CHAPTER 1

PROPOSED ACTION AND

PURPOSE AND NEED

PROPOSED ACTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED

CHAPTER 1

PROPOSED ACTION AND 

PURPOSE AND NEED

Introduction

The United States Department of the Interior (USDOI) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 

approximately 247 million acres in 17 western states in 

the continental United States (U.S.) and Alaska (Map 1-

1). One of the BLM’s highest priorities is to promote 

ecosystem health, and one of the greatest obstacles to 

achieving this goal is the rapid expansion of invasive 

plants (including noxious weeds and other plants not 

native to an area) across public lands. These invasive 

plants can dominate and often cause permanent damage 

to native plant communities. If not eradicated or 

controlled, invasive plants jeopardize the health of 

public lands and the activities that occur on them. 

Herbicides are one method employed by the BLM to 

manage these plants.

In 2007, the BLM published the Vegetation Treatments 

Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management 

Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement (2007 PEIS; USDOI 

BLM 2007a). The Record of Decision (ROD) for the 

2007 PEIS allows the BLM to use 18 herbicide active 

ingredients available for a full range of vegetation 

treatments in 17 western states (USDOI BLM 2007b). 

In the ROD, the BLM also outlines a protocol for 

identifying, evaluating, and using new herbicide active 

ingredients. Under the protocol, the BLM is not allowed 

to use a new herbicide active ingredient until the agency 

1) assesses the hazards and risks from using the new 

active ingredient, and 2) prepares an Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to assess the impacts 

to the natural, cultural, and social environment 

associated with the use of the new active ingredient on 

BLM-administered lands. While the protocol originally 

indicated that a Supplemental EIS could be prepared, 

further legal review determined that since the vegetation 

treatment program has been implemented, adding new 

herbicides is considered a new action rather than a 

supplemental action. Therefore, a separate EIS is 

required to assess the impacts associated with the use of 

new herbicides. 

Proposed Action

The BLM is proposing to add the herbicides 

aminopyralid, fluroxypyr, and rimsulfuron to its list of 

approved active ingredients for use on public lands. 

These herbicides have been identified by the BLM 

based on input from BLM field offices and a 

preliminary assessment of their effectiveness and 

suitability for the BLM’s vegetation treatment needs. 

The three new herbicides have been registered for use 

by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(USEPA), are deemed effective in controlling 

vegetation, and have minimal effects on the 

environment and human health if used according to the 

herbicide label instructions. 

Ecological risk assessments (ERAs) and a human health 

risk assessment (HHRA) have been completed as part of 

the PEIS process to be used in support of the assessment 

of potential impacts of the new herbicide active 

ingredients. 

This action would increase the number of herbicide 

active ingredients available to the BLM from 18 to 21. 

The new herbicides would be integrated into the 

herbicide treatment programs that were assessed in the 

2007 PEIS and accompanying Programmatic 

Environmental Report (17-States PER; USDOI BLM 

2007c). Proposed treatments using aminopyralid, 

fluroxypyr, and rimsulfuron could occur anywhere on 

the 247 million acres of public lands in the western 

U.S., including Alaska, unless restricted by the 

herbicide label or BLM guidelines. Components of sitespecific treatment programs, including treatment and 

herbicide application methods utilized, acres treated, 

and treatment locations, would be determined at the 

local level and by Congressional direction and funding.

While the ROD for the 2007 PEIS makes no decisions 

regarding the number of acres that can be treated using 

herbicides, the maximum treatment acreage assumed in 

the 2007 PEIS—932,000 acres annually—is being 

carried over to this action. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Three New Herbicides 1-1 January 2016

Final Programmatic EIS
PROPOSED ACTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED

The three new herbicides would be available for use in 

vegetation treatment programs on public lands 

immediately after the ROD has been signed.

