RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

Summary of Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS ..............................................................................................III-1

Commenting Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals ...............................................................................................III-2

Specific Comments and Responses................................................................................................................................III-2

Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement ............................................................................................... III-23

General Comments and Reponses.............................................................................................................. III-23

Executive Summary.................................................................................................................................... III-24

Proposed Action and Purpose and Need – Introduction............................................................................ III-24

Proposed Action and Purpose and Need – Organization of the Vegetation Treatments Assessments .... III-26

Proposed Action and Purpose and Need – Proposed Action..................................................................... III-33

Proposed Action and Purpose and Need – Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action .......................... III-33

Proposed Action and Purpose and Need – Decisions to be Made ............................................................ III-43

Proposed Action and Purpose and Need – Scope of Analysis .................................................................. III-46

Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Documents that Influence the Scope of the PEIS ................. III-106

Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, and Policies that

Influence Vegetation Treatments ............................................................................................................. III-106

Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, NEPA Requirements of the Program .................................... III-109

Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Interrelationships and Coordination with Agencies.............. III-112

Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Consultation ........................................................................... III-117

Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Public Involvement, Scoping, and Issues.............................. III-117

Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Preview of the Remainder of the PEIS.................................. III-118

Alternatives, Introduction......................................................................................................................... III-119

Alternatives, BLM Programs Responsible for Herbicide Treatments .................................................... III-119

Alternatives, Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management............................................................. III-120

Alternatives, Site Selection Priorities....................................................................................................... III-146

Alternatives, Non-herbicide Treatment Methods .................................................................................... III-147

Alternatives, Determination of Treatment Acreages ............................................................................... III-157

Alternatives, Herbicide Active Ingredients Evaluated under the Proposed Alternatives ....................... III-167

Alternatives, Herbicide Modes of Action and Treatment Methods ........................................................ III-194

Alternatives, Description of the Alternatives........................................................................................... III-207

Alternatives, Alternative A – Continue Present Herbicide Use (No Action Alternative) ...................... III-213

Alternatives, Alternative B – Expand Herbicide Use and Allows for Use of New Herbicides in 17

Western States (Preferred Alternative) .................................................................................................... III-214

Alternatives, Alternative D – No Aerial Application of Herbicides ....................................................... III-216

Alternatives, Alternative E - No Use of Sulfonylurea and other Acetolactate Synthase-inhibiting

Active Ingredients..................................................................................................................................... III-217

Alternatives, Alternatives Considered but not Further Analyzed ........................................................... III-226

Alternatives, Herbicide Treatments Standard Operating Procedures and Guidelines ............................ III-226

Alternatives, Prevention of Weeds and Early Detection and Rapid Response ....................................... III-241

Alternatives, Revegetation ....................................................................................................................... III-257

Alternatives, Special Status Species......................................................................................................... III-271

Alternatives, Wilderness Areas ................................................................................................................ III-280

Alternatives, Monitoring .......................................................................................................................... III-282

Alternatives, Coordination and Education ............................................................................................... III-305

Alternatives, Mitigation............................................................................................................................ III-310

Alternatives, Summary of Impacts by Alternatives................................................................................. III-316

Affected Environment, General Issues .................................................................................................... III-317

Affected Environment, Water Resources and Quality ............................................................................ III-318

Affected Environment, Vegetation .......................................................................................................... III-318

Affected Environment, Livestock ............................................................................................................ III-320

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-i June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Affected Environment, Human Health and Safety .................................................................................. III-321

Environmental Consequences, How the Effects of the Alternatives were Estimated, General Issues... III-321

Environmental Consequences, Subsequent Analysis before Projects..................................................... III-342

Environmental Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis .................................................................... III-342

Environmental Consequences, Non-herbicide Effects Analysis ............................................................. III-388

Environmental Consequences, Air Quality.............................................................................................. III-389

Environmental Consequences, Soil Resources ........................................................................................ III-396

Environmental Consequences, Water Resources and Quality................................................................. III-403

Environmental Consequences, Wetland and Riparian Areas .................................................................. III-406

Environmental Consequences, Vegetation .............................................................................................. III-406

Environmental Consequences, Fish and Other Aquatic Organisms........................................................ III-427

Environmental Consequences, Wildlife Resources ................................................................................. III-430

Environmental Consequences, Livestock ................................................................................................ III-452

Environmental Consequences, Wild Horses and Burros......................................................................... III-456

Environmental Consequences, Paleontological and Cultural Resources ................................................ III-458

Environmental Consequences, Visual Resources .................................................................................... III-460

Environmental Consequences, Wilderness and Special Areas................................................................ III-461

Environmental Consequences, Recreation............................................................................................... III-465

Environmental Consequences, Social and Economic Values ................................................................. III-465

Environmental Consequences, Human Health and Safety ...................................................................... III-473

Environmental Consequences, Cumulative Effects Analysis.................................................................. III-490

Consultation and Coordination – General Issues..................................................................................... III-505

Consultation and Coordination, Public Involvement............................................................................... III-506

Consultation and Coordination, Government-to-Government Consultation .......................................... III-510

Consultation and Coordination, List of Preparers of the Programmatic EIS .......................................... III-513

References................................................................................................................................................. III-513

Glossary .................................................................................................................................................... III-514

Appendix B – Human Health Risk Assessment ...................................................................................... III-518

Appendix C – Ecological Risk Assessment ............................................................................................. III-519

Appendix D – Evaluation of Risks from Degradates, Polyoxyethyleneamine (POEA) and R-11, and

Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals.............................................................................................................. III-521

Appendix E – Protocol for Identifying, Evaluating, and Using New Herbicides ................................... III-521

Appendix H – Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) § 810 Analysis of

Subsistence Impacts.................................................................................................................................. III-523

Appendix I – Restore Native Ecosystems Alternative............................................................................. III-524

Vegetation Treatments on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic 

Environmental Report ....................................................................................................................................... III-524

General Comments and Reponses............................................................................................................ III-524

Purpose of the Environmental Report, Scope of Report.......................................................................... III-525

Purpose of the Environmental Report, Federal Laws, Regulations, and Policies that Influence

Vegetation Treatments.............................................................................................................................. III-525

Purpose of the Environmental Report, Interrelationships and Coordination with Agencies.................. III-525

Vegetation Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Programs, Policies, and Initiatives

Influencing Vegetation Treatment Activities........................................................................................... III-526

Vegetation Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Planning and Management at the Local

Level.......................................................................................................................................................... III-528

Vegetation Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Site Selection and Treatment Priorities........ III-528

Vegetation Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Vegetation Treatment Methods.................... III-529

Vegetation Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Fire Use......................................................... III-531

Vegetation Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Mechanical Treatment.................................. III-532

Vegetation Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Biological Control ........................................ III-533

Vegetation Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Vegetation Treatment Standard Operating

Procedures and Guidelines ....................................................................................................................... III-540

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-ii June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Vegetation Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Revegetation ................................................. III-540

Vegetation Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Treatment-specific Standard Operating

Procedures and Guidelines ....................................................................................................................... III-541

Vegetation Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Monitoring.................................................... III-546

Public Land Resources, Air Quality......................................................................................................... III-548

Public Land Resources, Vegetation, Fire Ecology .................................................................................. III-548

Public Land Resources, Vegetation, Vegetation Condition, and Fire Regimes ..................................... III-552

Public Land Resources, Paleontological and Cultural Resources ........................................................... III-553

Public Land Resources, Social and Economic Values ............................................................................ III-553

Effects of Vegetation Treatments, Subsequent Analysis before Projects are Initiated........................... III-553

Effects of Vegetation Treatments, Air Quality ........................................................................................ III-554

Effects of Vegetation Treatments, Soil Resources .................................................................................. III-558

Effects of Vegetation Treatments, Water Quality and Quantity ............................................................. III-559

Effects of Vegetation Treatments, Wetlands and Riparian Areas........................................................... III-559

Effects of Vegetation Treatments, Vegetation......................................................................................... III-560

Effects of Vegetation Treatments, Fish and Other Aquatic Organisms .................................................. III-569

Effects of Vegetation Treatments, Wildlife Resources ........................................................................... III-569

Effects of Vegetation Treatments, Livestock........................................................................................... III-571

Effects of Vegetation Treatments, Wilderness and Special Areas .......................................................... III-572

Biological Assessment for Vegetation Treatments on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western

States.................................................................................................................................................................. III-573

List of Tables 

3-1 Comment Response Summary .........................................................................................................................III-2

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-iii June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

VOLUME III 

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

This section provides a summary of the comments 

received on the Draft PEIS, PER, and Biological 

Assessment. A list of the agencies, organizations, and 

individuals who submitted substantive comments is 

provided. Finally, both general and specific comments 

and the BLM’s responses to those comments are 

presented. 

Summary of Comments on the 

Draft Programmatic EIS 

Over 3,000 individual comment documents on the Draft 

PEIS, PER, and BA were received during the public 

comment period from November 10, 2005, through 

February 10, 2006. Comments on the Draft PEIS, PER, 

and BA were received via letter, electronic mail, 

facsimile, and at public hearings. 

Six hundred fifty-seven electronic mails, 77 facsimiles, 

and 234 letters were received. Each of the comment 

letters/electronic mails/facsimiles was read and 

substantive issues were identified. In addition, the BLM 

received over 2,000 form letters/electronic 

mails/facsimiles in response to solicitations from 

advocacy groups, and many of these were identical 

statements or slight variations thereof; these were also 

read and substantive issues identified. A total of 1,808 

substantive comments were identified and responded to 

in this section. 

Public hearings were held in Portland, Oregon on 

November 28, Sacramento, California on November 29, 

Salt Lake City, Utah on November 30, Albuquerque, 

New Mexico on December 1, Grand Junction, Colorado 

on December 5, Boise, Idaho on December 6, Billings, 

Montana on December 7, Cheyenne, Wyoming on 

December 8, and Las Vegas, Nevada and Washington, 

D.C. on December 13, 2006, for the BLM to provide an 

overview of the alternatives and to take public 

comments. 

Comment letters and hearing transcripts were assigned 

tracking numbers and entered into a database. 

Individual tracking numbers were assigned to only one 

representative letter for identical or nearly identical 

form letters. All comments received on the draft 

documents are included in the Administrative Record. 

The project interdisciplinary team reviewed all 

comment letters and hearing transcripts, and substantive 

comments (as defined in the BLM NEPA Handbook H1790-1) requiring specific responses. A comment 

received a specific response if it 1) was substantive and 

related to inadequacies or inaccuracies in the analysis or 

methodologies used; 2) identified new impacts or 

recommended reasonable new alternatives or mitigation 

measures; and/or 3) involved substantive disagreements 

on interpretation of significance. After all comment 

letters/electronic mails/facsimiles were reviewed, each 

comment was assigned a comment issue code and each 

substantive comment was identified with a red line 

adjacent to the comment to identify each coded 

substantive comment. Over 1,800 substantive comments 

were identified and responded to in this Volume. The 

original and annotated letters have been entered into the 

Administrative Record. 

Specific comments and responses were organized by 

subject headings that are similar to those in the PEIS 

and PER. Based on this organization, topics accounting 

for nearly 80% of the comments listed in Table III-1. 

A list of commenting agencies, organizations, and 

individuals follows and includes the agency’s, 

organization’s, or individual’s name and unique 

comment identifier number. Specific comments and 

responses are provided in this chapter under Specific 

Comments and Responses and are organized by subject 

headings in the PEIS and PER based on the content of 

the comment, and then by comment number. The text of 

the Final PEIS, PER, and BA have been revised or 

edited where appropriate to address the comments. 

Much of the additional information, either requested or 

provided by public input, has been incorporated in the 

Final PEIS, PER, and BA. Information on how specific 

comments were addressed and where they are addressed 

within the Final PEIS, PER, and BA is detailed in the 

response to each issue statement. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-1 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

TABLE III-1 also included on the project website 

Comment Response Summary (http://www.blm.gov). The comment letters are part of 

Topic Percent of 

Comments 

Scope of analysis and causes of weed 

spread 11.5 

Herbicide effects analysis 7.9 

Vegetation treatment planning and 

management 4.5 

Herbicide active ingredients 

evaluated in PEIS 4.3 

Effects to vegetation 4.0 

Monitoring 3.9 

How effects of alternatives were 

estimated 3.8 

Biological Assessment 3.5 

Effects to human health and safety 3.5 

Herbicide SOPs and guidelines 3.5 

Effects to wildlife resources 3.4 

Prevention of weeds 3.0 

Cumulative effects analysis 2.8 

Herbicide modes of action 2.5 

Revegetation 2.5 

Non-herbicide treatment methods 2.3 

Alternative E – No use of 

sulfonylurea and other ALS- 1.8 

inhibiting active ingredients 

Purpose and Need for Proposed 

Action 1.7 

Determination of treatment acreages 1.6 

Effects on air quality 1.6 

Effects on social and economic 

values 1.4 

Coordination and education 1.3 

Special status species 1.3 

Other 23.9 

the Administrative Record and can be inspected upon 

request to the BLM. In addition, several comment 

letters included extensive supporting material or large 

attachments. These were not reproduced on the CD, but 

are available for inspection upon request to the BLM. 

