APPENDIX B 

TRIBAL AND AGENCY CONSULTATION 

TRIBAL CONSULTATION 

United States Department of the Interior 

BUREAU OF LAN D MAN AGEMENT 

Washington, D .C. 20240 

http ://www.blm.gov 

APR 1 8 2013 

In Reply Refer To: 

1793 (220) 

Dear Tribal Leader: 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) would like to extend an invitation to you for 

Government-to-Government consultation to exchange infmmation on the proposed use ofthree 

new herbicides to treat vegetation on ELM-administered lands. We are currently preparing a 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PElS) on this proposed action. 

This letter includes information about the three new herbicides and how they would be used, if 

approved. It also briefly discusses the risks and possible impacts associated with using them. A 

"Frequently Asked Questions" sheet and a map of the potentially affected areas are attached to 

this letter to provide further information about the project. 

Herbicides are one part of a larger vegetation treatment program that has a goal of conserving 

and restoring native vegetation, watersheds, and fish and wildlife habitat. As you may know, in 

2007 the BLM completed a PElS that discussed possible impacts to plants, fish, wildlife, and 

other resources from the use of 18 different herbicides to control unwanted vegetation. The 

document considered paleontological resources, cultural resources, subsistence resources, and 

the health ofNative Americans that may be exposed to these herbicides. 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/enlprog/more/veg eis.html 

The BLM has re ently decided that it would like to use three additional herbicides to treat 

vegetation. These chemicals are aminopyralid, fluroxypyr, and rimsulfuron. A new PElS is 

being prepared to discuss the possible impacts of using these three to treat vegetation. 

Aminopy ralid is a reduced-risk herbicide that controls numerous weed species, including 

mustard species, knapweeds, starthistles, and thistles. It also can help control cheatgrass, also 

known as downy brome. Aminopyralid is registered under the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency ' s reduced risk initiative, indicating that it poses less risk to human health and the 

environment than other herbicides. Aminopyralid may be used instead of picloram in certain 

BLM treatment projects. 

Fluroxy pyr is used to control annual and perennial broad-leaved weeds (such as marestail and 

cocklebur), and can be used to control weeds while maintaining grass forage species. The BLM 

has indicated that this herbicide can help reduce the amount of other herbicide products used in 

treatments. It can also be tank-mixed with other herbicides to improve their effectiveness. 
2 

Rimsulfuron is used to control winter annual grasses. The BLM has identified rimsulfuron as a 

useful addition to its list of herbicides because of its effectiveness against cheatgrass and 

medusahead rye, ifthe treated site is rested from livestock grazing for a year to allow desirable 

species to become established. Rimsulfuron has been observed to be more effective than 

imazapic in certain areas. 

An assessment of the risks to humans, tenestrial wildlife, aquatic species, and non-target plants 

from using these chemicals has been completed. Based on the results of these assessments, 

aminopyralid, fluroxypyr, and rimsulfuron are relatively low risk chemicals. They do not pose 

unacceptable health risks to humans under exposure scenarios involving contact with treated 

plant materials or water, or ingestion of treated water, benies, or fish. The herbicides pose low 

risks to tenestrial wildlife and aquatic species, but can impact non-target plants under various 

scenanos. 

Vegetation treatments with the three new herbicides could occur anywhere on ELMadministered lands in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, 

Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and 

Wyoming (see attached map). This is approximately the same area that was considered in the 

2007 PElS. 

The BLM recently completed public scoping and is in the process of reviewing the comments 

that were received and identifying alternatives to the proposed action. It is anticipated that a 

Draft PElS will be completed this summer. 

The BLM appreciates our relationship and will continue to consult with you throughout the PElS 

process, and as more specific treatment projects in your geographic area are developed and 

implemented. We will continue to keep you informed, and are always open to any feedback you 

may have. In the meantime, we hope to hear from you during the PElS process through one of 

the many avenues available for communication with us, including a written or telephone 

response to this letter, or through contact with the local BLM field or state office. We are 

particularly interested in three issues: 1) specific concerns that you have about the use of 

aminopyralid, fluroxypyr, and rimsulfuron on public lands; 2) potential impacts on subsistence 

plants and animals, and on traditional cultural properties; and 3) potential impacts on resources 

associated with reserved rights under treaty, where they exist. Please let us know whether you 

would like to provide information and if you would like to receive review copies ofthe 

documents that we produce. 
3 

Thank you for your participation in the PElS process. We look f01ward to exchanging 

information with you about the proposed project. If submitting written comments, please send 

your comments to Stuart Paulus, AECOM Project Manager, 710 Second Avenue, Suite 1000, 

Seattle, W A 98104. If you have any questions or concerns, or would like additional information, 

please feel free to call the PElS Team Leader, Gina Ramos, at (202) 912-7226 

Sincerely, 

fc/,,)~(!/1_ Edwin L. Roberson 

Assistant Director 

Renewable Resources and Planning 

Enclosures 
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 


VEGETATION TREATMENTS PROGRAMMA TIC EIS FOR U SE OF THREE 


NEW HERBICIDES ON PUBLIC LAND S IN THE WESTERN U. S., INCLUDING ALASKA 


FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 

Q . What is the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proposing to do? 

A . The BLM is proposing to prepare a programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement (PElS) to evaluate the viability of using aminopyralid, fluroxypyr, and 

rimsulfuron herbicides as part of BLM vegetation treatment programs . The new EIS 

will comply with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations . In 2007, 

the BLM prepared the Vegetation Treatments Using H erbicides on Bureau ofLand 

Management Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement (17 -States PElS) . Under the Record of Decision for th e 17-States PElS, 

the BLM is allow ed to us e 18 herbicides . If approved for use , up to three new 

herbicides will join the list ofEIS-approved herbicides cunently in use on BLM 

lands. The purpose of vegetation treatment programs includes the conservation and restoration of 

vegetation, fish , and wildlife habitat; improvement ofwatershed functions ; fuels and fire mana gement; 

invasive and noxious weeds management; and soil stabilization. 

Q. Where would the proposed actions occur? 

A. If approved, the new herbicides could be utilized on public lands administered by the BLM in the 

westem U .S. and Alaska. The majority of these lands are in Alaska, Arizona , Califomia, Colorado, Idaho, 

Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Field offices and personnel 

would not be required to use the three herbicides unless they deem it appropriate. 

Q . Will the EIS include National Monuments and National Conservation Areas? 

A. Yes, since the 2007 17-States PElS included these lands in its analysis. These units are already 

included as part of the broad programmatic treatment area to the extent that conservation and restoration 

project work, including invasive and noxious weed treatments, are allowed by the individual National 

Landscape Conservation System proclamations. 

EIS Development Process 

Q. Why is the BLM developing this programmatic EIS? 

A . The BLM is preparing a programmatic EIS to evaluate the potential for use of three new herbicides for 

the conservation and restoration of vegetation, watershed functions, and fish and wildlife habitat on surface 

lands administered by the BLM in the westem U.S. , including Alaska . 

--:::.-­--- - --..c--­ -­ _.. -:-­ ~ 

• J 
BLM Vegetation Treatments EIS 

Q. Is this EIS a land-use plan? 

A. No, this EIS is not a land-use plan. The scope of this EIS is restricted to assessing the viability of 

incorporating treatments with the tlU"ee new herbicides into existing vegetation treatment strategies. 

Q. What is the difference between a programmatic EIS and project-specific EIS? 

A. A programmatic EIS is designed to look at the broad, general impacts associated with a decision to 

fully implement a program or additional treatment. A programmatic EIS also allows for the tiering of more 

site-specific NEPA documents, such as land-use plans, eliminating the need for repetitive discussions of the 

same issues. A project-specific EIS looks at impacts associated with a site-specific project, such as 

vegetation treatment activities on 1,000 acres ofBLM-administered lands. 