Purpose and Need for the 

Proposed Action

The need for the proposed action is the ongoing spread 

of noxious weeds and other invasive plants, which 

degrade the health of public lands and affect resources 

such as wildlife habitat, native plant communities, 

threatened and endangered species habitat, soil, water, 

and recreation. Some invasive vegetation acts as a 

hazardous fine fuel and contributes to the frequency, 

extent, and severity of wildfires. The BLM requires 

effective tools for management of invasive plants in 

order to prevent their spread into non-infested areas, 

restore desirable vegetation in degraded areas, and 

reduce wildfire risk. In particular, the BLM has 

identified the need for additional herbicide active 

ingredients that: 1) have less environmental and human 

health impacts than some of the currently approved 

herbicides (e.g., picloram); 2) increase options for 

management of invasive annual grasses; and 3) address 

potential herbicide resistance by certain species (e.g., 

kochia 1

, marestail, and pigweed) to active ingredients 

currently used by the BLM.

The purpose of the proposed action is to improve the 

effectiveness of the BLM’s vegetation management

program by allowing herbicide treatments with 

aminopyralid, fluroxypyr, and rimsulfuron. This action 

would increase the number of active ingredients 

approved for use, and would give the BLM increased 

flexibility and options when designing on-the-ground 

herbicide treatments.

Including the three new herbicides in the vegetation 

management program would also help meet the 

purposes that were first identified in the 2007 PEIS, 

which are to provide BLM personnel with the 

herbicides available for vegetation treatment on public 

lands and to describe the conditions and limitations that 

apply to their use. 

The overall goals of vegetation treatments with 

herbicides are to reduce the risk of wildfires by reducing 

hazardous fuels, stabilize and rehabilitate fire-damaged 

1 Common and scientific names of plants and animals used 

in this PEIS are provided in Appendix A.

lands, and improve ecosystem health by 1) controlling 

invasive plants, and 2) manipulating vegetation to 

benefit fish and wildlife habitat, improve riparian and 

wetland areas, and improve water quality in priority 

watersheds. The ability to utilize aminopyralid, 

fluroxypyr, and rimsulfuron, in conjunction with other 

herbicides and other types of vegetation treatments, 

would help the BLM meet these natural resource goals.

Scope of Analysis and Decisions to 

Be Made

This PEIS analyzes the effects of using aminopyralid, 

fluroxypyr, and rimsulfuron to treat vegetation on 

public lands in the western U.S., including Alaska. 

These lands include Oregon and California Land Grant 

lands, Coos Bay Wagon Road lands, National 

Recreation Areas, Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern, and lands administered by the BLM through 

its National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS), 

such as Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs), designated 

Wilderness Areas, National Monuments, and National 

Conservation Areas.

Study Area and Scope of Analysis

The study area for this PEIS is generally the same as the 

study area for the 2007 PEIS. It includes all BLMadministered lands in the 17 western states of Alaska, 

Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nebraska, 

Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Montana, 

Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, 

Washington, and Wyoming. The total acreage of the 

study area is approximately 247 million acres (USDOI 

BLM 2013a). 

The focus of this PEIS is to provide an analysis of the 

use of aminopyralid, fluroxypyr, and rimsulfuron in 

herbicide treatments to reduce hazardous fuels and 

manage and control vegetation affecting other 

resources. Other types of vegetation treatments with 

herbicides are not evaluated, as discussed in the 2007

PEIS (USDOI BLM 2007a:1-5). Additionally, the PEIS 

will not evaluate policies and programs associated with 

land use activities authorized by the BLM (e.g., 

livestock grazing, off-highway vehicle [OHV] use, and 

timber harvesting), and will not make land use 

allocations or amend approved land use plans.

Because this PEIS is programmatic in nature, it makes 

broad assumptions about the acreages that would be 

treated annually by the three herbicides proposed for 

use. More specific estimates of acreages treated would 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Three New Herbicides 1-2 January 2016

Final Programmatic EIS

 
PROPOSED ACTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED

be made at the regional, state, or local level, and 

assessed in step-down EISs or Environmental 

Assessments.