Commenting Agencies, 

Organizations, and Individuals 

Written or oral substantive comments were received 

from the agencies, organizations, and individuals listed 

below. The number following the name of the 

organization or individual(s) below is a discrete 

identification number that was used in the response to 

comments process. The letter code corresponds with the 

comment delivery medium – electronic mail (EMC), 

form letter (FL), facsimile (FXC), public hearing 

(PHC), or letter (RMC). The four-digit number that 

follows the letter code is unique to each comment 

response. 

Specific Comments and Responses 

Specific comments and responses are provided after the 

list of respondents and are organized by subject 

headings that are similar to those in the PEIS and PER 

and are based on the content of the comment, and then 

by comment number. In some cases, we have made 

modifications to comments to make them clearer to the 

reader. These modifications are enclosed in brackets. 

The comments received by letter, electronic mail, and 

facsimile, and the transcripts from the nine public 

hearings have not been reproduced in this document. 

The issue statements presented in Specific Comments 

and Responses summarize the substantive and general 

comments received. Copies of all meeting transcripts, 

comment letters/electronic mails/facsimiles, and 

representative letters received from advocacy groups are 

included in the CD-ROM located in the back pocket of 

Volume I of the Final PEIS. Note that red lines are 

placed next to the substantive comments in the 

letters/electronic mails/facsimiles that are addressed in 

Volume III. Information contained on the CD-ROM is 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-2 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Federal Agencies 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection FXC-0055

and Quarantine 

USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine 

U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs 

U.S. Department of the Navy - Naval Air Station Fallon 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 6 California/Nevada Operations Office 

State Agencies 

Arizona Game and Fish Department 

Arizona Game and Fish Department 

Butte Silver Bow Weed District 

California Department of Food and Agriculture 

California Department of Food and Agriculture 

California Regional Water Quality Control Board 

California Regional Water Quality Control Board 

Camas Creek Cooperative Weed Management Area 

Camas Creek Cooperative Weed Management Area 

Central Valley California Regional Water Quality Control Board 

Gunnison Watershed Weed Commission 

Idaho State Department of Agriculture 

Juntura Cooperative Weed Management Area 

Mesa County - Tri River Area Extension 

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 

Montana State University Extension 

Nevada Department of Agriculture Noxious Weed Program 

Nevada State Clearinghouse 

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish 

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish 

North Dakota Department of Agriculture 

Northside Tri-County Cooperative Weed Management Area 

Northside Tri-County Cooperative Weed Management Area 

Oregon Department of Agriculture 

Oregon Department of Agriculture 

State of Colorado 

Utah Resource Development Coordinating Committee 

Utah Resource Development Coordinating Committee 

Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board 

Wyoming Department of Agriculture 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

Wyoming State Grazing Board 

County Agencies 

Ada County Noxious Weed and Pest Department 

Adams County Farm Service Committee 

Adams County Noxious Weed Control Board 

Albany County Weed and Pest Control District 

Beaverhead County Weed Board 

Cascade County Weed and Mosquito Management District 

RMC-0189

RMC-0227

RMC-0041

EMC-0505

FXC-0077

RMC-0202

RMC-0233

EMC-0315

RMC-0081

EMC-0403

FXC-0010

RMC-0056

EMC-0300

RMC-0070

FXC-0045

RMC-0116

RMC-0087

FXC-0041

RMC-0080

RMC-0105

RMC-0005

RMC-0228

EMC-0608

RMC-0093

RMC-0223

FXC-0038

RMC-0095

FXC-0011

FXC-0044

EMC-0404

EMC-0635

RMC-0205

RMC-0146

RMC-0187

EMC-0550

RMC-0031

RMC-0164

RMC-0144

RMC-0165

EMC-0510

EMC-0449

FXC-0052

RMC-0038

EMC-0395

EMC-0604

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-3 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Cassia County Commissioners RMC-0147

Cassia County Public Lands Committee RMC-0110

Clark County Idaho Board of Commissioners RMC-0024

Colorado County Weed Supervisor Association RMC-0015

Converse County Weed and Pest RMC-0150

Custer County Board of Commissioners RMC-0101

Ferry County Noxious Weed Control Board EMC-0168

Franklin County Noxious Weed Control Board RMC-0059

Grand County Board of Commissioners RMC-0019

Johnson County Weed and Pest Control EMC-0031

Kittitas County Noxious Weed Control Board EMC-0313

La Plata County Weed Office EMC-0202

Malheur County Cooperative Weed Management Area RMC-0025

Malheur County Court RMC-0014

Malheur County Soil and Water Conservation District EMC-0040

Malheur County Weed Control EMC-0319

Malheur County Weed Control EMC-0325

Mineral County Weed District EMC-0413

Modoc County Board of Supervisors RMC-0224

Niobrara County Weed and Pest Control District EMC-0402

Okanogan County Noxious Weed Board EMC-0281

Owyhee County Natural Resources Committee EMC-0598

Owyhee County Natural Resources Committee FXC-0072

Phillips County Weed Board RMC-0172

Pitkin County Commissioners RMC-0157

Pitkin County Weed Advisory Board RMC-0138

Powell County Board of Commissioners RMC-0180

Powell County Weed Board RMC-0174

Rio Blanco County Weed Department EMC-0023

San Miguel County Board of Commissioners FXC-0016

San Miguel County Board of Commissioners RMC-0076

Santa Barbara County Weed Management Area EMC-0030

Sublette County Weed and Pest Control District EMC-0433

Sweet Grass County Noxious Weed Program EMC-0427

Teton County Weed and Pest EMC-0216

Treasure County Weed District EMC-0390

Uintah County RMC-0091

Uintah County Commission EMC-0323

Uintah County Weed Board RMC-0177

Walla Walla County Noxious Weed Control Board EMC-0219

Wichita County Noxious Weed Department EMC-0005

Tribal Organizations 

Alaska Inter-Tribal Council EMC-0047

Industry and Related Groups 

Alliance of Forest Workers and Harvesters EMC-0621

American Farm Bureau Federation EMC-0577

Associated Oregon Loggers EMC-0541

BASF Corporation EMC-0613

Bennet Forest Industries RMC-0188

Boise Cascade EMC-0565

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-4 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

British Petroleum American Production company EMC-0631

Colorado Cattlemen’s Association RMC-0195

Colorado Farm Bureau EMC-0533

Colorado Weed Management Association FXC-0053

CropLife America EMC-0578

CropLife America FXC-0008

Douglas Timber Operators RMC-0030

Douglas Timber Operators RMC-0234

Dow AgroSciences EMC-0338

Edison Electric Institute EMC-0309

Idaho Cattle Association EMC-0648

Idaho Farm Bureau Federation FXC-0073

Idaho Farm Bureau Federation RMC-0192

Lone Rock Timber Management Company EMC-0230

Montana Weed Control Association EMC-0032

New Mexico Cattle Growers’ Association EMC-0650

New Mexico Federal Lands Council EMC-0652

New Mexico Wool Growers, Inc. EMC-0651

North American Weed Management Association EMC-0461

Oregon Cattlemen’s Association EMC-0360

Oregon Society of American Foresters EMC-0625

Petroleum Association of Wyoming EMC-0025

Petroleum Association of Wyoming EMC-0561

Plum Creek Timber Company RMC-0060

Roseburg Resources Company RMC-0017

Scotts Miracle-Gro Company EMC-0626

Society of American Foresters EMC-0186

Society of American Foresters EMC-0579

South West Idaho Weed Control Association EMC-0435

Syngenta Crop Protection EMC-0526

Timber Products Company RMC-0190

Utah Farm Bureau Federation FXC-0057

Utah Farm Bureau Federation EMC-0548

Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation EMC-0612

Conservation Groups and Related Groups 

Alaska Community Action on Toxics EMC-0647

Alaska Community Action on Toxics FXC-0066

Alliance for the Wild Rockies EMC-0314

American Forest Resource Council EMC-0536

Animal Welfare Institute EMC-0193

Animal Welfare Institute EMC-0640

Animal Welfare Institute RMC-0231

Arizona Department of Transportation RMC-0086

Arizona Public Service Company EMC-0301

Association of O & C Counties FXC-0064

Association of O&C Counties RMC-0212

Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project, League of Wilderness Defenders RMC-0218

Boulder Regional Group EMC-0293

Boulder Regional Group EMC-0322

California Indian Basketweavers Association EMC-0643

California Native Plant Society EMC-0506

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-5 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

California Native Plant Society RMC-0213

California Oak Foundation RMC-0208

California Partners in Flight EMC-0238

California Weed Science Society EMC-0187

California Wilderness Coalition RMC-0057

Californians for Alternatives to Toxics EMC-0646

Carson Forest Watch RMC-0170

Center for Biological Diversity RMC-0221

Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center RMC-0006

Citizens for Fire Safety Sanity FXC-0075

Concerned Friends of Ferry County EMC-0174

Copper Country Alliance FXC-0074

Defenders of Wildlife EMC-0623

Desert Survivors RMC-0069

Embudo Valley Environmental Monitoring Group EMC-0321

Friends of the Inyo EMC-0220

Giustina Resources FXC-0017

Hampton Resources, Inc. EMC-0344

Hells Canyon Preservation Council EMC-0512

Idaho Conservation League EMC-0641

Idaho Conservation League RMC-0203

Institute For Culture and Ecology EMC-0203

Institute for Culture and Ecology FXC-0013

John Day-Snake Resource Advisory Council EMC-0503

Jordon Valley Cooperative Weed Management Area EMC-0644

Klamath River Keeper Program and Klamath Forest Alliance EMC-0306

Latir Neighborhood Association FXC-0070

Leavenworth Audubon Adopt-a-Forest (LEAF) EMC-0173

Legacy Lands Project EMC-0247

MCS Task Force of New Mexico RMC-0210

Natural Habitat RMC-0160

Natural Resources Defense Council and National Wildlife Federation RMC-0214

Natural Resources Defense Council, and National Wildlife Federation EMC-0634

Oregonians for Food and Shelter FXC-0009

Organic Consumers Association EMC-0296

Organic Consumers Association EMC-0298

Project 6 EMC-0605

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility RMC-0106

Public Lands Advocacy EMC-0544

Public Lands Council FXC-0063

Public Lands Foundation RMC-0020

Rachel Carson Council EMC-0324

Resource Concepts, Inc. EMC-0231

Resource Concepts, Inc. RMC-0040

Resource Concepts, Inc. RMC-0061

Safe Alternatives for Our Forest Environment EMC-0484

Save Our ecoSystems, Inc. RMC-0220

Shoshone Natural Resource Coalition EMC-0417

Sierra Club Rocky Mountain Chapter RMC-0050

Sierra Club Utah Chapter RMC-0217

Sierra Club Utah Chapter EMC-0639

Siskiyou Project EMC-0486

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-6 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Siskiyou Project RMC-0100

Siskiyou Project RMC-0207

Soda Mountain Wilderness Council RMC-0167

South Bend-Elkhart Audubon Society EMC-0183

Sullivan Natural Resources EMC-0617

The Aquatic Plant Management Society FXC-0060

The Flower Essence Society EMC-0519

The Lands Council EMC-0562

The Nature Conservancy EMC-0446

The Nature Conservancy RMC-0155

The Wilderness Society EMC-0513

The Wilderness Society RMC-0215

The Willits Environmental Center RMC-0096

Uncompahgre Plateau Project EMC-0379

Umpqua Watersheds EMC-0217

Utah Grazingland Network RMC-0162

Weed Science Society of America EMC-0331

Weed Science Society of America FXC-0036

Western Plant Health Association EMC-0609

Western Slope Environmental Resource Council EMC-0590

Western Slope Environmental Resource Council RMC-0209

Western Society of Weed Science EMC-0566

Western Watersheds Project EMC-0525

Western Watersheds Project EMC-0584

Western Watersheds Project EMC-0585

Western Watersheds Project RMC-0219

Willits Environmental Center EMC-0362

Womens Global Green Action Network EMC-0067

Wyoming Outdoor Council RMC-0067

Individuals 

Abe, Jane EMC-0246

Adams, Bob EMC-0406

Adams, Carmen EMC-0192

Adams, Kelly B. RMC-0111

Adams, Kelly B. RMC-0114

Adams, Larry B. and Maxine RMC-0117

Adams, Phil (Roseburg Resources Company) RMC-0131

Adams, Steven L. EMC-0052

Adee, Avis E. RMC-0094

Ahlgren, Diane EMC-0425

Alderson, George and Frances RMC-0053

Alexander, Denise EMC-0557

Alexander, L.M. EMC-0035

Alexander, Patrick EMC-0410

Allen, Laura EMC-0021

Alper, Joshua RMC-0156

Altshool, Elsa EMC-0042

Amon, Robert F. RMC-0149

Anasavo, Thomas EMC-0029

Anderson, Bruce H. EMC-0189

Anderson, Jan C. (JCA Consulting) EMC-0596

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-7 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Anderson, Michael P. EMC-0515