Q . Who is developing the EIS? 

A. The BLM Office of Forest, Range, Riparian and Plant Conservation in Washington, D.C., is leading 

the project, supported by BLM teclmical resource specialists in BLM offices throughout the western U.S. 

and Alaska. 

Q . How much has been done so far, and what is the next step? 

A. The Notice oflntent to develop the EIS was published in the Federal Register on Friday, December 21, 

2012, and a news release was distributed to the media, interested groups, and state agencies by the BLM at 

the same time. The schedule for scoping meetings was also published in the Federal Register, and this 

"Questions and Answers" infonnation sheet was made available through the BLM website at 

www.blm.gov/3kvd. Three public scoping meetings will be held throughout the western U.S. in Janumy 

2013 during the 60 day public scoping process. 

Potential Issues to Be Examined in the EIS 

Q. Does this EIS involve controversial issues? 

A. It is anticipated that most public scmtiny will focus on issues associated with the use of new herbicides 

to control noxious weeds and other vegetation. Specific issues to be addressed in the EIS include the effects 

ofthe tlu·ee new herbicides on human and environmental health, on tlu·eatened and endangered species, and 

on resources used by Native Americans and Alaska Native groups. 

2 

BLM Vegetation Treatments EIS 

Q. Will there be an assessment of risks to the public and the environment from the use ofherbicides? 

A. Ecological and human health risk assessments were done to detetmine the likely risks to humans, 

plants, and fish and wildlife from the treatments involving the three new herbicides proposed for use by the 

BLM. The EIS will not evaluate the risks from herbicides presently being used by the BLM, which have 

already been evaluated in the earlier EISs, unless new information has become available to suggest that 

these herbicides require further evaluation. 

Q. Will there be a process developed to determine which new chemicals the BLM can use to control 

vegetation? 

A. The 2007 17-States PElS already includes protocols that the BLM follows to evaluate new chemicals 

that may be developed in the future, prior to their use by the agency. New herbicides could only be used if 

they are: (1) registered for use by the EPA; (2) used for treatment of appropriate vegetation types and at 

application rates specified on the label directions; and (3) determined by the BLM to be safe to humans and 

the environment, based on an analysis of their potential toxicological and environmental impacts. 

Public Involvement 

Q. When will the public be able to make comments on the project? 

A. NEPA regulations require federal agencies to seek public input during development of the EIS. The 

public will have several opportunities to discuss this project with the BLM and to make comments by: 

1. Attending any of the scoping meetings listed in the table below: 

Location Date Meeting 

Time 

Worland Field Office, 

101 South 23rd, Worland, WY 

(307) 347-5100 

January 7, 2013 7 pm local 

Hyatt Place Reno Airport, 1790 

East Plumb Lane, 

Reno, NV (775) 826-2500 

January 9, 2013 7 pm local 

Albuquerque District Office, 435 

Montano Road NE, 

Albuquerque, NM 

(505) 761-8700 

January 10, 2013 7 pm local 

3 

BLM Vegetation Treatments EIS 

2. 	 Submitting comments on issues identified in the scoping process within 60 days of the Federa l 

Register 's Notice of Intent published on December 2 1, 201 2. The closing date for submission of 

comments is Febmmy 19, 2013 . 

3. 	 Submitting comments during additional public comment periods associated w ith the Draft EIS and 

Final EIS. 

Q. 	 How can the public comment on the program? 

A. The public can provide formal comments to the court reporter who will be available during each 

scoping meeting. Forms to submit written comments will also be available during scoping meetings, and at 

local BLM offices , and may be turned in to the BLM at the scoping meeting or local office. These forms 

can also be emailed to VegEIS@blm.gov . 

Q. What will be done with these comments? 

A. The comments will be compiled and summarized by major resource areas and issu es in a scoping 

summary report. Public comments and the scoping summary report will be used to evaluate issues and 

concerns associated with the proposed program, and to develop alternative programs to treat vegetation 

using the new herbicides on ELM-administered lands . The scoping summary report will be made available 

to the public in late spring. 

Q . 	 How can I find out more information and follow the progress of the new EIS? 

A. 	 Interested individuals can visit http://www.b1m .gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/vegeis .html 

for regular updates on the EIS process. The website will be available tluoughout the public scoping 

process . 

4 

N 

A 

400 600 

• • !Miles 

Colorado 

New Mexico 

300 400 

••e~•c••cc••• Miles 

0 100 200 

BLM-Administered Lands 

CJ Administrative Boundaries 

Note: Coverage for BLM-administered lands is not available 

for Texas, Nebraska , or Oklahoma . 

Source: National Atlas Federal Lands GIS Data 

Vegetation Treatments Using Amin opyralid, 

Fluroxypyr, and Rim sulfuron on BLM Lands in 17 

Western States PElS 

Map 1 

PElS Study Area 
,' ~ . 

Chief Gary Harrison, 

Chairnum 

Rick Harrison, 

Vice-Chairnum 

Penny Westing, 

Secretary/Elder 

Albert Harrison, 

Treasurer/Elder 

Burt Shaginoff, 

Elder Member 

Doug Wade, 

Elder Member 

Larry Wade, 

Elder Member 

Shawna Larson, 

Member 

Lisa Wade, 

Member 

Jennifer Harrison, 

Executive Director 

ttf.Cf.\V!D 

. ,. ,"' NOV ' 5 '·'· ;. 

BlM-R&P-W020(} 

Chickaloon Village Traditional Council 


(Nay'dini'aa Na') 


October 30, 2013 

Edwin L Roberson 

Assistant Director 

Renewable Resources and Planning 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of land Management 

Dear Mr. Roberson, 

Thank you for the invitation to initiate government-to-government consultation 

concerning the proposed use of three new herbicides to treat vegetation on BlMadministered lands. Although this letter serves as a beginning to a government-togovernment consultation, we must emphasize that this correspondence does not fulfill 

your obligation to consult and engage fully and in person with the Chickaloon Village 

Traditional Council prior to and regarding any decisions about the use of herbicides on 

BLM-administered lands, lands traditionally used by our Tribal Citizens. 

Background and Short History 

Chickaloon Native Village is a vibrant, innovative, and culturally rich Ahtna Athabascan 

Tribe based in Sutton in south-central Alaska. As a response to the environmental and 

social injustice suffered by Chickaloon Village Tribal Citizens, coupled with the passing of 

the Alaska Native Claims and Settlement Act (ANCSA) of 1971, our Elders re-established 

the Chickaloon Village Traditional Council (CVTC) in 1973, to reassert the Tribe's identity, 

cultural traditions, economic self-sufficiency and to reunify our citizens. The mandate for 

the Council was: To restore our traditional worldview by rejuvenating our traditional 

Athabascan culture, values, oral traditions, spirituality, language, songs, and dance. 

Chickaloon Native Village gained federal recognition in 1973 and on November 24, 1982, 

according to Federal Register Vol. 58, No. 202. We are governed by a nine-member 

Traditional Council (CVTC), tasked to reassert the Tribes identity and cultural traditions, 

and create economic self-sufficiency for the Tribe. It is the vision of our Tribe's land Use 

Committee to have land, water and air that is cleaner and healthier than it is today, to 

sustain our community's life needs, balancing stewardship of the natural world and 

economic development for our current and future generations. It is our mission to 

educate, guide, advocate for and develop policy that protects the integrity of natural 

habitats while supporting development that respects ecological limits. 

