require a nonsignificant forest plan 

amendment to all three national forest land and resource management plans. 

Other Alternatives Considered 

In addition to the alternatives considered in detail, two other alternatives were considered, but not 

in detail. These two are discussed below. 

Alternative 5 

Alternative 5 proposed to utilize only manual and cultural treatments to attempt to control the 

weeds. Exclusion of the use of mechanical, biological, and herbicidal treatment methods in 

addition to the low number of acres treated would promote the expansion of all 22 weeds species 

inventoried within the three national forests. Since this alternative did not meet the purpose and 

need for the project, it was dropped from further consideration. 

Alternative 6 

Alternative 6 was the original proposed action that was scoped in 1998. It was dropped from 

further consideration because it duplicated another planning effort called, “Environmental 

Assessment for Management of Noxious Weeds and Hazardous Vegetation on Public Roads on 

National Forest System Lands in Arizona.” Tonto National Forest Supervisor Karl Siderits signed 

the decision for the five national forests on May 27, 2004. The primary purpose of this latter 

document is driver safety. It focused on weed treatment along major road rights-of-way and 

limited noxious and invasive weed treatment control efforts to those travel corridors. It does not 

treat other infestations. Since there was no need in duplicating planning efforts, this alternative 

was dropped from further consideration. 

Decision 

Based upon our review of all alternatives, the forest supervisors of the Coconino, Kaibab, and 

Prescott National Forests have decided to implement Alternative 4. 

This alternative would treat 31,047 weed-infested acres on the ground with repeated visits over 

the next 10 years. This would require approximately 124,080 acres of total treatments including: 

14,000 acres of manual, 18,000 acres of mechanical, 14,000 acres of cultural (including 

revegetation), 16,000 acres of biological and 57,000 acres of herbicidal. Limited spray zones 

would be established adjacent to and within 1 mile of communities, recreation sites, trailheads, 

and scenic overlooks. Sites where other treatment methods will be effective due to species, 

population size or site factors will be targeted for all integrated weed management methods 

except herbicides. Adaptive management principles apply and if the selected integrated weed 

management method does not work, then other methods, including herbicides, could be used. 

Herbicides would be authorized in limited spray zones if the inventoried species include deepRecord of Decision, Integrated Treatment of Noxious or Invasive Weeds 3 
rooted perennial species that cannot reach treatment objectives using manual techniques (such as 

camelthorn, Russian knapweed, leafy spurge, tamarisk, and tree of Heaven). Any proposed use of 

herbicides in rights-of-way corridors under national forest jurisdiction would be coordinated, 

publicly posted, and completed in such a manner that alternative routes would remain accessible 

until the manufacturer’s re-entry period is met, so multiple chemical sensitive individuals could 

still access recreational and other facilities found within the project area. This alternative will 

amend the Coconino, Kaibab and Prescott National Forests’ Land and Resource Management 

Plans with a nonsignificant amendment. 

Public Involvement 

As described in the background, the need for this action arose in 1996 and 1997. The project was 

originally scoped to the public on August 31, 1998. Based upon public comments received, the 

decision was made to restructure the project and develop an environmental impact statement. 

The Agency mailed a project update letter to over 1,900 individuals in May 2001 explaining that 

an environmental impact statement would be developed for the project. The Notice of Intent to 

Treat Noxious and Invasive Weeds on the Coconino, Kaibab, and Prescott National Forests in 

Coconino, Mojave, and Yavapai Counties, Arizona was listed in the Federal Register on June 26, 

2001. The addition of Gila County to the title was made after the draft environmental Iimpact 

statement was published. Part of the Coconino National Forest is within Gila County. The title 

was changed again from “Noxious and Invasive” to “Noxious or Invasive” to insure no confusion 

that either noxious or invasive weed species may be treated under this decision. The project has 

been carried on the three forests’ schedules of proposed actions since June of 2001. On June 11, 

2001 the Agency prepared a news release for local papers and radio stations, and conducted 

numerous television interviews. In addition, the Associated Press conducted several interviews 

concerning the proposal and submitted those articles for national release. Members of the 

interdisciplinary team conducted two meetings with groups of people concerned about multiple 

chemical sensitivity to solicit issues regarding the Proposed Action, gather information related to 

reactions to the use of herbicides, and help define the alternatives to be considered in this 

analysis. On February 25, 2004, copies of the DEIS were mailed to the public, interested groups, 

and agencies. The Notice of Availability was published in the Federal Register on March 5, 2004. 