Anderson, Shelly EMC-0162

Anderson, Val EMC-0204

Anonymous EMC-0225

Anonymous EMC-0377

Anonymous EMC-0289

Anonymous EMC-0618

Anonymous RMC-0010

Anonymous EMC-0479

Anonymous FXC-0026

Armer, Joan EMC-0527

Armintrout, Glen FXC-0062

Artley, Dick EMC-0060

Artley, Richard EMC-0181

Asher, Jerry EMC-0223

Asher, Jerry EMC-0657

Asher, Jerry RMC-0042

Athan, Tara EMC-0337

Atkin, David EMC-0466

Auchter, David (East Central Energy) FXC-0076

Bailey, John EMC-0574

Bailey, John FXC-0069

Bailey, John RMC-0226

Bailey, Michael EMC-0156

Baker, John L. (Fremont County Weed and Pest) EMC-0509

Baker, Omega M. EMC-0043

Banbury, Shera EMC-0539

Banks, Helen EMC-0108

Banner, Roger (Utah State University) EMC-0443

Banner, Roger (Utah State University) EMC-0445

Barager, Steve RMC-0046

Barnes, Sharon EMC-0603

Barr, Roger EMC-0549

Barrett, Anne Albrecht EMC-0093

Bartel, Donald A. (Sierra Consulting and Integrated Pest Management) EMC-0523

Barth, Bobbie EMC-0227

Bayers, Rich (Back Country Spraying) EMC-0524

Beck, George EMC-0329

Beebe, Ann RMC-0064

Beeland, DeLene EMC-0597

Bellovary, Christopher EMC-0619

Benjamin, Robert R. (Sheridan County Weed and Pest Control District) FXC-0030

Beran, Daniel (BASF) EMC-0332

Berger, Robert EMC-0655

Bernard, Doris EMC-0454

Bird, Deanna EMC-0397

Birdsey, Barbara EMC-0126

Bishop, Sarah G. EMC-0330

Bitner, Patricia (Lane County Audubon Society) EMC-0318

Black, Patricia EMC-0535

Blake, Ron RMC-0108

Blankenship, Jill EMC-0493

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-8 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Blann, Deanna EMC-0607

Bluemer, Brad (Bonner County Weed Control) EMC-0393

Bockness, Scott (Montana Weed Control Association) EMC-0508

Boettcher, Robert EMC-0242

Bohman, Nancy EMC-0528

Boissonou, Cherrill EMC-0109

Boudreaux, Kristina A. EMC-0163

Bourne, Helen M. FXC-0004

Bowers, Lynn RMC-0122

Boyajian, Bo and Daniel RMC-0066

Boydston, Stanley EMC-0356

Brister, Bob EMC-0170

Brock, John H. EMC-0211

Brosbe, Lola RMC-0084

Brown, Cecil and Edith FXC-0018

Brown, Margo EMC-0373

Brownwood, Jeft EMC-0518

Brunk, Joseph (Sedgwick County Noxious Weeds Department) EMC-0222

Brye, Margaret RMC-0118

Bryngelson, Mark EMC-0459

Bryson, Anna RMC-0073

Bullock, Janet RMC-0183

Burch, D. EMC-0489

Burke, Erik and Jessyca EMC-0070

Burrell, Don and Mary RMC-0063

Burson, Allison EMC-0166

Burton, Richard C. FXC-0056

Busch, Roy and Mary EMC-0019

Butori, Dale (Fallon County Weed Department) RMC-0136

Calabro, Richard A. FXC-0002

Callahan, Jeanne EMC-0048

Callahan, Jeanne FXC-0001

Callahan, Jeanne RMC-0013

Callan, Cindy and Bob RMC-0229

Callicutt, Webb (Delta County Noxious Weed Program) EMC-0212

Callihan, Robert H. EMC-0553

Cameron, Sheena FXC-0068

Campbell, Bruce FXC-0071

Campbell, Elizabeth (Pueblo County Department of Public Works) FXC-0061

Campbell, Larry EMC-0177

Canepa, Judith K. RMC-0032

Cantlon, John D. (DuPont Vegetation Management) EMC-0531

Caress, Stanley M. EMC-0045

Caress, Stanley M. (University of West Georgia) RMC-0012

Carlson, Dave EMC-0090

Carmi, Ore RMC-0039

Carr, Dennis EMC-0497

Carrigan, Michael RMC-0071

Carroll, Brian M. EMC-0555

Carroll, Mike (Larimer County Weed Control District) EMC-0213

Caruso, Fred EMC-0020

Castellini, Randy EMC-0269

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-9 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Cederlof, James D. EMC-0542

Cenarrusa, John EMC-0004

Chamberlain, Lora RMC-0097

Chamberlain, Lora, and Bryan D. Graham FXC-0039

Chapman, James L. EMC-0249

Clark, Charlene Carroll EMC-0452

Clark, Lee EMC-0003

Cole, Brian EMC-0056

Cole, Elaine Jane EMC-0122

Collier, Phyllis EMC-0581

Colson, Cameron M. EMC-0254

Colton, Jeffrey P. (EarthSave Miami) RMC-0206

Compton, Rock EMC-0372

Conley, Jan (Environmental Association for Great Lakes Education) EMC-0333

Conrick, Teresa EMC-0066

Cox, Caroline (Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides)

Cox, Maryruth and Charles EMC-0077

Cox, William EMC-0171

Craig, Debra EMC-0540

Craig, Debra RMC-0184

Craig, Diane RMC-0130

Craig, Diane EMC-0340

Craig, Sue RMC-0143

Cranley, Mary EMC-0059

Criswell, J. Russell FXC-0035

Crockett, Ron P. EMC-0132

Cross, Virginia RMC-0102

Crowell, Lynn EMC-0143

Crowlie, Colleen EMC-0430

Crowlie, Colleen EMC-0434

Cushman, Robin RMC-0230

Custer, Matt FXC-0014

D’Amato, Tim (Boulder County Parks and Open Space) EMC-0398

Dalegowski, Daniel EMC-0263

Damus, Marilyn EMC-0308

Damus, Marilyn D. RMC-0068

Daniel, Bill EMC-0559

Dankers, Martha EMC-0137

Davlantes, Nancy EMC-0575

Day, Jean EMC-0262

de Benedictis, Paul and Gene EMC-0010

de Guia, Gabriel EMC-0602

de Miranda, Yvonne EMC-0089

Deakins, Cat EMC-0049

deFaria, Alexandra RMC-0058

Degan, Janet FXC-0019

Degan, Janet RMC-0079

Del Sesto, Holly EMC-0288

Delles, Susan RMC-0173

DeLong, Colleen EMC-0496

Detjen, Kristina EMC-0141

Dewey, Steven A. (Utah State University) EMC-0218

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-10 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Dewey, Steven A. (Utah State University) FXC-0029

DiLabio, G. M. EMC-0152

DiTomaso, Joseph M. (Univeristy of California at Davis Cooperative Extension) EMC-0366

Dixon, Lydia EMC-0200

Donnelly, Patrick EMC-0436

Doran, Alicia (Colorado Weed Management Association EMC-0279

Doran, Mary EMC-0453

Dremann, Craig EMC-0234

Duane, Judy FXC-0067

Duane, Judy RMC-0193

Duncan, Celestine EMC-0251

Dunn, Sally EMC-0642

Dunne-Brady, Jane EMC-0041

Dyber, Kenneth James EMC-0233

Edwards, Gordon O. (Cassia County Weed Control) RMC-0153

Eggena, Madge EMC-0250

Eisler, David EMC-0543

Eklund-Brown, Sheri (Elko County Commision) EMC-0207

Eldridge, Lynnette EMC-0637

Elliott, Benton H. EMC-0385

Elliott, Charles EMC-0100

Elliott, Ruth A. EMC-0081

Elzinga, Stephen (Eagle County Weed and Pest Department) EMC-0286

English, E.D. EMC-0074

Enloe, Stephen (University of Wyoming) EMC-0483

Ernst, Harley L. EMC-0226

Erskine, Kim H. RMC-0018

Ertz, Brian RMC-0191

Ertz, Brian (Western Watersheds Project) EMC-0596-2

Evans, Gail FXC-0059

Fagerlie, Dan EMC-0312

Fairfield, Mary Eaton EMC-0532

Farrar, Don (Gilliam County Weed Control) EMC-0418

Fels, Harriett RMC-0029

Fetz, Margot EMC-0478

Filipelli, DeBorah EMC-0480

Filippi, Linda J. EMC-0381

Fine, Doug EMC-0064

Firmage, Robert and Gertrud FXC-0027

Firstenberg, Arthur EMC-0327

Firstenberg, Arthur RMC-0078

Firstenburg, Arthur FXC-0020

Fite, Katie PHC-0005

Fitzgerald, Tonie (Spokane County Extension) EMC-0363

Flaster, Trish (Botanical Liaisons) EMC-0205

Fleming, Robert L. and Linda F. RMC-0133

Folske, Dan (Burke County Weed Board) RMC-0090

Franklin, Samuel H., III RMC-0023

Franson, John EMC-0382

Frazier, Penny (Goods From The Woods) EMC-0191

Fredrickson, Lana J. EMC-0589

Fuller, Lodie EMC-0383

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-11 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Gallo, Goodren RMC-0134

Gardner, James RMC-0092

Gardner, James FXC-0025

Garrett, Matt EMC-0014

Garvey, Lydia EMC-0136

Garvey, Lydia EMC-0255

Garvey, Lydia EMC-0467

Garvey, Lydia RMC-0007

Garvey, Lydia RMC-0033

Gates, Bruce D.C. RMC-0124

Gates, Corrine Cindy RMC-0132

Geeslin, Rita Jann EMC-0057

Germino, Matthew J. (Idaho State University) FXC-0032

Geyer, Eric (Roseburg Resources Company) EMC-0582

Ghandi, Theresa Marie K. EMC-0649

Ghandi, Theresa Marie K. RMC-0211

Gilbert, James RMC-0198

Gillen, Sylvia (USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service, Utah) EMC-0501

Gillman, Cathy EMC-0520

Gipson, Guy EMC-0378

Gladstone, David EMC-0121

Globus, Maria W. RMC-0008

Gloger, Laura EMC-0038

Goes, Jim EMC-0149

Gozart, Casey EMC-0215

Grace, Joanne EMC-0007

Grace, Susan EMC-0182

Graham, Bryan G. RMC-0098

Gray, Bonnie RMC-0028

Gray, Roger H. EMC-0037

Green, Alberta Patricia EMC-0335

Green, Jeanne EMC-0259

Green, Jeanne EMC-0458

Grewal, Martha RMC-0113

Griffin, Enid EMC-0086

Grother, Sheila (San Miguel County Weed Control Program) RMC-0052

Grover, Ravi EMC-0444

Gunder, Jenn EMC-0063

Gustin, Amy RMC-0048

Haas, Vicki RMC-0158

Haas, Wendy RMC-0161

Haines, Margaret EMC-0105

Hamilton, Pam FXC-0050

Hardebeck, Larry J. EMC-0316

Hardebeck, Larry J. RMC-0089

Harder, Herman RMC-0154

Hardy, John O. EMC-0374

Hardy, Roddy V. (BLM Salt Lake City Field Office) EMC-0347

Harrer, Roger EMC-0248

Harris, Ed EMC-0570

Harrison, Norma J. F. EMC-0117

Harrison, W.R. EMC-0208

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-12 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Haskins, Bill EMC-0567

Hassell, Janet EMC-0465

Hastings, BJ and Trish RMC-0085

Hastings, BJ and Trish FXC-0024

Hatch, Duane EMC-0420

Hays, Lynn and Evelyn, and Tessa Hays-Nordin EMC-0112

Hecksel, Arlene EMC-0099

Helfand, Judy EMC-0008

Hiebel, Harvey EMC-0599

Higman, Jim EMC-0349

Hinckley, Ann RMC-0002

Hoernschemeyer, Don RMC-0004

Hollister, Joseph EMC-0039

Holstein, Gail FXC-0054

Hoover, Victoria N. EMC-0405

Horsley, Jim (Arizona Department of Transportation) EMC-0304

Howell, Mark (Starr Valley Conservation District) EMC-0488

Hudson, Marty (Klickitat County Noxious Weed Control Board) EMC-0229

Hughes, Arlin EMC-0107

Huls, Mark EMC-0354

Hunt, Thomas N. (Crop Protection Association) EMC-0460

Hunt, Wayne EMC-0206

Hupp, Kevin L. (Lincoln County Noxious Weed Control Board) EMC-0563

Hurd, John EMC-0147

Hutchinson, George B. EMC-0085

Inman, Roger EMC-0287

Issarescu, Patricia FXC-0021

Issarescu, Patricia RMC-0074

Issarescu, Patricia FXC-0023

Jackson, Nelroy E. EMC-0636

Jacob, Vicki and Julia Glover EMC-0138

Jacob, Vicki, and Julia Glover EMC-0260

Jacobson, Don RMC-0139

Jahr, Jim (Wilbur-Ellis) EMC-0394

Jeffress, Jim EMC-0270

Jenkins, D. Paul (Caribou County Weed Control) RMC-0141

Johanna, Ruth EMC-0437

Johnson, Anne EMC-0144

Johnson, Edwin S. RMC-0119

Johnson, Jacalyn EMC-0545

Johnson, Kathy EMC-0606

Johnson, Lisa EMC-0375

Johnson, Nancy EMC-0071

Johnson, Rachel B. EMC-0284

Johnson, Robert EMC-0591

Jones, Donna EMC-0587

Joos, Sandra EMC-0083

Jorgensen, Bernadette RMC-0043

Josey, Helen EMC-0016

Jung, Mari EMC-0546

Kallas, John EMC-0240

Kamal, Sue (MAST Institute UNCO) EMC-0283

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-13 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Kampmeyer, Al EMC-0601 

EMC-0190 

RMC-0011 

EMC-0464 

EMC-0534 

EMC-0098 

EMC-0253 

EMC-0303 

EMC-0558 

EMC-0127 

EMC-0013 

EMC-0551 

EMC-0432 

EMC-0011 

EMC-0239 

EMC-0448 

EMC-0154 

EMC-0157 

EMC-0320 

EMC-0499 

EMC-0164 

EMC-0221 

FXC-0034 

EMC-0273 

Kanne, Claudia

Karl, Joanna

Kaufman, Albert

Kaufman, Eleanor

Keddem, Aliza

Keeran, Georgia

Keith, Laurie

Kelpsas, Bruce

Kenny, Robert

Keppelman, Tony

Kerrigan, Laurie

Keys, Paula

Kiernan, Barbara

Kimmel, Reida

Kimmel, Reida

Kincaid, Patricia M.