Findings Concerning the Proposed Use of New Herbicides 

Chickaloon Village Traditional Council exercises powers of self-government by reason of 

its original tribal sovereignty as passed down from our ancestors since time immemorial 

with a responsibility to protect the health and well-being of our Tribal Citizens. The 

Council has responsibility to prevent contamination that may harm present or future 

P. 0. BOX 1105 Chickaloon, Alaska 99674 Phone (907) 745-0707 Fax (907) 745-0709 

e ttmail: cvadmin@chickaloon.org Home Page: http://www.chickaloon.org 
.... 

generations and to ensure that we pass on a world with water that is pure to drink, as 

well as lands and waters that support our customary and traditional way of life. Our 

Chickaloon Tribal Citizens depend on the harvest of berries, medicinal plants, fish and 

wildlife for our spiritual, cultural and physical sustenance. We depend on the lands and 

waters of the watersheds in our region for the safe harvest of our traditional subsistence 

foods. The·people ofthe Native Village of Chickaloon are concerned about the proposed 

use of any herbicides, including the proposed new herbicides by the BLM and potential 

harm to our health. Herbicide applications are designed to destroy the growth of plant 

life and are toxic to the environment because they adversely affect non-target plants, 

animals, and people. The use of herbicides, including aminopyralid, fluroxypyr, and 

rimsulfuron, will have detrimental effects to non-target plants, wildlife and people. 

Herbicide chemical treatments will have a detrimental effect on the lands, waters, and 

air as well as fish and wildlife resources that Native people rely on for hunting, fishing, 

and gathering for their daily food. These herbicides may harm the health of the Native 

people-~ho use ourtraditionallaflds-andwaters. The u.~e of herbicides violates Article 29 

of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to ensure that 

disposal of hazardous materials shall not take place in the lands and territories of our 

Indigenous peoples without their free, prior and informed consent. We believe that there 

are effective and viable alternatives to the use of herbicides for vegetation management. 

The Chickaloon Village Traditional Council finds as a matter of tribal policy that the use of 

herbicides is detrimental to land, waters, and air resources as well as fish and wildlife 

that Alaska Native people use in our daily lives and that the use of herbicides will have a 

detrimental effects on the health of our people. Therefore, our Council opposes the use 

of herbicides for vegetation management and calls upon BLM to adopt a policy of 

prohibiting the use of herbicides. We find that BLM does not provide justification for the 

use of the proposed new herbicides nor does the agency discuss non-chemical 

vegetation management options. 

There is very little information or studies available in the open scientific and peerreviewed literature on the ecological and human health consequences of the use of 

aminopyralid because it is a relatively new pesticide. What little information exists is 

based almost exclusively on studies submitted to the U.S. EPA by the chemical 

corporation Dow AgroSciences in support of the registration of aminopyralid. Non-target 

plants, particularly dicots (broadleaf plants) are sensitive to the herbicide and will be 

adversely affected by applications of aminopyralid1 . Studies have shown that exposure of 

non-target plants to aminopyralid causes damage including deformed leaves and stems, 

as well as reduced fruit production at low concentrations2 

• It is quite persistent in soils, 

with demonstrated half-lives of 32-533 days. Compost and manure contaminated with 

residues of aminopyralid causes damage to and economic losses of crops on which the 

compost or manure have been applied. Research also show that aminopyralid altered 

native plant communities3 

. In a study of the effects of aminopyralid, crops were injured 

by the herbicide at soil concentrations less than the limit of quantitation (0.2 11g kg (-1)4 

• 

Developmental studies involving gavage administration in adult female rabbits 

documented signs of incoordination upon exposure. In the rabbit study, developmental 

toxicity was shown by a decrease in fetal body weights. Effects on the nervous system are 

not well documented. "It seems reasonable to assume the most sensitive effects in 

wildlife mammalian species will be the same as those in experimental mammals (e.g., 

changes in the gastrointestinal tract, weight loss, and incoordination)."5 EPA issued a 

P. 0. BOX 1105 Chickaloon, Alaska 99674 Phone (907) 745-0707 Fax (907) 745-0709 

e-mail: cvadmin@chickaloon.org Home Page: http://www.chickaloon.org 
' . 


conditional registration for aminopyralid in 2005 and it is not scheduled for review until 

2020. It should not be categorized by BLM as a "reduced risk" herbicide because its 

evaluation is incomplete. To our knowledge, there have not been studies of this herbicide 

on subsistence resources, including medicinal plants, herbs, berry plants, fish or wildlife, 

particularly in our traditional use.areas.ltis likely that aminopyralid is more persistent in 

our colder environment and may cause more damage to northern species and 

ecosystems. For the other two herbicides, fluroxypyr and rimsulferon, we find that there 

is also insufficient informatJon in the pe.er-reviewed literature with which to make 

reasoned assessments concerning the ecological and human health implications of their 

use. Therefore, we are opposed to their use as a precautionary measure. 

Non-chemical methods exist that are effective and economical. New technologies and 

products have been developed that provide safe, economical alternatives to the use of 

herbicides. For example, the provincial government of British Columbia recommends 

the use. of ecological vegetatior:Lmanagement rather than the use of herbicides. The 

government's Integrated Pest Management Program notes that "repeated herbicide 

applications to keep sites bare, such as around electrical substations, along a fence lines 

or railroad tracks, will encourage the growth of weeds. The herbicides create a 

disturbance, both in the vegetation, and, depending on the herbicide, in the soil--which 

then encourages weed invasion. This disturbance is not limited to the area of application, 

but may be felt in the vegetation for some distance away ... Minimizing herbicide use can 

reduce weed growth and result in cost effective vegetation management systems."6 

Integrated pest management includes cultural methods, mechanical removal, cultivation, 

mulching, flamtng, hot water,. controlled burning, or a variety of non toxic herbicides 

based on corn meal gluten, vinegar, or: microbial agents. 

Several forms of alternative herbicides have recently come on the market and are 

currently a very active research subject in Canada. Corn meal gluten applied to mature 

grass over multiple seasons acts as a pre-emergent herbicide to suppress clover, 

dandelion and other weed growth by up to 90%. Vinegar (acetic acid) effectively kills 

many weeds when applied directly to the shoots, and Cirsium arvense, the invasive 

thistle targeted by this permit application, is particularly susceptible according to USDA 

tests. The Environmental Protection Agency recently approved at least one commercial 

vinegar-based mixture; a vinegar-based product would be an excellent choice for weed 

control as vinegar degrades quickly into nontoxic components. 7 

Herbicide applications are likely to result in higher economic and ecological costs over 

the long term, as plants develop resistance to herbicide applications. Despite earlier 

claims that glyphosate resistance was unlikely, at least 19 weed species have developed 

glyphosate-resistant strains in agricultural areas worldwide8 

. Field studies in Washington 

state showed that star thistle repeatedly treated with picloram developed resistance to 

not only the herbicide actually uses, pidoram, but to other herbicides (including 

. chlorpyralid) with the same mode of action.9 The use of herbicides will perpetuate 

resistance of the vegetation to treatment and will not be effective in vegetation 

management in the future. Herbicide-resistant weeds may also spread into areas beyond 

the application sites, thereby increasing the problem and cost of weed control. We assert 

that there are new and proven methods and technologies that preclude the need for 

synthetic herbicides, including new acetic acid-based products, improved infrared steam 

P. 0. BOX 1105 Chickaloon, Alaska 99674 Phone (907) 745-0707 Fax (907) 745-0709 

e .,ail: cvadmin@chiclcaloon.org Home Page: http://www.chiclcaloon.org 
technology, cultural and biological control methods. We maintain that an integrated nonchemical approach would be highly effective and preferable to threatening 

environmental and community health. 