Additional meetings were held with people with multiple chemical sensitivity in Prescott on April 

14, 2004 and April 31, 2004 to explain the preferred alternative and answer any questions from 

the group. 

Throughout the planning process, there have been numerous consultations and discussions with 

Native American tribes and their representatives to minimize the impacts of weed treatments in 

traditional native plant collection areas. 

Using the comments from the public, other agencies, multiple chemical sensitive persons, and 

representatives from various Native American tribes, the interdisciplinary team identified several 

issues regarding the effects of the Proposed Action. These issues included: 

1. Use of herbicides could limit individuals with multiple chemical sensitivities (MCS) from 

using travel corridors and National Forest System lands in general, thus limiting their 

access to vital services and recreational opportunities. 

2. The use of herbicides for noxious weed control may cause health problems for people 

who come into contact with the herbicides and/or treated areas. 

4 Record of Decision, Integrated Treatment of Noxious or Invasive Weeds 
3. The proposed application of herbicides for noxious weed control may affect the ability of 

Native Americans and others to collect plants for traditional uses or medical reasons in 

specific areas. 

To address these concerns, the Forest Service created Alternatives 3 and 4 described above. 

Comments received during preparation of this document have been considered and taken into 

account in selecting the preferred alternative. Comments were provided during public meetings, 

telephone calls, responses to newspaper articles, scoping letters, and during the designated notice 

and comment period that occurred in March and April 2004 upon publishing and distribution of 

the draft environmental impact statement. 

Decision Rationale 

When compared to the other alternatives, Alternative 4 does the best job of balancing the control 

of weeds while preserving natural habitats and protecting the health of humans and communities. 

It is the most responsive alternative to the three main issues while meeting the purpose and need. 

Toxicity of herbicides and the potential impact on human health including those persons with 

multiple chemical sensitivities is the main issue. Human contact with treated areas, treated 

plants, or residues from herbicidal treatment either from chemical drift in the air, the plants that 

are treated, through the soil, or into and through the watershed has been thoroughly analyzed in 

this document. Some people are concerned with the cumulative effects of additional herbicide 

toxins being dumped into the environment and their interaction. We have reviewed the scientific 

information that is available from a variety of sources and are confident that human health will be 

protected with the types of herbicides proposed to be used, application rates, mitigation measures 

and environmental protection measures included in Appendix B. 

Alternative 4 does the best job to control the weeds balanced with the need to protect the health of 

communities throughout the three national forests. While this decision acknowledges the need to 

use herbicides to control some weed infestations, use of those herbicides is limited to those 

situations where alternative methods of control are not effective. 

Discussions with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality have assured us that our proposal to treat weed infestations will have little 

or no effect on water quality. 

While we may not know all there is to know about the long-term effects of herbicides on humans 

and wildlife, we do know the effects of weeds on our native plant ecosystems. As these weed 

populations continue to expand on the three forests, the potential loss of integrity within this 

ecosystem outweighs the few unknowns regarding herbicide applications. It is reasonable and 

prudent to go forward with an integrated weed management strategy using the best possible 

methods of weed treatments including the use of herbicides. 

The development of a public notification system using an 800 toll free telephone number, public 

notification through the newspapers, radios, Web pages, and conducting annual public meetings 

will provide timely notification to the public about what areas are planned to be or have been 

treated and the method of that treatment. Of particular concern is information on types of 

herbicides used and the date of completion since people’s degree of sensitivity varies. All 

individuals, including those with multiple chemical sensitivities, will be able to minimize their 

Record of Decision, Integrated Treatment of Noxious or Invasive Weeds 5 
contact with treated areas and determine their most adventitious routes to travel in their day-today lives; they can determine untreated portions of the national forests to recreate in, and where 

to go or specifically where not to go to collect plants. Prior to implementation of this decision, 

the public notification system will be operational. 