Kinsel, Sheldon

Kitchen, Boyd (Utah State University Extension)

Knight, John

Kokis, George

Kolbe, William A. (BASF)

Koppa, Jhon

Kotkosky, David

Kozlowski, James C. (National Society for Park Resources, National Recreation and Park EMC-0155

Association)

Kranzush, Eric (Giustina Land and Timber Company) RMC-0021 

EMC-0495 

EMC-0120 

EMC-0638 

RMC-0120 

EMC-0053 

EMC-0487 

EMC-0583 

EMC-0196 

RMC-0055 

EMC-0028 

EMC-0095 

EMC-0358 

EMC-0092 

EMC-0600 

EMC-0131 

RMC-0075 

EMC-0588 

EMC-0365 

EMC-0416 

EMC-0224 

EMC-0179 

EMC-0252 

EMC-0346 

EMC-0342 

EMC-0624 

Krepps, Robert L.

Kruse, Dave

Kuczora, Carol

Kunkle, Bill

Kurtz, Linda

Lagorio, Brad

Lamb, Alexandra

Lamberts, Frances

Lamberts, Frances

Lance, Jennifer

Landkammer, Linda

Lapin, Irene

Larson, Lyn

Laughlin, Robin

Leaf, Erika

Leberg, Mary Ann

Lee, Don L.

Legg, Geoff

Lengerich, Tim

Lent, Peter C.

Lessley, Catrina

Levanti, Deanna

Lewis, Jim (Pitkin County Land Management)

Liles, Anne Marie

Lindsay, Dianne

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-14 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Lindsay, Dianne RMC-0200

Lindsay, Heather EMC-0473

Linebaugh, Andrea J. EMC-0474

Little, Amanda Jane FXC-0028

Little, James EMC-0114

Little, Sam (Jefferson County Weed District) EMC-0560

Livingston, Deb EMC-0477

Livingston, Diane EMC-0024

Lockhart, Mary Ann EMC-0343

Lockridge, Ross EMC-0257

Long, Jennifer EMC-0530

Loud, Doris EMC-0472

Lovato, Andrew and Anhara, and Marise Korn RMC-0077

Love, Joe EMC-0055

Loveday, George RMC-0027

Lowe, Valerie EMC-0654

Luersman, Ed EMC-0507

Lutjens, William (BLM) EMC-0278

Lynch, Larry (Clark County Weed and Pest Control) EMC-0339

MacDonald, Breelyn EMC-0517

MacKenzie, John (Wilbur-Ellis) EMC-0388

MacKillop, Kenneth EMC-0123

MacKinnon, Maisie EMC-0097

Magney, Tim EMC-0387

Mahdavi, Omid EMC-0594

Maizes, Beth (Hawthorne Health and Nutrition Institute) EMC-0357

Makelacy, Melladee EMC-0447

Malakian, Tiffany RMC-0178

Malmberg, Tony EMC-0317

Malone, Marty (Park County Extension) EMC-0401

Mandelbaum, Ilene EMC-0180

Mandelbaum, Ilene RMC-0103

Manown, Lloyd and Marlene EMC-0294

Mantle, Jen (Summit County Weed Program) EMC-0371

Manzagol, Sheila (Shining Mountain Herbs) EMC-0656

Maple, Susan RMC-0115

Mariluch, Ellen (Diamond Valley Weed District) RMC-0176

Marks, John B. EMC-0468

Markus, Patricia EMC-0384

Marr, Lynn and Russell EMC-0367

Martell, Jim (Canyon County Weed Control) FXC-0043

Martin, Tonya EMC-0036

Matheson, Paula EMC-0022

Matsumoto, Nancy EMC-0595

Matsumoto, Rebecca L. RMC-0201

Mattice, William H. RMC-0166

Maxwell, Bruce (Montana State University) EMC-0291

McCall, Jim (McCall Farms) EMC-0328

McCaslin, Bob (Washington State Senator) RMC-0225

McClintic, Joann RMC-0137

McClone, Mark EMC-0124

McDorman, Bill EMC-0130

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-15 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

McDougall, Claire, and Paul Jones EMC-0552

McKay, Tim (The Northcoast Environmental Center) RMC-0199

McMahon, James P. RMC-0026

McNeel, Hank EMC-0027

McNeel, Hank PHC-0006

McSweeny, Charles EMC-0547

Medbery, Angela EMC-0267

Mendius, Barbara J. EMC-0456

Mentzer, Fred EMC-0088

Mervis, Louis M. EMC-0258

Mickey, Martha RMC-0125

Miessler, Del RMC-0016

Mike (last name not provided) EMC-0400

Miller, Arthur E. EMC-0504

Miller, Glenn (Oregon Department of Agriculture) EMC-0421

Miller, Glenn (Oregon Department of Agriculture) EMC-0469

Miller, Joel EMC-0151

Miller, Kyle J. (BASF) EMC-0272

Miller, Tracy EMC-0129

Milley, Ryan J. EMC-0439

Mintz, Mary EMC-0142

Miranda, Lara RMC-0009

Montagne, Joan EMC-0244

Moodry, John (Butte Silver Bow Weed District) EMC-0399

Mooney, Allen EMC-0409

Morris, John EMC-0310

Morris, Nancy EMC-0350

Morrow, Donald F. RMC-0001

Mortensen, Peter EMC-0502

Murphy, Jennifer EMC-0069

Murphy, Patricia EMC-0237

Murphy, Timothy EMC-0034

Name withheld by request EMC-0361

Neal, Dan EMC-0261

Needs, Kelly EMC-0628

Neff, Jack FXC-0058

Neff, Jack RMC-0216

Neil, Irvin and Marie EMC-0054

Nelson, Rachel EMC-0429

Nevin, Larry EMC-0184

Newcomb, Jean EMC-0462

Nikolaus, Ed EMC-0282

Nina Eckberg (Kootenai County Noxious Weed Control) EMC-0210

Nipper, M. RMC-0145

Noble, E.A. RMC-0129

Noble, Emily EMC-0235

Noble, Emily EMC-0364

Noble, Emily A. EMC-0274

Noel, Michael (Kane County Water Conservancy District) EMC-0236

Ogg, Alex, Jr. EMC-0256

Okuzumi, Margaret EMC-0580

Oliver, Cortney EMC-0044

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-16 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Olsen, Jan (Idaho Department of Environmental Quality) EMC-0482

Olsen, Matthew RMC-0135

Ore, Ed EMC-0078

Orloff, Paula EMC-0529

Orsini, Alice EMC-0556

Orsini, Alice RMC-0196

Pape, Beverly RMC-0036

Pape, Dick RMC-0035

Pape, K. Richard EMC-0113

Pape, Louise EMC-0199

Parson, Ben EMC-0160

Pauley, Will and Jodi EMC-0611

Paulsen, Ketel EMC-0471

Paye, Floyd (Jefferson County Weed Control) EMC-0422

Peacock, Delores (Dog Valley Ranch) EMC-0592

Pearce, Mary EMC-0075

Pearson, Wayne FXC-0003

Peckman, Kristin EMC-0051

Peippo, K.M. RMC-0171

Peirce, Betsy RMC-0186

Peters, Katherine I. RMC-0179

Peterson, Bob FXC-0015

Peterson, Bob G. RMC-0065

Peterson, Dixie RMC-0044

Peterson, Dixie K. FXC-0012

Peterson, Mr. and Mrs. B.G. (Conejos Cabins) FXC-0007

Peterson, Mrs. Bob FXC-0006

Peterson, Troy RMC-0051

Petroski, Yolanda EMC-0195

Pevanik, Shirley EMC-0068

Pickering, Ruth M. EMC-0476

Picone, Chris EMC-0046

Pikus, Barbara EMC-0463

Pitman, Susan EMC-0359

Poferl, Gerri EMC-0593

Polonsky, B.L. EMC-0522

Porter, Mark C. (Wallowa Resources) EMC-0630

Post, Ken EMC-0119

Pretorius, Christel EMC-0341

Proctor, Gradey RMC-0159

Pugh, Fred and Sandra (First Christian Church) RMC-0054

Pustejovsky, Mark RMC-0140

Pyle, Sasha EMC-0571

Quicke, Harold (BASF) EMC-0305

Ra, Delilah EMC-0116

Ragan, Lisa C. RMC-0175

Ramsdale, Ellen EMC-0481

Ransom, Corey (Utah State University) EMC-0414

Ray, Lindsey EMC-0450

Raymond, Jeanne EMC-0440

Reade, Nathan (Eastern Sierra Weed Management Area) EMC-0209

Rechel, Eric EMC-0241

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-17 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Reed, Chad L. EMC-0172

Rekow, Paul (Boise County Weed Control) EMC-0280

Remington, Maggie EMC-0302

Revillini, Daniel EMC-0554

Rice, Evan and Suzy EMC-0245

Rice, Molly EMC-0091

Richards, Linda EMC-0158

Richards, Vivien EMC-0161

Richardson, Brett (Bighorn County Weed and Pest) EMC-0376

Richardson, Nausika EMC-0307

Richardson, Peter EMC-0176

Richins, Kirt H. EMC-0615

Riddle, Donna EMC-0569

Ries, Marcela EMC-0033

Rietsema, C.J. EMC-0050

Rife, Jonathan (Douglas County Noxious Weed Management Program EMC-0277

Rife, Jonathan (Douglas County Noxious Weed Management Program) EMC-0276

Rigge, Mara EMC-0009

Riley, Matthew RMC-0181

Ringer, Greg EMC-0396

Rizika, Adam W. RMC-0127

Robinson, Edith and James RMC-0123

Robinson, Ray EMC-0380

Roehl, Joel S. FXC-0033

Roesner, Quentin EMC-0407

Rogers, Lilith EMC-0006

Rojas, Jessica EMC-0470

Rose, Karen H. FXC-0046

Rose, Linda FXC-0040

Rosenzweig, Marcie A. EMC-0148

Rothman, William EMC-0084

Royer, Connie B. RMC-0083

Ruddenklau, Helle EMC-0412

Rude, Monica (Desert Woman Botanicals) EMC-0627

Rude, Monica, and Joanna Conrardy EMC-0576

Runnels, Judy EMC-0228

Russel, Dave (Roseburg Forest Products) EMC-0017

Ryan, Eleanor (North Amercian Butterfly Association) FXC-0049

Ryan, Eleanor (North American Butterfly Association) EMC-0457

Ryan, Stephanie EMC-0133

Rydalch, Dave (Fremont County Weed Control) RMC-0112

Sachau, B. EMC-0001

Sachau, B. EMC-0408

Safranek, Angela EMC-0368

Salmon, De Anne EMC-0026

Salvo, Mark (Sagebrush Sea Campaign) EMC-0610

Salvo, Mark (Sagebrush Sea Campaign), Cox, Caroline (Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to RMC-0222

Pesticides), and O’Brien, Mary

Sanders, Kenneth D. (University of Idaho) RMC-0109

Sanders, Robert EMC-0494

Sanders, Sandy RMC-0037

Schleimer, Max and Millie EMC-0118

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-18 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Schmidt, Richard H. RMC-0185

Schmiett, Diana EMC-0297

Schoellhorn, Nylene EMC-0537

Schoelsler, Senator Mark (9th Legislative District) EMC-0620

Schoenberger, Barbara EMC-0326

Schrader, Don RMC-0062

Schroeder, Gary (C & D Lumber Company) EMC-0428

Schroyer, Don L. EMC-0411

Schroyer, Don L. EMC-0475

Schroyer, Don L. RMC-0169

Schubert, Jesse EMC-0568

Schuetz, Mark FXC-0065

Schutz, Christopher A. EMC-0622

Seastedt, Timothy R. EMC-0125

Seraphinoff, Mike EMC-0111

Settell, Mike EMC-0201

Shapiro, Michael EMC-0389

Shaw, T. Gray EMC-0018

Sheldahl, Mark (Weyerhauser Company) EMC-0491

Sherksnas, William C. EMC-0614

Shields, Charles and Helane EMC-0167

Shoemaker, Bob (Platte County Weed and Pest Control District) RMC-0128

Shonle, Irene (Colorado State University Cooperative Extension) EMC-0198

Sierra, Claire EMC-0197

Silfvast, Stacey EMC-0128

Silva, Nancy EMC-0423

Simonson, Annette EMC-0073

Simonson, Annette EMC-0175

Skinner, Monte B. RMC-0151

Skrine, Eugene EMC-0485

Skrine, Eugene RMC-0163

Small, Jack W. and Joyce C. EMC-0140

Smith, Dallen R. (Utah State University Extension) EMC-0438

Smith, Jeanne EMC-0110

Smith, John J. EMC-0072

Snitkin, Barry EMC-0165

Snyder, T. EMC-0573

Sohn, Rick EMC-0002

Sokol, Dan RMC-0045

Solomon, Seely RMC-0099

Southerland, Barbara FXC-0051

Spitz, Jon EMC-0290

Springer, Jon EMC-0146

Stadtler, Al EMC-0490

Stanek, Barbara L. EMC-0334

Stanger, Janice RMC-0034

Stanley, Leslee (Shoshone County Noxious Weed Control Department) EMC-0285

Steele , Mark EMC-0115

Steinbach, Imogene K. EMC-0564

Steinberg, Gary (Sheridan County Weed District) EMC-0415

Stellflug, Rick (Valley County Weed District) EMC-0391

Stern, Nancy RMC-0082

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-19 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Stevens, Dean RMC-0126