This PEIS provides a background source of information 

to which any necessary subsequent environmental 

analyses can be tiered. In general, the NEPA process 

may be done at multiple scales, depending on the scope 

of the proposal. This PEIS represents the broadest level 

of analysis; at this level, the study contains a broad 

environmental impact analysis, focuses on general 

policies, and provides Bureau-wide decisions on 

herbicide use. Additionally, it provides an umbrella 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 consultation 

for the range of activities described in the PEIS. The 

next scale of analysis represents a regional level of 

analysis, and may be prepared for regional or statewide 

programs. Below the regional scale of analysis, there is 

the option to prepare a field office level of analysis. At 

the local scale, a project-level analysis is prepared for 

site-specific proposals. The analysis may be tiered to 

any or all of the higher levels of analysis. Tiering allows 

local offices to prepare more specific environmental

documents without duplicating relevant portions of this 

PEIS. Analyses done by local BLM offices will be 

prepared in accordance with NEPA guidance and will 

include public involvement. The various scales of 

analysis and the tiering process are discussed in more 

detail in the 2007 PEIS (USDOI BLM 2007a:1-9 to 1-

10).

Decisions to be Made

The BLM will use the information in this PEIS and 

public comments on the draft and final PEIS to develop 

a ROD for the proposed action, which will be released 

at least 30 days after the Notice of Availability of the 

final PEIS is published. The ROD will indicate which 

alternative is selected for implementation. 

As part of selecting an alternative, the BLM decisionmaker may choose to implement a portion of the 

selected alternative (such as approving only one or two 

of the three herbicides), or combine features of multiple 

alternatives (such as restricting aerial application of only 

one or two of the three herbicides). The ROD will 

address significant impacts, alternatives, environmental 

preferences, and relevant economic and technical 

considerations.

If the decision-maker decides to approve the use of one 

or more new active ingredients, the ROD will also 

indicate what standard operating procedures (SOPs) and 

mitigation will be implemented to minimize the impacts 

of herbicide treatments with the three new active 

ingredients, or will identify new SOPs. These SOPs and 

mitigation measures would be implemented in addition 

to those already specified in the ROD for the 2007

PEIS.

Documents that Influence the 

Scope of the PEIS

Much of the scope of this PEIS is based on the PEIS 

prepared in 2007 to evaluate the use of herbicides for 

vegetation treatments on public lands. The 2007 PEIS 

provides a detailed discussion of the BLM’s vegetation

management programs and herbicide use on BLM 

lands, and evaluates the risks of using the 18 herbicides 

currently approved for use by the BLM. Under the 

current proposal, the herbicides approved for usage by 

the 2007 PEIS would continue to be used, and overall 

vegetation management programs would be mostly 

unchanged, with the exception of the addition of the 

three new herbicides. Where appropriate, information in 

the 2007 PEIS that is relevant to analysis of the current 

proposal is cited and incorporated by reference.

Documents that provide policy and guidance for 

hazardous fuels reduction and land restoration activities 

to reduce the risk of wildfires and restore fire-adapted 

ecosystems include: the National Fire Plan (USDOI 

and U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA] 2001); the 

Healthy Forests Initiative of 2002 and the Healthy 

Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-148); 

Chapter 3 (Interagency Burned Area Emergency 

Stabilization and Rehabilitation) in BLM Manual 620, 

Wildland Fire Management (USDOI BLM 2004a); A 

Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire 

Risks to Communities and the Environment 10-Year 

Strategy Implementation Plan (USDOI and USDA 

2006a); Interagency Burned Area Rehabilitation 

Guidebook (USDA and USDOI 2006b); the Emergency 

Stabilization and Rehabilitation Handbook (H-1742-1; 

USDOI BLM 2007d); and the National Strategy

(USDOI and USDA 2014). Additional documents and 

policies that influence the scope of this PEIS are listed 

in the 2007 PEIS (USDOI BLM 2007a:1-6 and 

Appendix F).

Relationship to Statutes, 

Regulations, and Policies

The 2007 PEIS details the federal laws, regulations, and 

policies that influence vegetation treatments on BLMBLM Vegetation Treatments Three New Herbicides 1-3 January 2016

Final Programmatic EIS
PROPOSED ACTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED

administered lands (USDOI BLM 2007a:1-6 to 1-8). 