Spot treatment of infestations using herbicides has a greater potential risk to applicators than to 

the general public; however, standard mitigation measures employed with routine safety 

procedures and personal protective equipment reduce or eliminate the health hazards. 

There was considerable discussion from both the public and within the interdisciplinary team 

regarding the width of the limited spray zone. Some people suggested limited or no-spray zones 

of up to 25 miles in width. Other people felt that there should not be any limited spray zones 

created. In reviewing maps of the three national forests, the utilization of limited spray zones 

larger than 1 mile in width did not meet the purpose and need and increased the workload and 

cost. Control objectives for the deep rooted and more difficult to control species would not have 

been met. For this reason, the 1-mile limited spray zone was adopted. 

Clean up of equipment including herbicide applicators will not be undertaken within limited 

spray zones or within a mile of private land. 

Alternative 4 involves the use of adaptive management so that we can maximize the effectiveness 

of the program. As new infestations and/or growth of existing infestations are identified adjacent 

to specified treatment areas, each will be evaluated to determine if it falls within the scope of this 

EIS relative to issues analyzed and potential effects of treatment. Similarly, areas identified that 

may have a moderate or high level of risk of infestation due to ongoing or future management 

activities will be monitored for new infestations. New infestations will be evaluated for treatment 

within the scope and constraints of this project. In addition to increasing the potential area 

proposed for treatment, new biological controls will also be considered for use once Federal 

approval is provided. All environmental protection measures described in Appendix B will apply 

to treatments occurring on new infestations. 

If more effective herbicides are developed during the next few years, each will be evaluated to 

determine if their use falls within the scope of this EIS relative to issues analyzed and potential 

effects of treatment. If not, use of these new herbicides would require additional analysis and an 

amendment to this Record of Decision. 

Other Factors Considered in Making the Decision 

Many citizens, scientists, county, State, and Federal agencies have commented on the need to 

incorporate certain specific features that are essential for the successful treatment of weeds. 

These features include the following: 

To be effective, we must take vigorous action. 

These weeds are expanding their presence in the three national forests. A weak 

or inadequate weed control response will not accomplish the control objectives. 

There are two reasons that explain why: (1) The Arizona national forests do not 

appear to be able to resist the more aggressive weed species without human 

intervention; and (2) An inadequate response to the weeds will contribute to 

expansion of weed populations over the landscape unless they are controlled by 

6 Record of Decision, Integrated Treatment of Noxious or Invasive Weeds 
strong integrated actions of land managers and the general citizenry. Many 

infestations are currently small and more easily treated and less expensive to 

control at this point in time. 

We need to look ahead and deal with the weed problem on the appropriate 

scale. 

Until now, our efforts to control weeds have been relatively few, relying on 

volunteers and small groups of workers treating small areas. While these efforts 

have accomplished some effective results, the expansion of weeds has outgrown 

our capability to treat them in this manner. 

There are numerous groups and organizations scattered around the state 

that need our cooperation in controlling weeds. 

The three national forests and their ranger districts are involved with various 

partners in this war on weeds. Some of the associated partners and groups 

include: The Nature Conservancy, the Arizona Strip Weed Management Area, 

The Northern Arizona Weed Council, the San Francisco Peaks Weed 

Management Area, the Western Yavapai and Verde Valley Weed Management 

Area, Coconino County, Arizona State Lands Department, the Arboretum at 

Flagstaff, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. We need to be fully committed to the efforts of 

these groups and this document gives the three national forests the tools needed 

to start dealing with this large scale problem more effectively. 

Recognize the importance of the integrated weed management strategy and 

have the full array of tools available to combat the problems of weeds. 