Stingle, Karen EMC-0243

Stokes, Tyler EMC-0012

Stone, Delight RMC-0148

Stone, Valerie EMC-0352

Strong, Marilyn EMC-0104

Strong, Marilyn and Wennstrom, Jerry EMC-0103

Stuart, Laura EMC-0134

Stuckman, Scott EMC-0061

Sutcliffe, Ron RMC-0047

Sutherland, Julie RMC-0232

Sutherland, Ron EMC-0194

Sverdlove, Jill EMC-0185

Swartz, Alan RMC-0182

Swolak, Peter EMC-0572

Takemori, Claire EMC-0271

Talpai, Ayala EMC-0087

Tarter, Dean and Mary RMC-0104

Tarter, Mary (Harding County Weed and Pest) RMC-0107

Tashel, Carole EMC-0653

Tashjian, Randy EMC-0455

Taylor, Ann EMC-0150

Taylor, Lisa (Summit County Weed Program) EMC-0370

Taylor, Miranda EMC-0153

Taylor, Miranda FXC-0005

Temple, James EMC-0629

Templeton, Judith A. RMC-0197

Tennenbaum, Gary (Pitkin County Open Space and Trails) EMC-0353

Tepfer, Gary EMC-0159

Terry, Noalani EMC-0101

Tesche, Elwyn RMC-0121

Thaemert, Ron (University of Idaho Blaine County Extension) FXC-0031

Thieda, Shirley RMC-0088

Thoen, Cheryl EMC-0292

Thompson, Julie EMC-0295

Thompson, Valerie EMC-0586

Tim Higgs (Grand County Weed Department) FXC-0047

Tipps, Betsy L. EMC-0336

Tipps, Betsy L. FXC-0037

Tombleson, Barbara EMC-0441

Toro, Ida EMC-0266

Tower, Robert EMC-0442

Treagle, Charlotte EMC-0311

Tremper, Lorana M. EMC-0106

Tretter, Kathryn RMC-0168

Trochlell, Cathy EMC-0538

Troutman, Doug EMC-0139

Turner, Jay FXC-0042

Turner, Terry (Hill County Weed District) RMC-0142

Tvedt, Dee EMC-0082

Tyler, Valerie EMC-0492

Underwood, Barbarah EMC-0632

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-20 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Unger, Kris EMC-0232

Vallone, Cheryl L. EMC-0498

Van, Tammy EMC-0419

Vanecek, Michael EMC-0268

Vardaman, Emilie EMC-0275

Varvares, Chris EMC-0386

Vernon, Jason EMC-0348

Verrét, Cathy (Product Awareness Consulting) EMC-0079

Viani, Susan and Nick EMC-0076

Vickrey, Doug FXC-0048

Vinton, Joanne EMC-0169

Volk, Terry (Bottineau County Weed Control) EMC-0392

Vollmer, Jennifer (BASF) EMC-0214

Vollmer, Joseph G. EMC-0299

Wade, David, and Nancy Pobanz EMC-0451

Wahl, Mark EMC-0145

Walker, Larry (Chaffee County Weed Department) EMC-0355

Walters, Scott EMC-0062

Wanek, Catherine EMC-0633

Ward, E. EMC-0369

Wassmuth, Carol Ann EMC-0135

Waterman, Sharon (Coos County Weed Advisory Board) EMC-0424

Watkins, Ian FXC-0022

Weinschenk, Kelly Corbet (Smart Foods Healthy Kids, Inc). RMC-0022

Wellner, Melanie K. EMC-0514

Wenzel, Robert EMC-0094

Wenzel, Robert EMC-0516

West, Robin RMC-0003

Westman, Betty EMC-0511

Wheeler, Mark and Michele Gila EMC-0102

White, Kathryn C. EMC-0058

White, Sally EMC-0096

Whitney, Dana EMC-0521

Wick, Paul (Teton County Weed District) EMC-0431

Wieckert, Karen E. EMC-0345

Wieczorek, Emily EMC-0265

Wild, Kathryn EMC-0616

Williams, Carley Marie RMC-0194

Wilson, Robert E. (University of Nevada Cooperative Extension) RMC-0049

Wilson, Susanna EMC-0500

Winans, Greg (Tri County Cooperative Weed Management Area) EMC-0351

Winfree, Robin EMC-0080

Wolfe, William T. RMC-0152

Wroncy, Jan (Gaia Vision/Canaries Who Sing) EMC-0645

Wroncy, Jan (Gaia Vision/Canaries Who Sing) RMC-0204

Wunderlich, Ray, III EMC-0264

Wyant, Jake M. P. (Gem County Weed Control) EMC-0178

Ylatupa-Mcwhorter, Shaun EMC-0426

Young, Frank EMC-0188

Zeligs, Natasha EMC-0015

Zimmermann, Adele E. RMC-0072

Zolezzi, Paul (Rocking C Ranch) EMC-0065

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-21 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands 

in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

General Comments and Reponses 

RMC-0042-076 Comment: Under alternative C (no herbicides) pg. 2-29 [of the Draft PEIS]: “It could 

Asher, Jerry be more difficult to effectively treat unwanted vegetation...”. Does anyone doubt that 

it won’t be more difficult? “Invasive plant populations would likely continue to 

spread...” (same statement sixth para. pg 4-114, second full para. pg. 4-1199). Is there 

doubt that the weeds will continue to spread with no herbicide use? “There would be 

no risk to TES species...” (because of no herbicides). What about the risk from 

unchecked weeds out competing the TES species? It is beyond a risk because weeds 

are and will continue to out compete TES species. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0144-005 under General Comments and 

Responses. 

RMC-0042-077 Comment: Under the No Action alternative, “As a result, invasive species would 

Asher, Jerry likely continue their rapid expansion across western landscapes” (last para pg 4-61) 

Does anyone think the weed spread will stop? 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0144-005 under General Comments and 

Responses. 

RMC-0144-005 Comment: Throughout both documents there are numerous instances of the terms 

Wyoming Game and ‘would’, ‘may’, ‘should’, ‘assume’, and ‘could’. We have worked with many BLM 

Fish Department Field Offices over the years and often receive conflicting degrees of analysis and at 

times are faced with statements that indicate the policy says we ‘may’ or ‘could’ or 

‘would’ consider the items but we do not have to under the guidance documents. We 

recommend that these be changed to ‘will be’. Some examples in the Treatment 

[Draft] PER are on pages 2-9,2-16,2-19,2-20,4-8, 4-1 02. Some examples in the 

Herbicide [Draft] PEIS are on pages 2-12,2-15,4 11,4-13,4-22,442, 4-62, 4-67,4-68, 4­

72, 4-90, 4-94,4-96,4-116, 4-120, 4-150, 4-154, 4-166,4-167, and 4-194. 

Response: The PEIS and PER describe programs and alternatives that may or may not 

be implemented. Although many of the activities discussed in the PEIS and PER do 

occur, many aspects of these programs (e.g., acres treated, location of treatments, types 

of mitigation) are only proposed at this time and may not be implemented. Thus, there 

is no certainty at this time that many of the actions described above will occur. 

RMC-0144-006 Comment: There are several instances in both documents where it ‘assumes’ SOPS 

Wyoming Game and [Standard Operating Procedures] will be followed or were followed in discussion 

Fish Department alternative and effects of the alternative. Again we strongly urge that ‘assume’ be 

replaced with ‘will be evaluated and followed”. 

Response: It is possible that some SOPs would not be implemented or would not be 

relevant, depending upon which alternative is chosen. See response to Comment 

RMC-0144-005 under PEIS General Comments and Responses. 

RMC-0042-083 Comment: To more accurately reflect field conditions, suggest replacing may and are 

Asher, Jerry capable with usually, or commonly, or frequently. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-23 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0144-005 under General Comments and 

Responses. 

Executive Summary 

RMC-0006-008 Comment: CSERC [Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center] asks, how can 

Central Sierra losses be both short-term and irreversible? 

Environmental 

Resource Center Response: This statement is incorrect. Short-term losses would not be irreversible. It 

has been corrected in the Final PEIS. 

Proposed Action and Purpose and Need – Introduction 

EMC-0306-011 Comment: Segmenting the proposed action in the PEIS and PER, is not consistent 

Klamath River Keeper with the National Environmental Policy Act, and does not allow for adequate 

Program and Klamath assessment of the human and environmental impacts. This segmentation does not 

Forest Alliance adequately offer the reviewer the information to reasonably assess the effectiveness 

potential for controlling invasive plants. 

Response: See responses to Comment EMC-0306-012 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Introduction and Comment RMC-0214-011 under PEIS 

Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Organization of the Vegetation Treatments 

Assessments. 

EMC-0306-012 Comment: The PEIS indicates that the past EIS’s assessed the modification and 

Klamath River Keeper control of vegetation on 1⁄2 million acres. This PEIS identifies there being about 

Program and Klamath 900,000 acres of BLM lands to be managed with herbicides. The BLM states that the 

Forest Alliance PEIS focus is to assess the impacts to the human environment from the proposed 

herbicide use and that the PEIS will result in a preferred alternative and decision for a 

federal action on public lands. With 15% of the unwanted vegetation on BLM lands 

being managed with the use of herbicides, this leaves 85 % of the BLM lands or 

another 5 million acres of unwanted vegetation to be treated with non-herbicide 

methods. The BLM indicates that the PER will assess the impacts to the human 

environment on the remaining 85% of the BLM lands that are occupied with unwanted 

vegetation. The BLM further states that there will be no new decision for nonherbicide treatments on this remaining 5 million acres. There are several million new 

acres of unwanted vegetation proposed to be managed in the PER/PEIS for which no 

new decision will be made. This is not compliant with the requirements under the 

NEPA, NFMA [National Forest Management Act], ESA [Endangered Species Act], 

CWA [Clean Water Act] and other pertinent laws and regulations. 

Response: Congress and the Administration made the decision for federal government 

agencies to treat more acres to reduce the threat of catastrophic fire. The BLM has 

determined that it does not need to make further decisions on the use of non-herbicide 

treatments. The use of integrated pest management (IPM) techniques with all methods, 

herbicide and non-herbicide, has been affirmed in all past EIS records of decision 

concerning vegetation treatments. With the exception of herbicides, no modifications 

to those decisions are proposed by the agency. The PEIS assesses the effects of the 

use of approved and proposed herbicides on human health and public land resources in 

light of the increased number of acres that potentially could be treated with herbicides. 

EMC-0411-004 Comment: What year did the BLM start actively managing against invasive/noxious 

Schroyer, Don L. weed species? 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-24 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0049-019 

Wilson, Robert E. 

(University of Nevada 

Cooperative Extension) 

EMC-0590-011 

Western Slope 

Environmental 

Resource Council 

RMC-0218-026 

Blue Mountains 

Biodiversity Project, 

League of Wilderness 

Defenders 

EMC-0008-002 

Helfand, Judy 

Response: The BLM has conducted vegetation treatments since its establishment in 

1946, including noxious and invasive weed management. It is the responsibility of the 

BLM to manage public lands under the Federal Land Management and Policy Act and 

Public Rangelands Improvement Act. As stated in the Purpose and Need, vegetation 

treatments on public lands serve an important function in reducing the risk of 

wildfires, improving resource, and enhancing habitats. 

Comment: Page 1 [of draft PEIS] last paragraph leaves out the role of science in 

addressing the invasive weed problem. Where is the consultation and incorporation of 

new knowledge into changes in management practices as the knowledge is developed? 

Response: The specific section referenced is a summary of past EIS efforts the BLM 

has undertaken. The current PEIS and PER used available research and scientific 

analysis in their development. The PEIS also outlines that the BLM uses an IPM 

approach to vegetation treatments, which incorporates new knowledge and science. 

The BLM is also moving towards adaptive management in its land use planning, 

which allows changes in knowledge to be incorporated into management practices. 

Comment: Effective management and treatment of unwanted vegetation can be 

performed using non-herbicide techniques, including fire, mechanical, manual, 

cultural, and biological control methods. These types of methods have been used 

traditionally, and in many cases offer the most appropriate options for management 

that will protect and preserve our local resource lands, as well as our local populations. 

These non-chemical methods should be considered and integrated into the discussion 

and analysis presented in the PEIS. 