OnAugust 1, 2006 the Attorney General of A•aska announced that Alaska "joined with 13 

other states and the U.S. Virgin Islands to petition the Environmental Protection Agency 

{EPA) to require pesticide manufacturers to disclose on the label of their product all 

hazardous ingredients ...The EPA currently requires that pesticide labels disclose only the 

product's "active" ingredients that contain toxic materials intended to kill insects, weeds, 

or other target organisms. Pesticide products also contain many other "inert" 

ingredients, which are intended to preserve or improve the effectiveness of the 

pesticides' active ingredients. These "inert" ingredients may be toxic themselves ..." The 

news release further states that "people who use or who are impacted by the use of a 

pesticide should have notice of all that product's potential health risks." Thus, it would 

be wrong for BLM to apply herbicides for which the manufacturers do not disclose 

ingredients that may harm human health. 

Dr. Warren Porter, Professor of Environmental Toxicology at the University of Wisconsin, 

Madison, completed a review of the literature concerning the environmental health 

effects of low-dose chemical mixtures of pesticides.10 He concluded: 

• 	 Pesticides have interactive effects and ultra low-level effects that are below EPA 

allowable levels. These effects include adverse neurological, endocrine, immune, 

reproductive and developmental health outcomes. 

• 	 EPA assessments of biological risk can be off by a factor of 10,000 at ultra low 

doses. Scientists call for a new type of risk assessment in the open literature 

because of the inadequacies of the current EPA pesticide registration system. 

• 	 Pesticides have broad biological effects that are unintended and often 

unpredictable because of physicochemical properties engineered into their 

molecules. 

• 	 Pesticides of different classes can have similar impacts on endocrine disruption 

and sexual development. Chemicals affect development at levels in the tenths of 

a part per billion .range. 

In the preeminent peer-reviewed environmental health journal published by the National 

Institute for Environmental Health Sciences, Environmental Health Perspectives, 11 the 

authors warn: "Inert ingredients may be biologically or chemically active and are labeled 

inert only because of their function in the formulated product ...lnert ingredients can 

increase the ability of pesticide .formulations to affect significant toxicological endpoints, 

including developmental neurotoxicity, genotoxicity, and disruption of hormone function. 

They can also increase exposure by increasing dermal absorption, decreasing the efficacy 

of protective clothing, and increasing environmental mobility and persistence. Inert 

ingredients can increase the phytotoxicity of pesticide formulations, as well as toxicity to 

fish, amphibians, and microorganisms." In the case of this permit application, the active 

ingredients cannot be used without an adjuvant and/or surfactant. The scientific 

literature supports the fact that the use of surfactants/adjuvants increases the 

P. 0. BOX 1105 Chickaloon, Alaska 99674 Phone (907) 745-0707 Fax (907) 745-0709 

e"tnail: cvadmin@chickaloon.org 	 Home Page: http://www.chickaloon.org 
.. 


bioavailability, toxicity, persistence, and bioaccumulation of the active ingredient. 

For the reasons stated above, Chickaloon Village Traditional Council firmly opposes the 

use of these and other herbicides because of the hazards posed to ecological and human 

health. We are particularly vulnerable to the effects of these chemicals due our reliance 

on medicinal plants and. traditional foods. We anticipate that BLM will initiate formal 

government-to-government consultation with our Tribe as mandated. 

May Creator Guide Our Footsteps, 

~!:::::1:1/~ Chairman 

1 

1 Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Final Report for Aminopyralid. 2007. Prepared for 

the USDNForest Service and National Park Service. SERA TR-052-04-04a. 

2 

1 Aminopyralid, Chemical Watch Fact Sheet. Beyond Pesticides, 2011. 

3 

1 Almquist TL and RG Lym. 2010. Effect of aminopyralid on Canada thistle and the native plant 

community in _a restored tallgrass vrair~e. ~v~s_iv~ PlaptS~ience ~d Management 3(?):155-168. 4 . . 

1 Fast BJ et al. 2011. Aminopyralid soil residues affect rotational vegetable crops in Florida. Pest 

Management Science 67(7):825-830. 

5 

1 Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Final Report for Arninopyralid. 2007. Prepared for 

the USDNForest Service and National Park Service. SERA TR-052-04-04a. 

6 

1 Provincial Government of British Columbia Integrated Pest Management Prograrnrne-B.C. Pest 

Monitor Newsletter: http:l/www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/ipmp/publications/pest. monitor/vol5 1.htm. Accessed 

September 14, 2009. 

7 

1 Quarles, W. 2010. Alternative herbicides in turfgrass and organic agriculture. The /PM Practitioner: 

Monitoring the Field ofPest Management. 22(5/6) May/June 2010. 

8 

P. 0. BOX 1105 Chickaloon, Alaska 99674 Phone (907) 745-0707 Fax (907) 745-0709 

e~~t~U~il: cvadmin@chickaloon.org Home Page: http://www.chickaloon.org 
... 


1 A. J. Price, K. S. (2011). Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth: A threat to conservation tillage. 

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 66 (4), 265-275. 

x Provincial Government of British Columbia Integrated Pest Management Programme-B.C. Pest 

Monitor Newsletter: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/ipmp/publications/pest monitor/vol5 l.htm. Accessed 

September 14, 2009. 

9 

1 Sabba, R.P. et al. 2003. Inheritance of Resistance to Clopyralid and Picloram in Yellow Starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis 

L.) Is Controlled by a Single Nuclear Recessive Gene. Journal ofHeredity. 94(6):523-527 

10 

l Porter, W. 2005. Report as an expert witness. 

11 

l Cox, C. and M. Surgan. 2006. Unidentified inert ingredients in pesticides: implications for human and 

environmental health. Environmental Health Perspectives www.ehponline.org/docs/2006/9374/abstract.pdf 

P. 0. BOX 1105 Chickaloon, Alaska 99674 Phone (907) 745-0707 Fax (907) 745-0709 

e fllnail: cvadmin@chickaloon.org Home Page: http://www.chickaloon.org 
1(asliia (Band ofPomo Indians 

oftfie Stewarts Point ~ancfieria 

May 3, 2013 

Please note that there have been changes to our Tribal Council and Administration. 

Emilio V<ilencia, Tribal Cha irman 

Sandy Pinola, Tribal Vice-Chairman 

Violet Wilder, Tribal Secretary 

Glenda Jacob-McGill, Tribal Treasurer 

Elayne May-Muro. , Member-At-Large 

Angelique Lane, Member-At-Large 

Dino Franklin, Member-At-Large 

Teresa Romero, Tribal Administrator 

Jeny Rice, Fiscal Officer 

Otis Panish, THPO 

Jan Guthrie, Housing Director 

Nina Hapner, Environmental Director 

Please note that we have moved and our new address is: 1420 Guerneville Road, 

Suitct 1, Santa Rosa, CA 95403. Please address further conespondence to the cunent 

Chairperson above. 

If you have any questions, please contact our office at (707) 591 -0580. 