These include the Federal Land Policy Management Act 

of 1976 (FLPMA); Taylor Grazing Act of 1934; Oregon 

and California Grant Lands Act of 1937; Carson-Foley 

Act of 1968; Plant Protection Act of 2000; Section 15 of 

the Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974, as amended;

Noxious Weed Control Act of 2004, Public Rangelands 

Improvement Act of 1978; Clean Air Act of 1970/1977, 

as amended; Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, as 

amended; Wilderness Act of 1964; Clean Water Act of 

1972; Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 

Act of 1996; Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 

2002; Food Quality Protection Act of 1996; Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended;

Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended;

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, as amended;

ESA of 1973, Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act 

of 1971, as amended by the Public Rangelands 

Improvement Act of 1978; Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Act of 1980, Sikes Act of 1974; Historic 

Sites Act of 1935; National Historic Preservation Act of 

1966 (NHPA); Archaeological Resources Protection 

Act of 1979; American Indian Religious Freedom Act 

of 1978; Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act of 1990; Section 810 of the Alaska 

National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 

1980, as amended; Executive Order (EO) 11990 

(Protection of Wetlands); EO 12898 (Environmental 

Justice); EO 13045 (Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks); EO 

13084 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian 

Tribal Governments); EO 13112 (Invasive Species); and 

EO 13186 (Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to 

Protect Migratory Birds). 

Since the 2007 PEIS, the BLM has implemented a new 

policy requiring consultation with Alaska Native 

Corporations on the same basis as American Indian and 

Alaska Native Tribes.

NEPA Requirements of the Program

Federal agencies are required to prepare an EIS when 

the proposed action is likely to have a significant impact 

on the quality of the human environment (42 U.S.C. 

[United States Code] 4321 et seq; USDOI BLM 2008a). 

An EIS is intended to provide decision-makers and the 

public with a complete and objective evaluation of 

significant environmental impacts, beneficial and 

adverse, resulting from the proposed action and all 

reasonable alternatives.

The intent of this PEIS is to comply with NEPA by 

assessing the programmatic level impacts of using 

aminopyralid, fluroxypyr, and rimsulfuron to treat 

vegetation on public lands administered by the BLM. 

Additional guidance for NEPA compliance and for 

assessing impacts is provided in the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for 

Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 

Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500-1508), 

and the BLM National Environmental Policy Act 

Handbook H-1790-1 (USDOI BLM 2008a).

Interrelationships and 

Coordination with Agencies

In its role as manager of approximately 247 million 

acres in the western U.S., including Alaska, the BLM 

has developed numerous relationships at the federal, 

tribal, state, and local levels, as well as with 

conservation and environmental groups with an interest 

in resource management, and private landowners. 

Included are members of the public that use public lands 

or are affected by activities on public lands.

National Level Coordination

The BLM regularly coordinates with the numerous 

federal agencies that administer laws that govern 

activities on public lands, administer lands adjacent to 

or in close proximity to public lands administered by the 

BLM, or that have oversight or coordination 

responsibilities. These agencies include the Department 

of Defense; Department of Energy, National Park 

Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 

Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

USDA Forest Service, Agricultural Research Service, 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, and U.S. Geological 

Survey Biological Services.

National level coordination that is pertinent to the 

proposed project includes coordination of invasive 

species management, and fire and fuels management. 

The National Invasive Species Council, which involves 

13 federal departments and agencies, was established by 

EO 13112 to develop strategies for coordinated, 

effective, and efficient control of invasive species on 

federal lands. Participating agencies include (but are not 

limited to) the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, 

Interior, Commerce, Defense, Transportation, and 

Health and Human Services, and the USEPA. Other 

groups that coordinate invasive species management at 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Three New Herbicides 1-4 January 2016

Final Programmatic EIS
PROPOSED ACTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED

the national level include the Federal Interagency 

Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic 

Weeds, the Federal Interagency Committee on Invasive 

Terrestrial Animals and Pathogens, and the Aquatic 

Nuisance Task Force. These groups are discussed 

further in the 2007 PEIS (USDOI BLM 2007a:1-11).