Response: The BLM agrees that these non-herbicide methods are effective for treating 

unwanted vegetation. The PER that accompanies the PEIS addresses all non-herbicide 

methods of control in the context of integrated pest management. These methods are 

also addressed under Alternative C – No Use of Herbicides, in the PEIS. 

Comment: The Programmatic Environmental Report (PER) should have been 

incorporated in the D[raft] EIS (“PEIS”) and subject matter therein should have 

underwent much more detailed and rigorous analysis due to the tremendous expansion 

of non-herbicide control method proposed – from 2 million to 6 million acres 

annually. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0214-011 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Organization of the Vegetation Treatments Assessments 

regarding development of the PER. The PER discloses the general environmental 

effects of non-herbicide treatments on up to approximately 5 million acres per year of 

vegetation across the various ecoregions comprising the western U.S. and Alaska. This 

information is provided to assist BLM offices in future project level analyses of 

vegetation treatment projects. There are no treatments proposed in the PER requiring 

rigorous analysis. 

Comment: Living on a ranch, I am well aware of the problems with controlling 

unwanted plants. Manual and biologic methods exist. Even if the short term costs 

appear to be less, the long terms costs of spraying are enormous. Please reject the 

recommended alternative given in the plan and utilize other methods. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0003-005 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Revegetation. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-25 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0026-002 Comment: I’m writing to ask you to consider effectively managing and treating 

Salmon, De Anne unwanted vegetation by a variety of non-herbicide techniques including fire, 

mechanical, manual, cultural and biological control methods. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0003-005 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Revegetation. 

Proposed Action and Purpose and Need – Organization of the Vegetation Treatments Assessments 

EMC-0060-004 Comment: You have failed to seriously consider the following methods that will both 

Artley, Dick slow down the noxious weed spread and kill them where they are already established: 

1) Hand pulls them. This is very effective. I know, I have done it. We used a small 

gas-powered auger to break-up the soil around the root to assure we got every root 

from the ground. 2) If you really want to stop noxious weed spread to areas that are 

not yet affected, stop all livestock grazing in that area. Tell the rancher to go 

elsewhere. Even BLM biologists must know that cattle often carry noxious weed seeds 

in their hair. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0003-005 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Revegetation. Hand-pulling weeds is one 

option under manual methods. Also see response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under 

Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. 

EMC-0306-009 Comment: The PEIS is more focused on insuring the broad-scale application and 

Klamath River Keeper chronic use of various herbicides than it is on achieving an effective approach to 

Program and Klamath managing invasive plant species. The BLM’s proposed action will most certainly fail 

Forest Alliance if the agency does not adequately incorporate proven non-toxic methods to reduce 

existing invasive plant populations. The BLM needs to make a specific measurable 

commitment to reducing its reliance on herbicides for controlling target invasive plant 

species. 

Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0003-005 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Revegetation, and Comment RMC-0222-

059 under PEIS Alternatives, Prevention of Weeds and Early Detection and Rapid 

Response. 

EMC-0503-007 Comment: The rationale for separating the herbicide use from the other vegetation 

John Day-Snake management treatments isn’t clear. By separating the other means of weed control into 

Resource Advisory a separate document, it takes away from the integrated risk management aspect. Please 

Council clarify your intent. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0214-011 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Organization of the Vegetation Treatments Assessments 

regarding separation of herbicide use and non-herbicide treatments. See Chapter 2 in 

the Final PEIS under Integrated Vegetation Management regarding the BLM’s 

integrated weed management approach. 

EMC-0585-006 Comment: BLM’s scoping Notice stated that BLM would evaluate the impacts of 

Western Watersheds treatments – and not only herbicide use. This has not occurred, and no range of 

Project alternatives has been developed, and no “hard look” has been taken. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0214-011 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Organization of the Vegetation Treatments Assessments 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-26 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0585-055 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-076 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-079 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-080 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

regarding development of the PER. The PER outlines the effects of non-herbicide 

treatments on public lands resources. The PEIS assesses the impacts of herbicide use. 

See Chapter 2 of the PEIS, Range of Alternatives, for the range of alternatives 

included for analysis. 

Comment: BLM claims that its old EISs evaluated use of herbicides in addition to 

other treatments on approx. 500,000 acres a year ([page] ES-1 [of the Draft PEIS]). 

There is a large difference between treating that acreage each year, and now claiming 

that the old EISs’ cover the greatly expanded treatments that this [P]EIS is associated 

with. Much greater impacts to populations of special status species, big game winter 

ranges, water quality in watersheds, etc. would occur if treatments had been staggered 

over the past 20 years - in contrast to the massive number acreage of treatments BLM 

is now proposing. 

Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0222-005 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Organization of the Vegetation Treatments Assessments, and 

Comment RMC-0222-006 under PEIS Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Scope 

of Analysis. 

Comment: BLM’s old Veg. Treatment documents that underwent NEPA review, and 

included a range of alternative actions, and chemicals and acres treated. Now, BLM 

attempts to somehow authorize a drastic increase in treatments never contemplated in 

the old EISs - and sneak these in through the PER - without conducting current NEPA 

on the scope or scale of the non-herbicide treatments it proposes. BLM also cites 

several policies, none of which have undergone NEPA review. 

Response: The BLM is not authorizing any treatments in the PEIS or PER. See 

response to Comment RMC-0214-011 under PEIS Proposed Action and Purpose and 

Need, Organization of the Vegetation Treatments Assessments regarding development 

of the PER. Policy development at the Congressional, Administrative, or 

Departmental level is not a federal action requiring NEPA analysis by the BLM, and is 

outside of the scope of analysis for the PEIS. 

Comment: [Draft] [P]EIS at 1-3 states that PER discloses the general impacts of using 

non-herbicide treatments to the environment, and the PEIS provides an updated 

herbicide analysis. Yet, nowhere is a NEPA analysis of a wide range of alternatives of 

treatments (as laid out in the PER) conducted. Serious scientific deficiencies with the 

PER are described later. BLM PER at [page] 1-6 describes BLM’s FO [Field Office] 

estimation and summary of projects that underlie the [P]EIS proposal. Yet, nowhere is 

there an analysis of an alternative range of non-herbicide “treatment” acres. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0214-011 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Organization of the Vegetation Treatments Assessments 

regarding development of the PER. See also Alternatives Considered but Not Further 

Analyzed in Chapter 2 of the PEIS in regard to alternatives for acres for potential 

treatment. 

Comment: [Draft] [P]EIS [page] 1-7 abandons legitimate NEPA analysis of 

treatments and alternatives, stating: “the intent of this [P]EIS is to comply with NEPA 

by assessing the program [sic] impacts of using herbicides to treat vegetation” on 

BLM lands. Yet, in the scoping notice, BLM stated that it would analyze the impacts 

of treatments. To comply with NEPA, BLM must assess a range of treatment actions 

as laid out in the PER. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-27 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0585-084 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-231 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

RMC-0095-004 

New Mexico 

Department of Game 

and Fish 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0214-011 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Organization of the Vegetation Treatments Assessments 

regarding development of the PER. 

Comment: BLM in the DEIS [Draft PEIS] abandoned any analysis of alternative 

courses of treatment action beyond herbicide use, without any reasoned and valid 

demonstration of its reasons for doing so. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0214-011 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Organization of the Vegetation Treatments Assessments 

regarding development of the PER. 

Comment: [Page] 1-7 describes the PEIS as “ .... Provides Bureau-wide tools for 

vegetation management. Additionally, it provides an umbrella ESA [Endangered 

Species Act] consultation”. Yet, as previously discussed, there is no current or 

inclusive NEPA analysis of vegetation management or the battery of treatments 

proposed. Thus, an adequate BA [Biological Assessment] can not be prepared, and 

necessary ESA consultation cannot be done under this leaky “umbrella”. 

Response: As discussed in Chapter 1 of the PEIS under Organization of the 

Vegetation Treatments Assessments, the BLM was not required to assess nonherbicide management activities because the use of such techniques was affirmed in 

the previous EISs, and the BLM is not proposing to make any decisions relative to the 

use of non-herbicide vegetation treatment methods. However, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service felt that the effects of all 

treatment methods should be evaluated in the BA, to better understand the relationship 

between herbicide and non-herbicide treatment methods, and because the BLM did not 

prepare a BA at the time it prepared previous EISs. Thus, the BA includes an 

assessment of all treatment methods. 

Comment: However, the D[raft] PEIS fails to address two major issues, which 

preclude the document from meeting the intent of the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) Council on Environmental Quality regulations l500.l(b), which states that 

NEPA documents must concentrate on the issues that are truly significant to the action 

in question, and 1500.2(C), which states that Federal agencies, to the fullest extent 

possible, shall use all practicable means, to...avoid or minimize any possible adverse 

effects of their actions upon the quality of the human environment. 

Response: The Draft PEIS meets the intent of 40 CFR [Code of Federal Regulations] 

1500.1(b). The Draft PEIS focuses on the use of herbicides, which has been identified 

as the major point of controversy in this PEIS. The issues relevant to a decision on 

approving herbicides for use on public lands are disclosed in the PEIS using the best 

available and scientifically accurate information obtainable. The PEIS also meets the 

intent of 40 CFR [Code of Federal Regulations] 1500.2 (f) [sic], which states “Use all 

practicable means, consistent with the requirements of the Act and other essential 

considerations of national policy, to restore and enhance the quality of the human 

environment and avoid or minimize any possible adverse effects of their actions upon 

the quality of the human environment.” As stated under the Purpose and Need on page 

1-3 of the Draft PEIS, “The need for the proposed action is to reduce the risk of 

catastrophic wildfires by reducing hazardous fuels, restoring fire-damaged lands, and 

improving ecosystem health by 1) controlling weeds and invasive species, and 2) 

manipulating vegetation to benefit fish and wildlife habitat, improve riparian and 

wetlands areas, and improve water quality in priority watersheds. Additional benefits 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-28 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0205-014 

Oregon Department of 

Agriculture 

RMC-0214-011 

Natural Resources 

Defense Council and 

National Wildlife 

Federation 

accruing ...directly relate to restoration of fish and wildlife habitat and improvement 

of forest and ecological condition which would meet...objectives set forth in the 

Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003...to improve the health of the nation’s forest 

and rangelands. The Herbicide Treatment Standard Operating Procedures and 

Mitigation sections of Chapter 2 of the PEIS outline the standard operating procedures 

and mitigation measures required to minimize possible adverse effects of actions. 

Comment: [the approach] for selecting between non-chemical approaches [is 

unclear], but the handoff between the PEIS and PER is not well delineated. 

Response: Although it was difficult to understand the intent of this comment (perhaps 

because some wording was lost during preparation of the letter), it appears that the 

commenter is concerned about how different treatment methods would be selected. 

Under all alternatives, the BLM would have several vegetation treatment methods 

available for use. Based upon an assessment of likelihood of success, using past 

experience and scientific knowledge as a guide, BLM field offices would select the 

method(s) that would best manage vegetation and ensure long-term treatment success. 

This would be done at the local level on a project-by-project basis. 

Comment: The Subjugation of Non-chemical Treatments to the PER is Invalid. 

BLM’s decision to abolish consideration of mechanical and vegetative treatments to a 

non-NEPA document is without merit or justification. The definition of a 

programmatic EIS (PEIS) is a “document in which the Agency considers a number of 

related actions or projects being decided within one program. As such, a PEIS looks to 

the environmental consequences of a program as a whole. One of its purposes is to 

assess the impact of connected and cumulative actions under one programmatic 

umbrella in order to determine significant impacts to the environment. In it, the 

analysis of environmental impacts is tied to a specific program and the individual and 

cumulative effects of each project individually, and all projects together, are analyzed 

in a way which allows senior level decision makers to examine the implications of 

their programs.” BLM has composed a document that fails in this regard—a document 

whose singular nature is to analyze treatments of invasive species via the use of 

chemical applications. 

Response: The decision to address non-herbicide treatments in the PER was arrived at 

through numerous discussions with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The 

CEQ correctly pointed out to the BLM that a PEIS should focus on the programmatic 

decision to be made—in this case, the adoption of a suite of herbicides into the 

integrated pest management (IPM) tool kit the BLM uses. The IPM approach has been 

discussed and affirmed in all previous EISs pre-dating this effort, and the BLM is not 

making any decisions about whether IPM would be used, as it is required by BLM 

manual direction and policy. Nor is the BLM making decisions about the other 

vegetation treatment techniques; only herbicides, as stated in the Proposed Action and 

Purpose and Need in Chapter 1 of the PEIS. The purpose of the PER, which is stated 

in Chapter 1 of the PER, is to disclose the potential environmental effects of the other 

control techniques that may be incorporated by reference into field-level NEPA 

analyses. The PER accompanies the PEIS to provide the context and background for 

the use of herbicides in an IPM context. These non-herbicide techniques are also 

analyzed in Alternative C of the PEIS. The effects disclosures in the PER are included 

under Cumulative Effects found in Chapter 4 of the PEIS. 