Sincerely, 

Lenora Vigil-Moya 

Front Office Receptionist 

cc: file 

1420 Guerneville Road, Suite 1 + Santa Rosa, CA 95403 

(707) 591~0580 + (707) 591 0583 Fax • email: tribalofc@stewartspoint.org 
'!. i E 

95403-4124 

S­

& 

AECOM SEATTLE \WA gso · 

~COM 71 oSecond Avenue 

Suite 1000 


Seattle, WA 98104 
 29 APR 2 0 1 3 Pt-'i 1 l 

E/?2 ///o _v~leTic 1()1.._.J 

Ra lph Sepu lveda, Chairman 

Kash ia Band of Pomo Indi ans of the 

St ewarts Point Rancheria 

3535 Industrial Drive, Suite B-2 

Santa Rosa. CA 95403 

Q RO N~F 1 6177 nn 0~ 1 70!1~ 

t~J Q T I F= 'f . SEND~R 0~ NEW ADDRESS . . ' k A. S-H I Ai',J ;;;. Q>=- •'=' .r..r, 

.._.- t~C::-R ;o: ::..""7"1. C't:-1::. R D 

SANTA ROSA CA 

ac: 9540341240J_ ~~026 21775-~9-39 

,c :::s:::-~c=:::l~E::~:::: ~?? 4 o3 @412 4 1i, 1... 1.1 .. 1.,' 11" ... i l.. 1, . 1 ... n.. 1.1. 1. .n i, .. ,.. w... a ( ~; J f I~ : J! 4ft e I If~ I l 1\ ~I (I I l (, ~ ~:; 0 il ~ 1' l/1, ~. ( l ~~'a I I~ 1' •! ~ I:'\ ; .l ~ ( D ~ 

4 4 · ·· -~'' '· .......-­
Koi Nation Information Update 

This is the current information for the Koi Nation of Northern 

California (formerly Lower Lake Rancheria Koi Nation) 

Chairman: Darin F. Beltran 

Office Phone #: (707)575-5586 

Office Fax #: (707)575-5506 

Address: P.O. Box 3162 

Santa Rosa, CA 95402 

Email Address: kn@koination. com 

Website: koination.com 

Please update your contact information. 

Thank you tL·7 much, 

II liA\~-~ f\J.P/{),_ft-)Tl . . 

Tribal Council of the Ko1 ation of Northem California 
NAKNEK NATIVE VILLAGE 

P.O. BOX 210 "Naknek, Alaska 99633 


Phone: 907.246.4210 "Fax: 907.246.3563 


Naknek Native Village Council 


PO Box 210 


Naknek, AK, 99633 


Phone: 1-907-246-4210 


Fax: 1-907-246-3563 


nnvcpresident@gmail.com 


AECOM 


710 Second Avenue, Suite 100 


Seattle, WA 98104 


To Whom It May Concern: 


The Naknek Native Village Council is writing to inform AECOM that Leon Kiana is no 


longer the Naknek Native Village Council Administrator. Please direct all mail, 


questions/concerns and correspondence to Mr. Patrick Patterson Jr., Naknek Village 


Council President until further notice. 


The Naknek Native Village Council would like to also request an update in address 


and contact information. Our curr~qt qmtact information is as listed on the top of 


this letter. ' " 


Sincerely, 


Patrick Patterson Jr. 


Naknek Village Council President 

I 

Native Village of Unalakleet 

.

J, 

~I 

Native Village ofUnalaklcct 

PO Box 270 

Unalakleet, AK 99684 

(907) 624-3622 

June 14, 2013 

Stuart Paulus, .AECOM Project Manager 

710 Second Avenue, Suite I 000 

Seattle, W A 98104 

RE: Proposed Use of tlu·ee new herbicides to treat vegetation on BLM-administered lands 

Dear Mr. Stuart Paulus: 

The Native Village of Unalakleet (NYU) received an invitation for a government-to-government 

consultation to exchange information on the proposed use ofthree new herbicides to treat 

vegetation on ELM-administered lands. The NYU Tribal Council respectfully requests that BLM 

not spray these herbicides on the Unalakleet River. The Tribal Membership of Unalakleet 

harvests berries, greens, fish and game from the Unalakleet River and everywhere in its vicinity . 

Please fi.1rward any pertinent information about immediate or perceived threats to the natural 

nora and fauna caused by invasive plant species that you would like to target. The Native Village 

of Unalakleet Tribal Council will meet again on June 20, 2013 and can notify you of future dates 

ifneed be. 

Please do not hesitate to call us if you have questions or need more information. 

Kermit Ivanoff Sr, i

1 resident 

CC: 	 file 

NYU Tribal Council 

.. 

P.O . B ox 270 

Unalakleet, AK 99684 Fax: (907) 624-362 1 

Ph : (907) 624-3622 Email: vjohnson@kawerak.org 
PALA TRIBAL HISTORIC 

PRESERVATION OFFICE 

PMB 50, 35008 Pala Temecu la Road 

Pala, CA 92059 

760-89 1-35 10 Office 1760-742-3 189 Fax PALATHPO

May 7, 2013 

Stuart Paulus , Project Manager 

AECOM 

710 Second A venue, Suite 1000 

Seattle, W A 98104 

Re: Government-to -Government Consultation on the Propo!';ed Us e ofThre~ New Herbicides to 

Treat Vegetation on ELM-Administered Lands 

Dear Mr. Paulus, 

We are in receipt of a letter from Edwin L. Roberson, Assistant Director, Renewable Resources 

and Planning of the Bureau of Land Management regarding a proposal to approve three new 

herbicides for use on ELM-administered public lands. This letter constitutes our response on 

behalf of Robert Smith, Chairman of the Pal a Band of Mission Indians. 

At this time, we do not request formal government-to-government consultation on the proposed 

action. Further, we do not have any specific concerns about the proposed herbicides, nor do we 

have any reserved rights under treaty. However, we would like to comment that consultation on 

the use of new herbicides should be specific to the Indian nations that may be impacted by their 

use. That is, as herbicide applications are scheduled for specific areas, the local tribes should be 

contacted so they are aware that native plant resources might be affected, and they can plan 

accordingly. They should also be contacted for information regarding TCPs and other significant 

areas that may be impacted by scheduled applications. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. 

Shasta 

s~~ ~.J.:~c::::~ C. Gaughen, PhD 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

Pal a Band of Mission Indians 
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION 

OFFICE CONSULTATION 

KSR&C No. \'3-os-o1Cf 


6425 SW 6

1 

• Avenue phone: 785-272-8681 

Topeka, KS 66615 fax: 785-272-8682 

cultural_resources@kshs .org 

Kansas Historical Society Sam Brownback, Governor 

Jennie Chinn, Executive Director 

May 1, 2013 

Stuart Paulus 

AECOM Project Manager 

710 Second Avenue, Suite 1000 

Seattle W A 98104 

RE: 	 Herbicide Treatments 

1793(220) 

Statewide 

Dear Mr. Paulus, 

Our staff has reviewed the materials received April 26, 2013, regarding the above referenced 

project in accordance with 36 CFR 800. The SHPO has determined the proposed project will not 

adversely affect any prope1iy listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. 

Please refer to the Kansas State Review & Compliance number (KSR&C#) listed above on any 

future correspondence. 

If you have any questions regarding this review, please contact Kim Gant (785) 272-8681 ext. 225. 

Sincerely, 

Jennie Chinn 1J;;;;I;·ese vation Officer 


Patrick Zollner 

Director, Cultural Resources Division 

Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer 
Historic Preservation 

Big Sky. BigLand. Big Histor-y. Museum 

Montana Outreach & InteJjJI'dation

Publications 

Historical Society Research Center 

STUART PAULUS 

AECOM MANAGER 

710 SECOND AVE 

SUITE 1000 

SEATTLE WA 98104 

RE: PElS for Aminopyralid, Fluroxypyr and Rimsulfuron Herbicides 

Mr. Paulus: 

We know of no direct or indirect effect potential to Historic Properties as a result of application of these 


herbicides . We recommend eliciting tribal comments or concerns regarding potential impacts resulting 


from use of culturally important plants which might be treated as either target or non-target plants . 


/J/~7;)J ;;[ment 

Stan Wilmoth, Ph.D. 


State Archaeologist/deputy, SHPO 


225 North Roberts Street 

P. 0. Box 201201 

Helena, MT 59620-1201 

(406) 444-2694 

(406) 444-2696 FAX 

montanahistoricalsociety.org 
.I 

. 

Merlan . Paaverud, Jr. 