Integrated weed management looks at all aspects of the control effort from 

prevention of future infestations, prioritization of infestations to treat, and what is 

the best treatment protocol that we can use to treat a specific infestation. While 

many of these techniques are currently being used, their use will be improved and 

enhanced as part of this decision. Increased public education and awareness and 

the public’s involvement will facilitate the earlier detection of new weeds and 

will assist the three national forests’ efforts in responding to and controlling new 

infestations. 

While we proceed aggressively, we must also proceed with caution and be 

prepared to modify our tactics through adaptive management to improve 

our effectiveness. 

We know that this effort requires an aggressive approach. The weeds continue to 

expand in spite of concentrated efforts to control them. Yet with careful 

coordination, we can work to increase and improve our control techniques while 

minimizing impacts to the natural resources and the public who enjoy them. 

Some weed species are more effectively controlled using herbicides than with 

other methods of treatment. To better coordinate with the public and to minimize 

the impacts on them, alternative and usually more expensive methods of 

treatment such as hand pulling, grazing, and mechanical methods such as bush 

Record of Decision, Integrated Treatment of Noxious or Invasive Weeds 7 
hogging or disking will be used. If our best efforts fail, then we must come back 

with a more aggressive treatment method. 

Followup monitoring. 

It is imperative that a more comprehensive system to track weed infestations and 

the various types of treatments used be developed. This information is necessary 

to close the loop with adaptive management and to keep the public notified on 

how the control effort is proceeding. 

In selecting Alternative 4, we compared it with the other alternatives to determine which 

alternative best accomplishes the purpose and need and responded to the issues. Here are some of 

the reasons that the other alternatives were not selected: 

Alternative 1 proposed to treat up to 10,000 acres per year using a mixture of manual, 

mechanical, cultural, and herbicidal methods. While overall treatment objectives for many weed 

species were projected to be met, this method did not respond to the concerns of the public as 

well as it could have. Specific areas of concerns were within a mile of communities, recreation 

sites, trailheads, and scenic overlooks. 

Alternative 2 is the No Action alternative. With no control treatments of any kind (except on 

those parcels under the authority of the Federal Highway Administration) on the three national 

forests, there would be a continued growth of weed populations at comparable or faster rates than 

what has been experienced over the last few years. Some rare and/or sensitive native plant 

species would be negatively impacted. Habitat for wildlife would be degraded. This includes big 

game that depend upon native grasses for forage and small game that use the grasslands for food 

and cover. Livestock forage would be reduced as weeds crowd out native grasses. Water quality 

would be reduced due to increased soil erosion. Some native plant communities would be 

replaced or reduced and biological diversity would be altered. The quality of recreational 

experiences would be reduced as people make contact with some of the more toxic weeds. 

Traditional areas where Native Americans have collected plants for traditional uses, foods, or 

medical reasons would be altered so that desirable plants are no longer available in those 

locations. This alternative does not meet the purpose and need of the project. 

Alternative 3 would have relied only on manual, mechanical, cultural, and biological methods to 

control weed infestations. This alternative would have been much more expensive while 

achieving less control objectives for fewer weed species. Most of the treatment would have been 

by mechanical methods which would have increased ground disturbance, and soil erosion and 

increased negative impacts on water quality. Since many infestations would require multiple retreatment efforts without achieving the treatment objectives for many of the weed species, these 

impacts would continue for a longer period of time. Due to the remoteness of some traditional 

plant collection areas, some locations might not receive adequate followup treatments and weeds 

could crowd out desirable native plants. This alternative did not meet the purpose and need of 

the project as well as Alternatives 1 or 4. 

Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations 

Numerous laws, regulations and Agency directives require that this decision be consistent with 

their provisions. The following discussion is not an all-inclusive listing, but is intended to 

provide information on the areas raised as issues or comments by the public or other agencies. 