The BLM disagrees with the statement the document’s singular nature is to analyze 

treatments of invasive species via the use of chemical applications. The Proposed 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-29 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0214-018 

Natural Resources 

Defense Council and 

National Wildlife 

Federation 

RMC-0217-013 

Sierra Club Utah 

Chapter 

RMC-0218-042 

Blue Mountains 

Biodiversity Project, 

League of Wilderness 

Defenders 

Action and Purpose are well established to determine which herbicides should be 

available for use on public lands. The need for the Proposed Action is to reduce the 

risk of catastrophic wildfire by reducing hazardous fuels, restoring fire-damaged lands, 

and improving ecosystem health by 1) controlling weeds and invasive species, and 2) 

manipulating vegetation to benefit fish and wildlife habitat and improve forest and 

ecological conditions. Not all vegetation is invasive or noxious. The PEIS covers the 

use of herbicides and their effects on all vegetation types. 

Comment: It is not within BLM’s purview to literally exile treatments and strategies 

other than the herbicide alternative to a non-NEPA document that exists outside the 

scope of the D[raft] PEIS. The agency has offered an EIS that is singularly fixated on 

one aspect of the issue; an EIS that fails to consider legitimate alternatives other than 

the preferred strategy of employing chemical based herbicides as the sole means to 

combat the spread of noxious and invasive species on the public lands of the West. 

Response: As discussed in Chapter 1 of the PEIS under Organization of the 

Vegetation Treatments Assessments, the primary issue identified during scoping and 

requiring analysis was the use of herbicides and the increase in the number of 

herbicides used and acres treated using herbicides. The BLM did consider a nonherbicide use alternative (Alternative C) and did provide an analysis of the costs and 

benefits of other treatment methods. Also see response to Comment RMC-0003-005 

under PER Vegetation Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Revegetation. 

Comment: The Sierra Club Utah Chapter is concerned that the PEIS is attempting to 

sneak into a programmatic EIS a series of treatments which are not analyzed by 

publishing the PER at the same time as the PEIS and apparently linked to the PEIS in 

a loose fashion. 

Response: As stated in the Proposed Action in Chapter 1 of the PEIS, the PEIS has 

been developed to determine which herbicide active ingredients would be available for 

use on public lands in the Western U.S., including Alaska. The PEIS is not proposing 

any specific treatments, or series of treatments. Site-specific NEPA analysis would be 

conducted for all future proposed vegetation treatment projects prior to approval. The 

PER discloses the general impacts of non-herbicide treatment methods on vegetation 

within the various ecoregions comprising the western U.S. and Alaska. The PER 

serves to provide the context and background for the cumulative impact analysis and 

ESA [Endangered Species Act] consultation. The PER does not propose any 

treatments, but serves as a general environmental report on the impacts of these nonherbicide treatment methods for incorporation by reference into more regional and 

site-specific environmental analyses under NEPA. 

Comment: We share these concerns, and apparently herbicide use was the dominant 

concern of the public, giving rise to the BLM’s unwise decision to split off the nonchemical methods of control out of the DEIS [Draft PEIS] into the less rigorously 

analyzed programmatic “environmental report” (which is highly questionable legally). 

Response: Herbicide use was the dominant concern of the public and is the focus of 

the PEIS. Non-chemical methods are addressed under Alternative C of the PEIS. The 

PER is a general disclosure of the estimated effects of up to five million acres per year 

of non-chemical treatment methods on ecoregions and public lands resources. The 

PER does not analyze these effects in relation to a specific proposed action, nor does it 

propose any decisions regarding the use of these methods. There is no regulation or 

statute precluding an agency from developing an environmental report on any activity 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-30 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0221-045 

Center for Biological 

Diversity 

RMC-0222-005 

Salvo, Mark 

(Sagebrush Sea 

Campaign), Cox, 

Caroline (Northwest 

Coalition for 

Alternatives to 

Pesticides), and 

O’Brien, Mary 

at any time to provide useful information to agency staff for designing projects or 

estimating environmental impacts in subsequent NEPA analyses. 

Comment: Some ongoing vegetation treatments are detailed in the Draft 

Programmatic Environmental Report (“DPER”). However, first, it is entirely unclear 

how the BLM intends the DPER to be used and why these treatments were not 

evaluated along with the other herbicide treatments in the context of a consolidated 

EIS. The NEPA process and the circulation of draft documents are intended to inform 

the public and decision makers. Unfortunately, the process undertaken by the BLM 

here, issuing a D[raft] PER at the same time as a D[raft] PEIS, has done the opposite; 

it has confused the issue and muddied the analysis. The public has not been adequately 

informed of the purpose of the DPER or how it relates to the D[raft] PEIS. In order to 

fulfill its mandates under NEPA, the BLM must thoroughly explain its objectives for 

producing this document, how it relates to the D[raft] PEIS, and provide the public 

adequate time to review and comment on the documents once those explanations are 

provided. 

Response: The organization of the PEIS and PER is discussed in Chapter 1 of the 

PEIS and PER under Organization of the Vegetation Treatments Assessment. The 

level of analysis was similar for all treatment methods in the PEIS and PER. However, 

only herbicide treatments required NEPA review in an EIS. These objectives were 

provided in both documents, and the public was given 90 days to review the 

documents. 

Comment: We also contend that the PER (if it is to remain a separate document from 

the DEIS [Draft PEIS], which it should not) must be analyzed under NEPA. 

Environmental impact statements and records of decisions in the late 1980s and early 

1990s (PER: [pages] ES-1; 1-1; 1-7) analyzed the consequences of non-chemical 

vegetation treatments on 500,000 acres in 14 western states (PER: [pages] ES-1, ES2). The PER describes annual treatments on approximately 6 million acres annually 

(PER: [page] 1-5) in I7 western states (PER: ES-1). Such an enormous expansion of 

the BLM vegetation management program, particularly when considered with the 

more than three-fold increase in proposed herbicide applications (from 300,000 to 

932,000 acres annually; PER: ES-I), requires that the agency produce a new 

environmental impact statement (EIS) to assess all reasonable alternatives and the 

impacts of preventing and treating unwanted vegetation on 6 million acres of public 

lands per year. The fact that the BLM believes it was mandated by the President’s 

National Fire Plan and Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 and other policies to 

“take more aggressive actions to reduce catastrophic wildfire risk on public lands” 

(PER: [page] 1-1) does not excuse the agency from analyzing the PER pursuant to 

NEPA. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0214-011 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Organization of the Vegetation Treatments Assessments for a 

discussion of the development of the PER. The Proposed Action in Chapter 1 of the 

PEIS does not include a proposal to prevent and treat unwanted vegetation on 6 

million acres of public lands per year. The proposed action is to “determine which 

herbicide active ingredients are available for use on public lands...to improve the 

agency’s ability to control hazardous fuels and unwanted vegetation.” The six million 

acres figure used for analysis purposes was derived from ongoing BLM programs, 

estimated Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation (ES&R) work following 

catastrophic fire, and Fire Regime Condition Class data. This estimated acreage serves 

as a baseline for analysis to determine the relative proportion of acres that could be 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-31 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0222-047 

Salvo, Mark 

(Sagebrush Sea 

Campaign), Cox, 

Caroline (Northwest 

Coalition for 

Alternatives to 

Pesticides), and 

O’Brien, Mary 

RMC-0222-139 

Salvo, Mark 

(Sagebrush Sea 

Campaign), Cox, 

Caroline (Northwest 

Coalition for 

Alternatives to 

Pesticides), and 

O’Brien, Mary 

treated with herbicides out of the suite of IPM treatment methods available, and to 

estimate the impacts of herbicide use on human health and public land resources and 

sensitive species. The analysis would be used determine which herbicides the BLM 

would adopt for use, as well as which herbicides the BLM would discontinue using in 

its ongoing program work. 

Comment: The BLM falsely identifies the “primary issue of controversy” to be 

BLM’s “continuing and proposed increase in the use of herbicides in vegetation 

treatment problems needed to implement the National Fire Plan and related initiatives” 

(1-2). In fact, the primary issue of controversy that the Restore Native Ecosystems 

Coalition raised in person with Brian Amme of BLM as early as 2002, and which we 

have raised throughout our development and transmittal to the BLM of the Restoration 

Alternative is that the BLM: refuses to acknowledge BLM management that is causing 

vegetation problems via their other “stand-alone” land management practices (e.g., 

ORV [off-road vehicle] use managed by recreation managers; livestock use managed 

by livestock managers; tree-cutting managed by “fuels reduction” managers); refuses 

to consider and utilize passive restoration as a non-toxic approach proven to be 

effective in many sites experiencing invasive species problems; and refuses to link (1) 

prevention of invasive species, (2) “control” of invasive species, and (3) maintenance 

and restoration of native vegetation habitat as a valid, integrated approach to 

controlling invasive species that is different than the BLM’s current practice and 

preferred alternative. 

Response: Herbicide use was identified as the primary issue of controversy during 

scoping with the public; this issue has also been affirmed as the primary issue of 

controversy in every previous EIS leading to this effort. The BLM acknowledges that 

the primary issue of controversy for the Restore Native Ecosystem (RNE) Coalition 

may be different; however, the BLM is obligated to identify the broad scoping issues 

for analysis from the full range of scoping comments received, not just those received 

from the RNE Coalition, which is a narrow focus interest group that does not broadly 

represent the public at large. At the time of submittal of the RNE alternative in 2002, 

BLM informed the RNE coalition much of the submitted alternative was outside the 

scope of analysis and would be more properly addressed in land use planning at the 

local level. Also see responses to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed 

Action and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of 

weed spread; response to Comment RMC-0167-007 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management regarding passive restoration; and 

response to Comment RMC-0222-019 under PEIS Alternatives, Vegetation Treatment 

Planning and Management regarding Integrated Weed Management. 

Comment: BLM’s failure to address the link between livestock grazing and invasive 

species; the lack of grazing prescriptions in the DEIS [Draft PEIS]/PER; and the 

agency’s oft-stated goal to reduce sagebrush and increase grasses and forbs 

(purportedly to improve sage grouse habitat) would have us believe that the DEIS 

[Draft PEIS]/PER are in fact an elaborate (veiled) grazing plan. And under this 

program, federal grazing permittees will be the only beneficiaries. As stated above, 

and as demonstrated daily across the sagebrush steppe, grazing harms sage grouse. 

Livestock will continue to consume the bulk of grasses and forbs that result from 

vegetation treatments described in the DEIS [Draft PEIS]/PER, and will continue to 

cause weed problems wherever they are allowed to graze among weeds, on burned 

sites or in areas sprayed with herbicides. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-32 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Response: See the Proposed Action in Chapter 1 of the PEIS. The PEIS addresses the 

effects of herbicide use on human health and public land resources. The PEIS contains 

no information at this national programmatic level that would allow the analysis in the 

PEIS or the information contained in the Environmental Report to serve as an 

elaborate grazing plan. Grazing plans are specific to allotments, developed at the field 

office level, based on existing land use plan goals and objectives, following the 

grazing regulations at 43 CFR [Code of Federal Regulations] 4100. 

Proposed Action and Purpose and Need – Proposed Action 

RMC-0218-033 Comment: There is no explanation as to why the BLM hasn’t been able to use 

Blue Mountains herbicides in Alaska, Nebraska, and Texas (DEIS [Draft PEIS] p. 4-20). It is because 

Biodiversity Project, residents of those states don’t want herbicides used? There should be analysis of 

League of Wilderness current methods use in those states to control invasive plants or reduce fire risk, the 

Defenders need for these activities or herbicide use in those states, why herbicides haven’t been 

used in those states and how current BLM plans to introduce herbicide use in those 

states relate to state law, local regulations and the public interest in Alaska, Nebraska 

and Texas, as well as any special ecological considerations regarding herbicide use in 

those states. 

Response: Herbicides can be used in Alaska, Nebraska and Texas, although herbicide 

use by the BLM has not been extensive in these states. Public lands in Nebraska and 

Texas were not previously considered in the 13-state Vegetation Treatments EIS 

(1991) due to the small acreage of public lands present in those states, even though the 

states with BLM offices that administer the public lands in Nebraska and Texas 

(Wyoming and New Mexico), were considered. The use of herbicides on public lands 

in Alaska has not been considered in any previous EIS. The BLM included these states 

in this current programmatic analysis to bring all the BLM public lands in the 17 

western states, including Alaska, under one EIS for herbicide use for consistency, 

which will ensure that the BLM’s list of approved herbicides applies to all states in the 

West with BLM administration. 

Proposed Action and Purpose and Need – Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action 

EMC-0018-005 Comment: Public land management should be based on long-term ecological health 

Shaw, T. Gray and the best science available, and should err on the side of safety and conservation. 

Non-herbicide vegetation treatment options are available. 

Response: As noted in Chapter 1 of the PEIS under Purpose and Need for the 

Proposed Action, one need for the proposed action is to improve ecosystem health. 

The BLM is considering both herbicide and non-herbicide treatment methods to 

improve ecosystem health. Also see response to Comment RMC-0003-005 under PER 

Vegetation Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Revegetation. 