The Wildland Fire Leadership Council, Interagency 

Fuels Management Committee, and National Wildfire 

Coordinating Group are national-level interagency 

groups that coordinate wildland fire and fuel 

management issues. The National Cohesive Wildfire 

Management Strategy provides a long-term, nationallevel strategy for reducing the effects of wildfires 

throughout the U.S. 

State and County Level Coordination

The BLM is required to coordinate with state and local 

agencies under several acts, including: the Clean Air 

Act, the Sikes Act, FLPMA, and Section 106 of the 

NHPA. 

The BLM coordinates closely with state resource 

management agencies on issues involving the 

management of public lands, the protection of fish and 

wildlife populations, including federally and state-listed 

threatened and endangered species, invasive and 

noxious weeds, fuels and wildland fire management, 

and herbicide application. Herbicide applications are 

also coordinated with state and local water quality 

agencies to ensure that they are in compliance with 

applicable water quality regulations. At the agency or 

state level, vulnerability assessments are done for 

treatment programs to ensure that they do not result in 

unacceptable surface water or groundwater 

contamination. Thus, coordination of this issue must 

include a groundwater specialist either at the agency 

level or state level to make the vulnerability assessment.

Local and state agencies work closely with the BLM to 

manage weeds on local, state, and federal lands, and are 

often responsible for vegetation treatments on public 

lands. The BLM participates in exotic plant pest 

councils, state vegetation and noxious weed 

management committees, state invasive species 

councils, county weed districts, and weed management 

associations found throughout the western U.S.

Non-governmental Organizations

The BLM coordinates at the national and local levels 

with several resource advisory groups and nongovernmental organizations, including: BLM Resource 

Advisory Councils, the Western Governors’ 

Association, the National Association of Counties, the 

Western Area Power Administration, the National 

Cattlemen’s Beef Association, the American Sheep 

Industry, the Society of American Foresters, and the 

American Forest and Paper Association. The BLM also 

solicits input from national and local conservation and 

environmental groups with an interest in land 

management activities on public lands, such as The 

Nature Conservancy. These groups provide information 

on strategies for weed prevention, effective treatment 

methods, use of domestic animals to manage invasive 

plants, landscape level planning, vegetation monitoring, 

and techniques to restore land health.

Cooperative Weed Management Areas

Cooperative Weed Management Areas (CWMAs) are 

composed of local, private, and federal interests. 

CWMAs typically center on a particular watershed or 

similar geographic area in order to pool resources and 

management strategies in the prevention and control of 

invasive plant populations. Much of the BLM’s on-theground invasive species prevention and management is 

done directly or indirectly through CWMAs. The BLM 

participates in numerous CWMAs throughout the West, 

several of which are showcase examples of interagency 

and private cooperation in restoring land health. 

Consultation

As part of this PEIS the BLM consulted with the 

USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS), as required under Section 7 of the ESA. The 

BLM prepared a formal initiation package that included: 

1) a description of the program, listed threatened and 

endangered species, species proposed for listing, and 

critical habitat that may be affected by the program; and 

2) a Biological Assessment for Vegetation Treatments 

with Aminopyralid, Fluroxypyr, and Rimsulfuron on 

Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western 

States (USDOI BLM 2015). The Biological Assessment 

(BA) evaluated the likely impacts to listed species, 

species proposed for listing, and critical habitat from the 

proposed use of aminopyralid, fluroxypyr, and 

rimsulfuron in the BLM’s vegetation treatment 

programs, and identified conservation measures to 

minimize impacts to these species and habitats.

Consultation with USFWS addressed populations of 

sage-grouse that were proposed for listing at the time,

but not populations that were candidates for listing. 

However, all BLM actions must comply with land use 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Three New Herbicides 1-5 January 2016

Final Programmatic EIS
PROPOSED ACTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED

plan decisions, as amended by pertinent sage-grouse 

EISs. Interim management direction is outlined in 

Instruction Memorandum 2012-043, Greater SageGrouse Interim Management Policies and Procedures.