8 Record of Decision, Integrated Treatment of Noxious or Invasive Weeds 
Endangered Species Act 

This decision is consistent with the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Informal consultation with 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was undertaken. A determination of “not likely to adversely 

affect” was made for: Arizona cliffrose, Mexican spotted owl, Yuma clapper rail, southwestern 

willow flycatcher, Chiricahua leopard frog, Gila topminnow, razorback sucker, spikedace, loach 

minnow, Apache trout, Little Colorado spinedace, and Gila chub. A determination of “not likely 

to adversely affect” was also made for the following critical habitats: Mexican spotted owl, 

razorback sucker, Little Colorado spinedace, and Gila chub. A determination of “not likely to 

jeopardize” was made for the Colorado pikeminnow. A finding of “No Effect” was made for all 

the remaining Federally listed or proposed species. On September 30, 2004, a final letter of 

concurrence from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was received. Alternative 4 does the best 

job of protecting endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate wildlife and plant species and 

their habitats while addressing the noxious or invasive weeds. Design features (listed in 

Appendix B) that were developed in conjunction with consultation with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS) for the various wildlife species are mandatory for this project. In the 

event that circumstances in a project area necessitate deviation from these design standards, it 

would be necessary for additional consultation with the FWS to occur prior to that project being 

implemented. 

Sensitive Species 

Federal law and direction applicable to sensitive species include the National Forest Management 

Act and the Forest Service Manual (2670). The Regional Forester has developed the sensitive 

species list, those plants and animals for which population viability is a concern (See Chapters 3 

and 4 and the botany, fish and wildlife specialists’ reports for sensitive species’ affected 

environments and analysis of effects). In reviewing the analyses and projected effects on all 

sensitive species listed as occurring or possibly occurring on the three national forests, it has been 

demonstrated in the biological evaluations that there will be no trend toward listing for any 

sensitive species. 

National Historic Preservation Act 

The Forest Service has evaluated this project in relation to the National Historic Preservation Act 

including locating, inventorying, and nominating all cultural sites that may be directly or 

indirectly affected by the proposed actions. While manual, cultural, biological and herbicidal 

treatments of weed infestations will have no effect on cultural properties, areas where mechanical 

treatment, specifically plowing or disking are proposed to be used, will require a pretreatment 

site-specific evaluation to insure that cultural properties are not within the treatment area and their 

integrity is not jeopardized by the proposed treatment. 

Clean Water Act 

Alternative 4 meets the intent of the Clean Water Act of 1977 as amended. Pesticide monitoring 

for chemical contamination, including insecticides and/or chemicals, is routinely carried out in 

select wells around the State to fulfill the requirements of the act. Of the 340 wells monitored, 

none exceeded the established standards as it relates to pesticides (ADEQ 2002). This monitoring 

will continue during the project to ensure that no contaminations occur. 

Record of Decision, Integrated Treatment of Noxious or Invasive Weeds 9 
Safe Drinking Water Act 

Coordination with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality by incorporating their required and recommended mitigation measures 

into the design of this project assures that we are in compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act. 

In addition, we have incorporated additional water quality protection measures into this project to 

better protect wellheads and recharge areas for wells and aquifers. 

The National Forest Management Act of 1976 (PL 94-588) 

The National Forest Management Act and accompanying regulations require that several other 

specific findings be documented. 

Consistency with the Forest Plans 

of the Three National Forests 

This decision, including the nonsignificant amendments, is consistent with the goals and 

objectives of the land and resource management plans for all three national forests and with the 

management direction, standards and guidelines for all ecological management areas described 

within those plans. 

Resource Protection 

The following twelve statements address resource protection requirements of NFMA 36 CFR 

219.27: 

1. Alternative 4 conserves soil and water resources and does not allow significant or 

permanent impairment of the productivity of the land. (See Chapter 4) 

2. Within the scope of the project and consistent with other resource values involved, 

activities will minimize the risk from serious or long lasting hazards from flood, wind, 

wildfire, erosion, or other natural physical forces unless these are specifically excepted, 

as in congressionally designated wilderness. 