State Historic Preservation Officer (North Dakota) 

STATE 

HISTORICAL 

SOCIETY 

O F NORT H DAKOTA 

Jack Da lty m ple 

Governor of Nort h Dakota 

North Dakota 

S tate Historical Board 

Gereld Gerntholz 

Va lley City -President 

Ca lvin Grinne ll 

New Town - Vice President 

A. Ruric Todd Ill 

Jam estown- Secretary 

Albe rt I. Berger 

Grand Forb 

Diane K. Larson 

Bismarck 

C heste r E. Nelson, Jr. 

Bismarck 

Margaret Puetz 

Bismarck 

Sara Otte Coleman 

Director 

Tourism Di·vision 

Kelly Schmidt 

State Treasure r 

A lvin A. Jaege r 

Secretary of State 

Mark Zimmerman 

Director 

Parl<s and Recreation 

Department 

Grant Levi 

Acting Director 

DefJartment of Transportation 

Me rl an E. Paaveru 

Director 

Accredited by th e American Alliance of Museums since 1989 

April 30, 2013 

Mr. Stuart Paulus 

AECOM Project Manager 

710 Second Avenue, Suite 1000 

Seattle, WA 98104 

ND SHPO Ref: 13-0822 BLM 1793 (220) PElS on adding three herbicides to 

list of approved active ingredients for use in vegetation treatments on public 

lands 

Dear Mr. Peters, 

W e reviewed ND SHPO Ref: 13-0822 BLM 1793 (220) PElS on adding three 

h erbicid es to list of approved active ingred ients for use in vegetation treatments on 

public lands and would like to comment that some herbicides can have a n egative 

impac t o n historic buildings, monuments and cemetery stones if applied too close 

to or o n the structures. This can be due to salt crystallization, discoloration, 

change in pH, pitting of surfaces, and accelerated deterioration. 

Please see: 

h ttp: //www.scribd.com/ doc/37 7 847 3 3/The-Effects-of-Herbicide-on-Stone-andMasonry 

Thank you for the opportunity to review this PElS document. Please include the 

ND SHPO Reference number listed above in further correspondence for this 

specific project. If you have any questions please contact Susan Quinnell, Review 

and Compliance Coordinator at (701) 328-3576, or squinnell@nd.gov 

Sincerely, 

North Dakota Heritage Center • 612 East Boulevard Avenue, Bismarck, NO 58505-0830 • Phone: 701-328-2666 • Fax : 701-328-3710 


Email : histsoc@nd.gov • Web site : http ://history.nd .gov • TTY: 1-800-366-6888 


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

CONSULTATION 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

OFFICE OF 


ENFORCEMENT AND 


COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE 


AECOM 

Attn. Stuart Paulus 

710 Second Avenue, Suite 1000 

Seattle, WA 981 04 

Dear Mr. Paulus: 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the Bureau of Land Management's 

(BLM) Notice oflntent (NOI), dated December 21, 2012, to prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) to evaluate the use of aminopyralid, fluroxypyr, and rimsulfuron herbicides as 

part of the its vegetation treatment programs on public lands in 17 Western States. 

According to the NOI, BLM will assess environmental impacts associated with use of the 

proposed herbicides on all surface estate public lands under its administration in 17 Western 

States. The need for the proposed action is to expand the existing vegetation treatment program 

and increase flexibility and options when designing herbicide treatments. 

We understand that the use of herbicides is a necessary strategy to control noxious weeds in light 

of the scope and s~verity of noxious weed invasions..Tl1erefore, we support the overall purpose 

of the proposed action,to treat vegetation on public lands. The NOI identifies a preliminary list of 

resources and issues to ad~ress in the EIS analysis, including, but not limited to, the effects of the 

herbicides and their inert ingredients on human, vegetation, fish and wildlife, livestock, water 

quality, tribal resources; and cumulative impacts. . 

We offer the following comments for your consideration. 

Impacts to Water Resources 

V•/e recommend that the EIS analyze potential adverse impacts of the proposed action to water 

quality and aquatic resources..In particular, we are concerned abot,Jt the unintended consequences 

that may result from applications of he;·bicides such ·as drift, effects on non-target species, 

persistence in soils that may erode into waterways. If buffers exist around waterways, EPA 

recommends that the EIS include information explaining the treatme.nt of invasive plants within 

buffer zones, as well as information about aquatic invasive plant infestatioris and how they 

would be treated to prevent deterioration of water quality within v.raterbodies found on the 

analysis area. 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov 


Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper 

Section 303(d) ofthe Clean Water Act (CWA) requires each state to identify waterbodies that 

are not meeting or not likely to CW A water quality standards and to develop water quality 

restoration plans or Total Maximum Daily Loads for these waters. We recommend the EIS 

demonstrate that there would be no net degradation of water quality to Section 303( d) listed 

waters. Also, please indicate how use of the proposed herbicides would meet anti-degradation 

provisions of the CWA that prohibit degrading water quality standards within water bodies that 

are currently meeting water quality standards. 

The proposed chemical treatment may also impact waters that serve as sources of drinking water. 

The 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act require federal agencies that manage 

lands that drain to drinking water sources to protect these source waters. EPA recommends that 

the analysis of impacts identify all drinking water sources, any potential contamination of these 

sources that may result from the proposed action, and measures that would be taken to protect 

these sources. 

EPA is aware that aminopyralid has been detected in surface and groundwater in Montana. The 

contamination in groundwater has been anecdotally linked to impacts on irrigated plants/crops. 

Thus, we recommend the EIS explicitly address these groundwater concerns in the water 

resources section. 

Chemical Treatments 

We recommend the BLM analyze herbicides to determine whether they: 1) are registered for the 

intended use, 2) will achieve the desired results, and 3) will have minimal adverse effects on the 

environment. 

Providing the best available information on chemicals is essential in evaluating chemical use in 

invasive plant control and eradication. If other alternatives such as prevention and mechanical 

control are not feasible, use of herbicides may provide less environmental impact than the 

establishment of invasive plants. Issues such as sub-lethal effects on wildlife, reduced 

breeding/survival of sensitive species, secondary cumulative effects, and unintended effects need 

to be discussed. Liquid and granular herbicides can be applied broadcast, banded, as spots, or 

directed to specific plants using appropriate application technology such as mechanized ground 

equipment, or manual applicators such as backpack sprayers or tree injectors. Use of global 

positioning systems, specialized application equipment and careful attention to weather 

conditions can enhance application accuracy and minimize off-site chemical movement. Models 

can also be used to assess the effectiveness of alternative drift control practices and predict the 

environmental fate of chemicals before their use. 

Since chemical treatment is one of several available vegetation management alternatives, we 

recommend the BLM discuss the screening process used in deciding whether chemical 

applications are necessary given other weed treatments are already in use on BLM lands. The 

BLM must ensure that its use of registered pesticides is consistent with all labeling requirements 

and coordinate with individual state programs to make sure the new herbicides are registered for 

the intended use in each state. 

2 

Landscape Approach and Cumulative Effects 

EPA recommends that the EIS assess the effects of the proposed herbicide applications using a 

landscape approach because BLM administered lands are often intertwined with a mix of other 

privately, state, and federally owned lands. 

Where infestations cross jurisdictional boundaries, a coordinated effort will increase the 

likelihood of bringing the invasive population to a manageable level. It is recommended that the 

EIS process use a landscape approach in assessing cumulative effects and identify what 

assumptions will be used with respect to adjacent non-BLM lands, as well as the mechanisms for 

cooperating with other landowners to disclose the sum of individual effects of all projects on 

local enviromnent. We recommend that BLM consider EPA's Consideration a.[Cumulative 

Impacts in EPA Review o.fNEP A Documents 1 when preparing this EIS. 