The BLM initiated consultation with Native American 

tribes, Alaska Native groups, and Alaska Native 

Corporations to identify their cultural values, religious 

beliefs, traditional practices, and legal rights that could 

be affected by BLM actions. Consultation included 

sending out letters to all tribes and groups that could be 

directly affected by vegetation treatment activities, and 

requesting information on how treatments with the three 

new herbicides could impact Native American and 

Alaska Native interests, including the use of vegetation 

and wildlife for subsistence, religious, and ceremonial 

purposes (see Appendix B). Formal consultations with 

Indian tribes and Alaska Native Corporations may also 

be required during implementation of projects at the 

local level.

The BLM conducted an ANILCA 810 Analysis of 

Subsistence. During this process, the BLM invited 

public participation and collaborated with Alaska 

Natives to identify and protect culturally significant 

plants used for food, baskets, fiber, medicine, and 

ceremonial purposes. The findings are presented in 

Appendix C.

The BLM consulted with State Historic Preservation 

Offices (SHPOs) as part of Section 106 consultation to 

determine how proposed vegetation treatment actions 

could impact cultural resources. Formal consultations 

with SHPOs also may be required during 

implementation of projects at the local level. 

Public Involvement and Analysis 

of Issues

Scoping is the process by which the BLM solicits 

internal and external input on the issues, impacts, and 

potential alternatives that will be addressed in an EIS, as 

well as the extent to which those issues and impacts will 

be analyzed in the document (USDOI BLM 2008a). 

Scoping also helps to begin identifying incomplete or 

unavailable information and evaluating whether that 

information is essential for making a reasoned choice 

among alternatives.

The BLM published a Federal Register (FR) Notice of 

Intent (NOI) on December 21, 2012, notifying the 

public of its intent to prepare a PEIS to evaluate the use 

of aminopyralid, fluroxypyr, and rimsulfuron herbicides 

as part of its vegetation treatment programs in 17 

western states. The NOI also identified the locations and 

times of three scheduled public scoping meetings, and 

stated that comments on the proposal would be accepted 

until February 19, 2013.

Public notices of the scoping period and public 

meetings were placed in newspapers serving areas in or 

near locations where the meetings were held.

Public Scoping Meetings

Three public scoping meetings were held: one in 

Worland, Wyoming (on January 7, 2012), one in Reno, 

Nevada (January 9), and one in Albuquerque, New 

Mexico (January 10). Decisions on where to hold 

meetings were based on levels of attendance at scoping 

meetings in these locations for the 2007 PEIS, as well as 

discussions with local BLM offices. The determination 

not to hold one or more scoping meetings in Alaska was 

made by the BLM District office in Fairbanks, based on 

low attendance at the meetings for the 2007 PEIS, low 

past and projected future use of herbicides in Alaska, 

and the overlap of the public scoping period with that of 

another Environmental Assessment involving herbicide 

use. In lieu of a public scoping meeting, the Alaska state 

office offered to host a web-based meeting for anyone 

who wanted to learn more about the project and provide 

comments. As no members of the public responded to 

this offer, the meeting was not held by the BLM.

The scoping meetings were conducted in an open-house 

style. Information displays were provided at the 

meeting, and handouts describing the project, the NEPA 

process, issues, and alternatives were given to the 

public. A formal presentation provided the public with 

additional information on program goals and objectives. 

At each meeting, the presentation was followed by a 

question and answer session.

The BLM received 26 requests to be placed on the 

mailing list from individuals, organizations, and 

government agencies, and 43 written comment letters, 

emails, or facsimiles on the proposal. In addition to 

written comments received at the scoping meetings, 

four individuals provided oral comments. As most of 

the comment letters provided multiple comments, a total 

of 255 individual comments were catalogued and 

recorded during the public scoping period. A Scoping 

Summary Report for the Vegetation Treatments Using 

Aminopyralid, Fluroxypyr, and Rimsulfuron on Bureau 

of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

BLM Vegetation Treatments Three New Herbicides 1-6 January 2016

Final Programmatic EIS
PROPOSED ACTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED

(AECOM 2013) was prepared that summarized the 

issues and alternatives identified during scoping.