3. The project is consistent with the relative resource values involved. It prevents and/or 

reduces serious long lasting hazards and damage from pest organisms, using principles of 

integrated pest management. Under this approach all aspects of a pest-host system 

should be weighed to determine situation-specific prescriptions which may utilize a 

combination of techniques including, as appropriate, natural controls, harvesting, use of 

resistant species, maintenance of diversity, removal of damaged trees, and judicious use 

of pesticides. The basic principle in the choice of strategy is that, in the long term, it be 

ecologically acceptable and compatible with the forest ecosystem and the multiple use 

objectives of the forest plans. 

4. Alternative 4 will protect streams, streambanks, shorelines, lakes, wetlands, and other 

bodies of water found on the three national forests. 

5. Alternative 4 provides for and maintains diversity of plants and animal communities to 

meet overall multiple-use objectives. 

10 Record of Decision, Integrated Treatment of Noxious or Invasive Weeds 
6. Alternative 4 provides for adequate fish and wildlife habitat to maintain viable 

populations of existing native vertebrate species and provides the habitat for management 

indicator species. The habitat is maintained and improved to the degree consistent with 

multiple-use objectives established in the three national forests’ land and resource 

management plans. 

7. The FEIS assesses potential physical, biological, aesthetic, cultural, engineering, and 

economic impacts of Alternative 4 and is consistent with multiple uses planned for the 

three national forests. 

8. Alternative 4 prevents the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for 

endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate species (See BA&E and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service letters of concurrence, Appendix F). 

9. There are no rights-of-way corridors needed for the project. 

10. There is no road construction associated with the project. 

11. No temporary roads will be built in conjunction with the project. 

12. Alternative 4 is consistent with applicable Federal, State, and local air quality standards. 

All riparian areas, soil and water will be protected as described in the FEIS and this 

Record of Decision. 

The purpose of this project is to preserve and enhance the diversity of plant and animal 

communities by reducing and limiting the spread of noxious or invasive weeds (See “Purpose and 

Need”). Alternative 4 is consistent with this objective. 

The Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976 (PL 94-579) 

This act authorizes control of weeds on rangeland. This decision is consistent with that law. 

The Clean Air Act 

The basic framework for controlling air pollutants in the United States is the 1970 Clean Air Act 

as amended in 1990 and 1999 (42 USC 7401 et seq.) The primary concern with this project in 

regards to air quality is with ground application of herbicides. Since impacts will be distributed 

across the three national forests and over time, concentrations of air contaminants will not 

accumulate to the point of violating air quality standards for any area. 

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

Alternative 4 and its mitigation measures (as described in Appendix B) provides for adequate 

conservation measures for migratory birds. Overall impacts on land birds and waterfowl are 

expected to be minimal (See the Wildlife Specialist’s Report). 

Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species, 2-3-1999 

Alternative 4 complies with this order directing Federal agencies whose actions may affect the 

status of invasive species to: (1) prevent the introduction of invasive species; and (2) detect and 

Record of Decision, Integrated Treatment of Noxious or Invasive Weeds 11 
respond rapidly to, and control populations of such species in a cost effective and 

environmentally sound manner, as appropriations allow. 

36 CFR Subpart A, Section 222.8 

This regulation directs the Chief of the Forest Service to cooperate with county or other local 

weed control districts in analyzing noxious farm weed problems and developing control programs 

in areas which the national forests and grasslands are a part. Alternative 4 complies with this 

direction. 

Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 (Section 9) 

Alternative 4 complies with this authorization for the Secretary of Agriculture to cooperate with 

other Federal and State agencies or political subdivisions thereof, and individuals in carrying out 

measures to eradicate, suppress, control, or prevent the spread of noxious weeds. 

The Plant Protection Act of 2000, PL 106-224, 

The 1990 Farm Bill, PL 101-624 

These acts and laws direct the Forest Service to develop and coordinate management programs 

for controlling undesirable plants. Alternative 4 complies with this direction. 