Public Participation and Environmental Justice 

We recommend that the EIS disclose what efforts were taken to ensure effective public 

participation. Also, consistent with Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations) the EIS should include an 

environmental justice analysis to identify low-income and minority populations in the project 

area and disclose what efforts were taken to avoid, minimize, reduce or mitigate impacts to these 

communities if these populations will be impacted by the proposed project. 

Restoration 

EPA recommends that the EIS evaluate options for restoration activities following invasive plant 

removal to prevent their re-establishment. 

We recommend including an evaluation of restoring natural processes to assist in the return of 

stressed natural communities and creating high quality habitats. For example, restoring 

hydrology to a wetland or riparian site, returning a stream to its natural channel, reintroducing 

fire, and creating conditions that allow natural processes (large woody debris, carbon storage, 

nutrient cycling) to occur are all activities that have great potential for restoration success. 

Climate Change Effects 

EPA recommends that the EIS evaluate whether changes in plant growth, resulting from 

increased C02 in the atmosphere, could affect herbicide efficiency either through uptake rates of 

the active ingredient or by increased biomass that enables plants to withstand herbicides' 

effectiveness. 

1 EPA's Consideration ofCumulative Impacts in EPA Review ofNEPA Documents is located at 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/nepa/cumulative.pdf 

3 

We also recommend that the EIS quantify the greenhouse gas emissions from the project 

activities and discuss mitigation measures to reduce emissions. 

Monitoring 

We recommend that the proposed project be designed to include an effective feedback element, 

which includes both implementation and effectiveness monitoring. 

Specifically, it is recommended that the EIS include information and assurances regarding 

adequate monitoring and evaluation to determine if application rates are effective, buffers are 

sufficient, off-target drift is minimized, and specific goals and endpoints are being met. We 

recommend there be a commitment in using the best available techniques for monitoring, 

evaluating, and mitigating impacts from those herbicides that are known to be persistent and that 

migrate through soil into groundwater. 

Monitoring is a necessary and crucial element in identifying and understanding the consequences 

of actions. For the proposed project, monitoring would show whether the proposed treatments 

would be effective in managing invasive plant populations and in minimizing environmental 

impacts. This information would also be helpful in planning future land management activities. 

Other 

We recommend the EIS document assess the effects of composting operations and how treated 

plants will be disposed of (left in place, mulched, com posted, etc) particularly those treated with 

either aminopyralid or fluroxypyr. Aminopyralid and fluroxypyr are in the group of pyridinebased herbicides that have been causing problems in compost. They persist through composting 

cooperations, and then when the compost is used on sensitive plants, as in right-of-way use, the 

plants die. 

We appreciate the opportunity to review the NOI and look forward to reviewing the draft EIS 

related to this project. The staff contact for the review is Julie Roemele. She can be reached at 

(202) 564-5632. 

Sincerely, 

0Luli1tv [ ~OfVJ IV\_ 

Susan E. Bromm 

Director 

Office ofFederal Activities 

4 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AND 

NOAA NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES 

SERVICE CONSULTATION 

United States Department ofthe Interior 

BUREA U OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

Washington , DC 20240 

http://www.blm.gov 

MAR 3 2015 

In Reply Refer To: 

6842 (W0-230) 

Memorandum 

To: Craig W. Aubrey 1:

Chief, Division of ·~on~ental evie Eco o · al Services Program 

From: 	 Shelley J. Smith I (iu; j_ f/ 

Acting Deputy Assi ·tant Direct r, Resources M"anning I 

Subject: 	 Section 7 Consultation for Dra Ve etation Treatments Using Aminopyralid, 

Fluroxypyr, and Rimsulfi . o n the Bureau ofLand Management Lands in 17 

Western States Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement EIS (PElS) 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is requesting initiation of consultation under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) on the Draft Vegetation Treatments Using Aminopyralid, 

Fluroxypyr, and Rimsulfuron on the BLM lands in 17 Western States Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement (PElS). Attached is final Biological Assessment (BA) used to 

complete the BLM's effects analysis for Threatened, Endangered and Proposed (TEP) species 

and their designated or proposed critical habitat, pursuant to the ESA, Essential Fish Habitat, and 

the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The analyses in the BA and 

PElS incorporate the best scientific and commercial data available to the BLM. The BLM 

analysis addresses a total of341 species, subtotaled by species' type below. 

Type of Number of 

Species Species 

Plant 163 

Mollusk 11 

Arthropod 16 

Fish 83 

Amphibian 11 

Reptile 7 

Bird 21 

Mammal 29 

*Total 341 

*Includes subspecies and populations that are treated separately. 
2 

The PElS assesses, on the national level, the ELM's proposed use ofthe active ingredients 

aminopyralid, fluroxypyr, and rimsulfuron. If approved, the ELM will add these three herbicides 

to the ELM's list of approved active ingredients and integrate them into the ELM Vegetation 

Management Program. Herbicide treatments using all approved active ingredients would occur 

on the ELM-administered lands in 17 western states, including Alaska. The prescribed 

treatments would take place on no more than 932,000 acres annually, which is the same acreage 

limit that was analyzed in the PElS and EA released in 2007. The ELM plans to continue to 

treat vegetation on the ELM-administered lands using an integrated pest management approach, 

utilizing a variety of vegetation management tools, including herbicides, prescribed fire, and 

mechanical, manual, and biological control methods. With the exception of the three new 

herbicides, use of all ofthe vegetation management tools by the ELM have been previously 

analyzed at the EIS level and approved through Records of Decision. 

As part of the PElS analysis of herbicide use, ecological risk assessments (ERAs) were prepared 

by the ELM to assess the risks of these herbicides to fish and wildlife, including TEP species and 

their designated or proposed critical habitat. The ERA methodology was developed in 

collaboration with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and the 

Environmental Protection Agency for the 2007 PElS and EA. 

During development of the current PElS and EA, standard operating procedures (SOPs) and 

conservation measures were developed to minimize potential effects to plants and animals from 

treatments using aminopyralid, fluroxypyr, and rimsulfuron. SOPs and conservation measures 

specific to TEP species and their designated or proposed critical habitat are included in the EA. 

Additionally, the ELM would continue to follow all SOPs and conservation measures identified 

in the 2007 PElS and EA. These measures are conservative and designed to apply across all 

public lands. During project planning, local field offices have the opportunity to identify 

additional appropriate local SOPs and conservation measures to reduce further potential effects 

at the project scale. All subsequent actions implemented are subject to the National 

Environmental Policy Act analysis and consultation under the ESA, if it is determined that they 

"May Affect" TEP species and/or their designated or proposed critical habitat. 

The ELM's proposed use of the active ingredients aminopyralid, fluroxypyr, and rimsulfuron 

would require field offices to comply with all SOPs and conservation measures contained in the 

PElS, EA and in the ERAs for TEP species and their designated or proposed critical habitat that 

could be affected by a site-specific proposed action. The proposed action also requires 

consultation at the project-level if it is determined that the project actions "May Affect" a TEP 

species or their designated or proposed critical habitat. 

The scale ofthe proposed action is the 17 states evaluated in the PElS. Although herbicide 

treatments using the three new herbicides could occur anywhere on the 245 million acres of 

public lands administered by the ELM; actual treatment locations and levels are determined by 

Congressional direction and funding. With current funding levels, the ELM is treating an 

average of315,000 acres per year using herbicides (about one tenth of one percent of ELMadministered lands). For the purposes of evaluating the effects of herbicide treatments with 
3 

aminopyralid, fluroxypyr, and rimsulfuron on TEP species and/or their designated or proposed 

critical habitat, the estimate of932,000 acres treated annually using all herbicides (about four 

tenths of one percent ofBLM-administered lands) was carried over from the 2007 PElS. 