Scoping Issues and Concerns

The vast majority of scoping comments received were 

supportive of the BLM’s proposal to add aminopyralid, 

fluroxypyr, and rimsulfuron to its list of active 

ingredients. Respondents provided information on the 

effectiveness and safety of the three herbicides, as well 

as extensive comments about the need to utilize these 

herbicides to effectively control weeds.

The primary issues of concern identified during scoping 

include the following:

• Need to develop a better mechanism for 

notifying the public of aerial spraying of 

herbicides, and implement additional 

preventative measures for future applications to 

minimize impacts to human health. Establish 

larger buffers between herbicide application 

areas and human habitation and/or sensitive, 

high value crops.

• Need to discuss the screening process that the 

BLM uses to determine whether chemical 

applications are necessary when other types of

treatments are considered.

• Concerns about long-term persistence of 

aminopyralid and fluroxypyr in treated plant 

materials, and the potential to transport plant 

tissue or manure of livestock that have ingested 

these materials to sensitive areas, croplands, 

and broadleaf garden plants. 

• Concerns about impacts to water quality and 

aquatic resources, including detection of 

aminopyralid in groundwater and associated 

impacts to irrigated plants/crops.

• Concerns about the risks to human health and 

safety from herbicide use.

• Concerns about disproportionate adverse 

effects to minority and low-income 

populations.

• Need to evaluate options for restoration 

activities following invasive plant removal to 

prevent reestablishment of target species.

• Need to consider climate change, both in terms 

of its effect on herbicide efficacy and 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated 

with the proposed project.

• Recommendation that vegetation treatments 

with the proposed herbicides be monitored to 

determine their effectiveness. 

A summary of issues raised by scoping comments is 

provided in Table 1-1. 

Development of the Alternatives

Public comments were considered when developing 

alternatives for analysis in this PEIS. As there were 

several comments about herbicide drift during aerial 

spraying and the potential for human health effects, 

alternatives addressing these issues are evaluated in the 

PEIS. The alternatives also reflect the alternatives that 

were developed for the 2007 PEIS, as applicable. They 

reflect public comments received during scoping for the 

2007 PEIS that suggested the BLM avoid aerial 

applications of herbicides or avoid the use of 

acetolactate synthase (ALS)-inhibiting active 

ingredients.

Issues Not Addressed in the PEIS

A very small number of comments were not addressed 

in the PEIS because they were beyond the scope of the 

document or did not meet the basic purpose and need of 

the project. These comments primarily pertained to 

streamlining or changing the evaluation process for new 

herbicides, which is outside the scope of this PEIS. 

Additionally, one comment requested an analysis of 

whether increased carbon dioxide (CO2) in the 

atmosphere could affect efficiency of herbicides, which 

is also outside the scope of this PEIS.

Public Review and Comment on the 

Draft Programmatic EIS

The Notice of Availability of the Draft Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement for Vegetation 

Treatments Using Aminopyralid, Fluroxypyr, and 

Rimsulfuron on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 

17 Western States was published in the Federal Register 

on June 19, 2015. On the same date, the BLM issued a 

press release notifying the public that the Draft PEIS 

was available for public review and comment. The

BLM Vegetation Treatments Three New Herbicides 1-7 January 2016

Final Programmatic EIS
PROPOSED ACTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED

TABLE 1-1

Key Issues (and Number of Comments) Identified During Scoping and 

Location Where Issues Are Addressed in this PEIS

Issue Where Addressed 

in PEIS

Interrelationships

Consider adjacent private, state, and federally owned lands, and coordinate weed control 

efforts (2) 1-4

Description of Alternatives

Clarify the number of acres that would be treated (1) 2-3 

Clarify that the new herbicides would not replace currently approved herbicides (1) 1-1, 2-2

Incorporate best management practices for aerial applications to adequately notify the public 

and avoid accidental public exposures to spraying (1) 4-87

Do not spray where there is a risk to crops (1) 2-7, 4-83

Herbicide Treatment Standard Operating Procedures and Guidelines

Discuss the screening process used to decide whether chemical applications are necessary (1) 2-7