USDA Policy 9500-10 

Under this directive the Agency is to integrate noxious weed management into all programs and 

activities and to develop, demonstrate, and apply the essential science, technology, and 

stewardship to effectively manage and prevent the spread of these plants. Alternative 4 complies 

with this direction. 

In addition, Alternative 4 also complies with and compliments the following: 

• National Prevention Strategy for Invasive Plant Management (USDA Forest Service 

2001). 

• Forest Service “Pulling Together Initiative” for noxious weed and nonnative invasive 

plant management that directed the Agency to set goals of education, implement 

integrated weed management as a high priority, include management of noxious weeds in 

all planning processes, and develop partnerships. 

• Southwestern Region’s “Strategy for the Protection and Restoration of Native Plant 

Communities” (USDA Forest Service, Regional Office 1999). 

• “Noxious Weeds Strategic Plan Working Guidelines – Coconino, Kaibab, and Prescott 

National Forests” (Phillips et al. 1998, amended 2002), which emphasizes mitigation to 

prevent the spread of noxious weeds and includes education, inventory, and control 

guidelines. 

• Arizona State regulations R3-4-244, R3-4-245 require that the landowner must have an 

active management program to prevent further spread of these species and reduce 

numbers of existing populations. 

12 Record of Decision, Integrated Treatment of Noxious or Invasive Weeds 
Implementation Date 

If no appeals are filed within the 45-day time period, implementation of the decision may occur 

on, but not before, 5 business days after the close of the appeal filing period. When appeals are 

filed, implementation may occur on, but not before, the 15th business day following the date of 

the last appeal disposition. 

Administrative Review or Appeal Opportunities 

This decision is subject to administrative review (appeal) pursuant to 36 CFR Part 215. 

The appeal must be filed by regular mail, facsimile, e-mail, hand delivery, or express delivery 

with the Appeal Deciding Officer at: Harv Forsgren, Regional Forester, Southwestern Region, 

USDA Forest Service, 333 Broadway Blvd., SE, Albuquerque, NM 87102. The facsimile number 

for submitting an appeal is (505) 842-3173. 

The office business hours for those submitting hand delivered appeals are: 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. 

Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Electronic appeals must be submitted in a format 

such as an e-mail message, plain text (.txt), rich text format (.rtf), or Word (.doc) to appealssouthwestern-regional-office@fs.fed.us. In cases where no identifiable name is attached to an 

electronic message, a verification of identity will be required. A scanned signature is one way to 

provide verification. 

Appeals, including attachments, must be filed within 45 days from the publication date of this 

notice in the Arizona Daily Sun and the Prescott Courier, the newspapers of record for the three 

national forests. In the event that the notice is published on different dates in the two newspapers, 

the appeal period will begin the day after the last notice is published. Attachments received after 

the 45-day appeal period will not be considered. The publication date in the Arizona Daily Sun 

and Prescott Courier (newspapers of record), is the exclusive means for calculating the time to 

file an appeal. Those wishing to appeal this decision should not rely upon dates or timeframe 

information provided by any other source. 

Individuals or organizations who submitted substantive comments during the comment period 

specified at 215.6 may appeal this decision. The notice of appeal must meet the appeal content 

requirements at 36 CFR 215.14. 

Contact Person 

For additional information concerning this decision or the Forest Service appeal process, contact: 

Charles Ernst, NEPA Program Manager, Kaibab National Forest, 800 South Sixth Street, 

Williams, Arizona 86046, (928) 635-8317, cfernst@fs.fed.us. 

Record of Decision, Integrated Treatment of Noxious or Invasive Weeds 13 
Responsible Officials 

This environmental impact statement and record of decision affect the Coconino, Kaibab, and 

Prescott National Forests. The responsible official for each national forest is the forest supervisor 

for that forest. 

NORA RASURE Date 

Forest Supervisor 

Coconino National Forest 

MICHAEL R. WILLIAMS Date 

Forest Supervisor

Kaibab National Forest 

MICHAEL R. KING Date 

Forest Supervisor

Prescott National Forest 

14 Record of Decision, Integrated Treatment of Noxious or Invasive Weeds