Outside of one, no effect determination found on a fish species within the federal mineral estate, 

the BLM has determined, through the effects analysis that the proposed action may affect but is 

Not Likely to Adversely Affect all species analyzed in the BA. The effects determination 

assumes that the BLM will protect TEP species through the use of conservation measures 

identified for various species groups in the 2007 and current BA, additional conservation 

measures developed by local field offices (primarilyfor spot treatments near TEP plants), and 

SOPs identified in the 2007 and current PElS. Subsequent site-level actions that do not conform 

to these standards may not result in a determination ofNot Likely to Adversely Affect. 

Regardless, all subsequent actions remain subject to consultation if a "May Affect" 

determination is made at the local level. 

The BLM appreciates the opportunity to work with you and your staff to clarify the information 

about the PElS and the consultation. lfyou have any questions regarding the PElS, please 

contact Gina Ramos, Division of Forest, Riparian, and Rangeland Resources (W0-220) at (202) 

912-7226. lfyou have any questions regarding consultation or essential fish habitat, please 

contact Kim Tripp, Senior Specialist, Threatened, and Endangered Species Program (W0-230) at 

(202) 912-7237. 

Attachment 
United States Department ofthe Interior 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

Washington, DC 20240 

http://www.blm.gov 

MAR 3 2015 

In Reply, Refer To: 

6842 (W0-230) 

Donna Wieting 

Director, Office of Protected Resources (F/PR) 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

1315 East-West Highway 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

Dear Ms. Wieting: 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is requesting initiation of consultation under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) on the Draft Vegetation Treatments Using Aminopyralid, 

Fluroxypyr, and Rimsulfuron on BLM lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement (PElS). Please find enclosed, the final Biological Assessment (BA) used to 

complete the BLM effects analysis for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed (TEP) species and 

their designated critical habitat, pursuant to the ESA, and Essential Fish Habitat pursuant to the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). The analyses in the BA and 

PElS incorporate the best scientific and commercial data available to the BLM. 

The BLM analysis addresses a total of 341 species, subtotaled by species' type below. 

Type of Number of 

Species Species 

Plant 163 

Mollusk 11 

Arthropod 16 

Fish 83 

Amphibian 11 

Reptile 7 

Bird 21 

Mammal 29 

*Total 341 

*Includes subspecies and populations that are treated separately. 

The PElS assesses, on the national level, the BLM's proposed use of the active ingredients 

aminopyralid, fluroxypyr, and rimsulfuron. If approved, the BLM will add these three herbicides to 

its list of approved active ingredients and integrate them into the BLM Vegetation Management 
2 

Program. Herbicide treatments using all approved active ingredients would occur on ELMadministered lands in 17 western states, including Alaska. The prescribed treatments would take 

place on no more than 932,000 acres annually, which is the same acreage limit that was analyzed in 

the PElS and BA released in 2007. The BLM plans to continue to treat vegetation on the BLM 

administered lands using an integrated pest management approach, utilizing a variety ofvegetation 

management tools, including herbicides, prescribed fire, and mechanical, manual, and biological 

control methods. With the exception ofthe three new herbicides, use of all ofthe vegetation 

management tools by the BLM have been previously analyzed at the ElS level and approved through 

Records ofDecision. 

As part ofthe PElS analysis of herbicide use, ecological risk assessments (ERAs) were prepared by 

the BLM to assess the risks ofthese herbicides to fish and wildlife, including TEP species and their 

designated or proposed critical habitat. The risk assessment methodology was developed in 

collaboration with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 

and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the 2007 PElS and BA. 

During development ofthe current PElS and BA, standard operating procedures (SOPs) and 

conservation measures were developed to minimize potential effects to plants and animals from 

treatments using aminopyralid, fluroxypyr, and rimsulfuron. SOPs and conservation measures 

specific to TEP species are included in the BA. Additionally, the BLM would continue to follow all 

SOPs and conservation measures identified in the 2007 PElS and BA. These measures are 

conservative and designed to apply across all public lands. During project planning, local field 

offices have the opportunity to identify additional appropriate local SOPs and conservation measures 

to reduce further potential effects at the project scale. All subsequent actions implemented are 

subject to the National Environmental Policy Act analysis and consultation under the ESA, if it is 

determined that they "May Affect" TEP species or their designated or proposed critical habitat. 

The BLM's proposed use ofthe active ingredients aminopyralid, fluroxypyr, and rimsulfuron would 

require field offices to comply with all SOPs and conservation measures provided in the PElS, BA, 

ERAs for TEP species, and their designated or proposed critical habitat that could be affected by a 

site-specific herbicide treatment project. The proposed action also requires consultation at the 

project-level if it is determined that the project actions "May Affect" TEP species or their designated 

or proposed critical habitat. 

The scale ofthe proposed action is the 17 states evaluated in the PElS. Although herbicide 

treatments using the three new herbicides could occur anywhere on the 245 million acres ofpublic 

lands administered by the BLM; actual treatment locations and levels are determined by 

Congressional direction and funding. With current funding levels, the BLM is treating an average of 

315,000 acres per year (about one-tenth of one percent ofELM-administered lands) using herbicides. 

For the purposes of evaluating the effects of herbicide treatments with aminopyralid, fluroxypyr, and 

rimsulfuron on TEP species and their designated or proposed critical habitat, the estimate of932,000 

acres treated annually using all herbicides (about four tenths ofone percent ofELM-administered 

lands) was carried over from the 2007 PElS. 

The proposed action does not fund or carryout any subsequent program or on-the-ground action that 

could cause a direct or indirect effect to TEP species or their designated or proposed critical habitat. 
3 

Subsequent decisions which authorize, fund or carry out actions that may affect TEP species or their 

designated or proposed critical habitat, or result in adverse effects to Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), 

will be subject to consultation at the local level. 

Outside of one, no effect determination found on a fish species within the federal mineral estate, the 

BLM has determined, through the effects analysis that the proposed action may affect but is Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect all species analyzed in the BA. The effects determination assumes that 

the BLM will protect TEP species through the use of conservation measures identified for various 

species groups in the 2007 and current BA, additional conservation measures developed by local 

field offices (primarily for spot treatments near TEP plants), and SOPs identified in the 2007 and 

current PElS. Subsequent site-level actions that do not conform to these standards may not result in 

a determination ofNot Likely to Adversely Affect. Regardless, all subsequent actions remain subject 

to consultation if a "May Affect" determination is made at the local level. 

The BLM conducted an analysis of potential impacts to EFH in the BA and concluded the proposed 

action does not adversely affect EFH (it does not fund, authorize, or undertake any on-the-ground 

actions that could impact EFH). Consultation under MSA on EFH is not required for actions which 

would not cause an adverse effect (50 CFR 600.920). If, based on the information contained in the 

administrative record, NMFS disagrees with our finding, NMFS may issue advisory conservation 

recommendations if you conclude there are adverse effects. Per the NMFS policy and guidelines, 

actions subject to ESA consultation which are determined to be NLAA, by definition do not cause an 

adverse impact to EFH. This proposed action creates a common standard for project or site-level 

implementation regardless of the presence ofESA-listed species or presence ofEFH. 

Thank you for the productive meeting and agreeing to initiate consultation. If you have any 

questions regarding the PElS, please contact Gina Ramos, Division of Forest, Riparian, and 

Rangeland Resources (W0-220) at (202) 912-7226. If you have any questions regarding 

consultation or essential fish habitat, please contact Kim Tripp, Senior Specialist, Threatened, and 

Endangered Species Program (W0-230) at (202) 912-7237. The BLM looks forward to completing 

this programmatic consultation in an expeditious manner and as close to the time frames defined by 

the regulations as possible, given no further delays. 

helley J. snyth 

Acting D:~~ty sistant Director 

Resource .d RYanning 

Enclosure