Evaluate options for restoration of treated areas following invasive plant removal (1) 2-7

Incorporate effective monitoring of treated areas (1) 2-9

Affected Environment

Thoroughly discuss cheatgrass, yellow starthistle, and other noxious weeds and non-native 

species and the degree to which they threaten BLM lands (6) 3-17

Environmental Consequences

Address the impacts of the three herbicides compared to those of other herbicides and 

treatment methods (6) Chapter 4

Address the impacts associated with residual effects of aminopyralid, including its spread to 

sensitive areas by grazing animals and damage to crops associated with use of contaminated 

manure and compost materials (3)

4-12, 4-27, 4-84

Include a discussion of climate change and GHG emissions (1) 4-7, 4-105

Assess the effects of composting operations and how treated plants would be disposed of (1) 4-84

Address the potential for surface water, groundwater, and drinking water contamination by 

the three herbicides (1) 4-15

Address herbicide drift and potential impacts to nearby private lands (1) 4-82, 4-85

Address human health and safety risks associated with use of the three herbicides (1) 4-87

Include an environmental justice analysis (1) 4-84

Draft PEIS and supporting documentation were posted 

to a BLM website, where the public was able to 

download a copy of these documents. Copies of the 

documents were available upon request and for public 

inspection at all BLM state, district, and field office 

public rooms.

A total of 98 substantive comments were received on 

the Draft PEIS. Comments were received via letter, 

electronic mail, and facsimile. A summary of the 

comments received, issues identified, and specific 

comments and responses are presented in Chapter 6 of 

this PEIS. All comments are reproduced in the CD of 

supporting documentation.

Limitations of this PEIS

This PEIS is a programmatic document that addresses 

the broad impacts associated with the proposed action 

and alternatives to the proposed action. Environmental

impacts are assessed at a general level because of the 

broad land area analyzed in the PEIS. Site-specific 

impacts would be assessed in NEPA documents 

prepared by local BLM offices and tiered to this 

document.

The analyses of impacts of the use of herbicides in this 

PEIS are based on the best and most recent information

BLM Vegetation Treatments Three New Herbicides 1-8 January 2016

Final Programmatic EIS
PROPOSED ACTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED

available. As is always the case when developing 

management direction for a wide range of resources, not 

all information that might be desired was available. In 

these cases, discussions follow the direction provided in 

the CEQ Regulations for incomplete or unavailable 

information (40 CFR 1502.22[b]). In cases where 

impacts could not be quantified, they have been 

described in qualitative terms.

Preview of the Remainder of the 

PEIS

The format of this PEIS follows guidance provided by 

the CEQ and BLM National Environmental Policy Act 

Handbook H-1790-1 (USDOI BLM 2008a). 

• Chapter 2, Alternatives, describes and 

compares the proposed alternatives.

• Chapter 3, Affected Environment, presents 

existing natural and socioeconomic resources 

on public lands in the western U.S.

• Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, 

evaluates the impacts of the alternatives on 

public land resources in the western U.S., and 

describes mitigation proposed for programrelated impacts to resources.

• Chapter 5, Consultation and Coordination, 

describes the scoping and public hearing 

processes, agencies contacted, and 

government-to-government consultation, and 

lists the preparers of this PEIS.

• Chapter 6, Response to Comments, provides a 

summary of the comments received on the 

Draft PEIS and the BLM’s responses to these 

comments.5

• Chapter 7, References, lists the documents and 

other sources used to prepare this PEIS.

• Chapter 8, Glossary, provides definitions for 

important terms used in this PEIS.

• Chapter 9, Index, lists where significant issues, 

resource descriptions, NEPA terms, and 

agencies and groups discussed in this PEIS are 

located.

• Appendices A through E provide supplemental 

information that is pertinent to the analysis 

presented in this PEIS.

• Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Symbols (a 

fold-out sheet at the end of the document) lists 

the acronyms, abbreviations, and symbols used 

in this PEIS.

BLM Vegetation Treatments Three New Herbicides 1-9 January 2016

Final Programmatic EIS