EMC-0101-005 Comment: The BLM needs to educate the public on how exotic plants are spread (of 

Terry, Noalani course, it would help if some of these species had not been introduced intentionally, 

perhaps even by the BLM) and the dangers they present, and do whatever it can to 

prevent infestations. Livestock grazing, road construction, logging and fuel reduction 

projects as well as off-road vehicles, hunters and anglers, and even bikers, hikers and 

boaters spread the seeds of these plants. These activities need to be monitored with an 

eye to preventing the spread of weeds. Also, I understand seeding some areas with 

native plants is very helpful; this is being done on the Uncompahgre Plateau west of 

here. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-33 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0139-015 

Troutman, Doug 

EMC-0161-009 

Richards, Vivien 

EMC-0362-003 

Willits Environmental 

Center 

EMC-0503-010 

John Day-Snake 

Resource Advisory 

Council 

EMC-0584-069 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

Response: A discussion of how invasive vegetation is spread is given in the 

Vegetation section of Chapter 3 of the PEIS and PER under Noxious Weeds and other 

Invasive Vegetation. 

Comment: I have had but a brief time to give cursory review to the document, but 

find it basically disappointing and distorted. I worry after 30 years of experience that 

while fuel reduction is a proclaimed goal, “range improvement” for livestock grazing 

is the real proposed alternative. The impacts section is particularly weak in Recreation, 

Wilderness, and again repeatedly reflects what’s good for cows is good for the USA. 

Response: The BLM disagrees. The Proposed Action and Purpose and Need are 

stated in Chapter 1 of the PEIS. The Scope of Analysis in Chapter 1 of the PEIS 

outlines that the PEIS will not address vegetation treatments that enhance forage 

production for livestock grazing. 

Comment: Public land management should be based on long-term ecological health, 

the best science available, and should err on the side of safety and conservation. 

Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0003-005 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Revegetation; Comment EMC-0026-003 

under PEIS Environmental Consequences, How the Effects of the Alternatives Were 

Estimated; and Comment RMC-0222-059 under PEIS Alternatives, Prevention of 

Weeds and Early Detection and Rapid Response. 

Comment: The BLM’s claim that these herbicides are necessary to reduce 

catastrophic wildfires and to protect ecosystems from invasive weeds is false. In 

reality, creating a landscape of dead plant matter will only increase the hazard of large 

scale wildfire. The soil biology on which on all plants are dependent to be healthy will 

be destroyed by the use of these poisons. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0646-174 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Cumulative Effects Analysis. 

Comment: There is very little discussion in the document as to the rationale for the 

massive amount of weed treatment being proposed in the [P]EIS. We are supportive of 

the efforts of BLM to address the threat that noxious weeds pose to the health of 

public and private lands throughout the west. We feel that the BLM leaves itself 

susceptible to lawsuits and future obstacles by leaving out the huge body of peer 

reviewed literature that carefully documents the impacts of invasive species. 

Response: As discussed under Scope of Analysis in the Decisions to be Made and 

Scope of Analysis section of Chapter 1 of the PEIS, the PEIS is not a weed 

management document. The PEIS is an analytical document that addresses the use of 

herbicides on vegetation and public land resources. Invasive species and noxious 

weeds are included under vegetation. See Chapter 6 for the list of references used in 

the development of this PEIS. 

Comment: An independent assessment of the “need” for the proposed actions, and the 

risks of undertaking new disturbance must be conducted as part of this process. We 

would like to be involved with this effort, and would be happy to provide you with a 

list of names of scientists that could be involved in this. This should be conducted by 

qualified ecologists not tied to Western Land Grant universities. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-34 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0585-132 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0640-018 

Animal Welfare 

Institute 

EMC-0640-021 

Animal Welfare 

Institute 

Response: The Department of Interior’s draft Cohesive Strategy to implement the 

National Fire Plan are among the policy documents referenced that provide an 

assessment of the need for the proposed action in the PEIS. The BLM is not aware of 

any statutory or regulatory requirement for an agency to conduct an independent 

assessment to support its Purpose and Need for a Proposed Action. There is no 

rationale provided as to why a qualified ecologist from a Western Land Grant 

University is any less qualified than a scientist from a different educational institution. 

The BLM considers such a restriction as unnecessarily biased to disregard any credited 

educational institution as the source of objective scientific information on any subject. 

See PEIS Chapter 6, References, for the source documents used and Chapter 5, 

Consultation and Coordination, for a list of the qualified preparers and reviewers of 

the documents. 

Comment: While this [P]EIS frequently claims herbicide use related to livestock 

forage is not part of what the [P]EIS addresses, it provides no clear way to distinguish 

herbicide use related to forage vs. other purposes. This must be clearly separated, and 

a rationale and methodology applied. 

Response: The PEIS provides an analysis of the impacts of herbicide use on public 

land resources, as related to hazardous fuels reduction and controlling unwanted 

vegetation in the form of invasive species and noxious weeds. The Proposed Action is 

described in Chapter 1 of the PEIS. NEPA analysis conducted for individual and sitespecific projects will identify the Purpose and Need relative to the Proposed Action for 

that project and identify whether the project is related to forage or other purposes. As 

identified in the PER, beneficial effects of vegetation treatments would cross-cut many 

resource programs, including, but not limited to wildlife habitat, water quality and 

quantity, sensitive species, wild horses and burros, and livestock. 

Comment: The purpose and need of the PEIS is unclear and the scope of the analysis 

in the PEIS, PER and associated documents is confusing. The PEIS claims that its 

purpose and need are to lessen the potential for catastrophic wildfires by reducing 

hazardous fuels, restore fire damaged land, and improve ecosystem health by 

controlling weeds and invasive species and manipulating vegetation to benefit fish and 

wildlife habitat. Though the introductory section of the PEIS seems to emphasize 

various presidential directives and orders intended to address the risk of catastrophic 

wildfires, this carefully crafted purpose statement clearly goes beyond controlling or 

manipulating vegetation to reduce the potential for catastrophic wildfires and goes 

beyond controlling the spread of invasive exotic species to effectively cover all aspects 

of vegetation management of relevance to the BLM. 

Response: Vegetation treatment methods apply to any type of vegetation treatment 

conducted by the BLM, and all resource program work involving vegetation 

treatments conducted by the BLM (approximately one million acres per year of the six 

million acres identified in the PEIS) have been factored into the acreage calculation 

and PEIS analysis for the purposes of assessing cumulative impacts. The BLM has 

determined that the Purpose and Need and Scope of Analysis are clear in the PEIS and 

do not require modification or further clarification. 

Comment: There is a clear disconnect in the content of the purpose and need 

statement versus the decision to be made. The BLM cannot claim that it needs to 

engage in vegetation management to address a whole range of issues (i.e. reduction in 

hazardous fuels, improve wildlife habitat, control weeds and invasive species) but then 

make a decision that is limited to the expansion of herbicide use on western public 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-35 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0640-028 

Animal Welfare 

Institute 

lands. Regardless of the existence of previous NEPA documents on herbicidal and 

non-herbicidal techniques, the BLM erred and violated federal law by failing to 

subject the entire program to review as part of this decision-making process. Indeed, 

many of those previous NEPA documents are, as the BLM concedes, either old or 

regional/local in scope and, therefore, do not provide a programmatic level of review 

for such a wide-ranging program that is clearly required under NEPA. Strangely, in 

this case, the BLM spent the time and effort to prepare a programmatic review of its 

entire vegetation management program but has limited its decision to a single 

component of the program. That decision simply makes no sense. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0214-011 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Organization of the Vegetation Treatments Assessments 

regarding development of the PER. The BLM developed the programmatic analysis 

based on the programmatic decision to be made. Alternative C in Chapter 4 of the 

PEIS provides an analysis of impacts of non-herbicide methods used to treat 

vegetation. The PER further discloses the effects of non-herbicide treatments on 

ecoregions and different vegetation communities at an assumed level of activity for 

analysis purposes. 

Comment: While there is ample evidence that many ecosystems in the western United 

States have evolved with fire and that the suppression of fires have altered these 

ecosystems, it is not as clear that we are able to accurately emulate the intensity, 

frequency, or geographic range of the natural fire paradigm through the use of 

prescribed burning. We may be able to estimate the frequency of natural fires in a 

particular ecosystem pre-European colonization (i.e. average of 1 fire ever 25 years, 50 

years, 100 years), but it may be impossible to determine the specific frequency, 

duration, and intensity of such fires using our existing techniques. Moreover, even if 

we can obtain such information, are we using prescribed burning to emulate those 

conditions or are we overusing prescribed burning to achieve a desirable habitat 

condition that benefits a particular interests or maximizes biodiversity at the expense 

of natural processes? Moreover, can we legitimately strive to return ecosystems to the 

conditions that existed pre-European colonization considering that we don’t have a 

solid understanding of what those ecosystems looked like or how they were 

structured? Modern day threats to ecosystems are different than those of the past, and 

environmental conditions of today may be different than those of the past. The 

suggested criteria won’t prevent the use of prescribed burning, disking, plowing, or 

even herbicide use, but they will promote the role of natural factors in driving 

ecosystem processes wherever and whenever possible regardless of the current 

condition of the area except when certain conditions prevail. 

Response: The commenter makes several good points, but it is difficult to respond to 

these declarative statements. Because ecosystems are dynamic in space and time, the 

BLM does not have, nor has it had, a goal of simply returning vegetation to a specific 

point of time (e.g. the conditions that existed pre-European settlement). In general, 

most vegetation management treatments in the BLM are designed around specific 

objectives, such as reducing fuel loadings in a particular location, providing sagegrouse habitat, or eliminating conifer competition. Whether these produce conditions 

that emulate pre-European settlement times, or prescribed burning is being over-used, 

cannot be evaluated. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-36 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0643-069 

California Indian 

Basketweavers 

Association 

FXC-0019-002 

Degan, Janet 

FXC-0071-012 

Campbell, Bruce 

PHC-005-005 

K. Fite

Comment: Risks to Air Quality and Water Quality are both highest in the BLM 

“Preferred Alternative” (p. 4-9 and 4-32 [of the Draft PEIS]). The [P]EIS claims to 

offset these impacts by stating that “benefits” are highest in these alternatives as well, 

(the benefits being the elimination of non-native weeds from public lands). Yet, the 

[P]EIS offers no scientific documentation for the promise of benefits or success. What 

evidence can the agency show to demonstrate that the use of herbicides at any scale 

can or has had an appreciative effect on the presence or expansion of invasive weeds? 

In fact, research has shown that herbicide intervention has the net effect of simplifying 

ecosystems and reducing biological diversity (e.g., Groves 1989, referenced in CIBA 

2002). In particular, without concomitant plans to limit invasion-promoting 

disturbance and protecting uninvaded areas, the use of herbicides as proposed in this 

[P]EIS is nothing but a waste of time and money. Weeds will simply return, with 

herbicide resistance and with less competition from the native species that are easily 

killed by the chemical herbicides. These issues were well referenced and documented 

in CIBA’s [California Indian Basketweaver’s Association’s] previous comments in 

scoping, 2002. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0646-174 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Cumulative Effects Analysis. 

Comment: When the entire ecosystem is taken into account, the healthy choice is no 

herbicide use, which benefits the public, wildlife, plants, land, water and air. The 

herbicides include several persistent, mobile, and toxic chemicals, including known 

developmental and reproductive toxins. Proposed herbicides that put applicators at risk 

are: 2,4-D, bromacil, chlorsulfuron, diquat, diuron, fluridone, hexazinone, tebuthiuron, 

and triclopyr. Also included is picloram which is no longer registered for use by the 

California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR). 

Response: Treatment of vegetation without the use of herbicides is evaluated in the 

PEIS under Alternative C, while the risks to applicators from use of herbicides are 

discussed in detail in the PEIS in Appendix B and in Chapter 4 under Human Health 

and Safety. The BLM would only use herbicides that are registered by the USEPA, 

and would not use herbicides unless they were registered for use in the state in which 

the treatment was occurring. Picloram poses low risk to fish, wildlife, and humans, but 

can have adverse impacts on non-target plants, as discussed in Chapter 4 of the PEIS. 

Comment: Why make such generalizations as to say in an answer to Frequently 

Asked Questions on the URL mentioned earlier in this comment that “Hazardous Fuel 

Treatments” will target “dead and down woody materials”, “sagebrush”, and “juniper 

and pinyon trees,” when elsewhere in the documents it mentions the importance of 

snags for habitat including for sensitive species, it calls for the removal of juniper and 

pinyon to help sagebrush land plus mentions need to assist sage grouse habitat, and it 

mentions how junipers and pinyons are native species in at least some of their current 

range? 

Response: The response given in the “Frequently Asked Questions” was kept short to 

provide the public with a succinct document that provided an overview of the 

proposed program. The PEIS and PER were more comprehensive and allowed for a 

more detailed discussion of hazardous fuels treatments. 

Comment: So when I look – and I have not read these documents in their entirety yet, 

but in listening to their presentation, what I see here is a bonanza for the chemical 

companies. BLM is proposing to greatly expand its weed treatment on public lands, at 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-37 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0042-010 

Asher, Jerry 

RMC-0042-054 

Asher, Jerry 

RMC-0042-055 

Asher, Jerry 

RMC-0042-061, 062 

Asher, Jerry 

the same time it is increasing its disturbance. Part of what is going on here – I’m sure 

the only way BLM would be able to pay for treating all these expanded acres is using 

federal fire funds. 

Response: Herbicides are just one of the tools available for fuels treatments. Managers 

and resource specialists generally have a very good estimate of which tools are most 

effective and the outcomes of various vegetation treatments. As stated under Site 

Selection and Treatment Priorities in Chapter 2 of the PEIS, herbicide treatments will 

be chosen when effective non-chemical methods of vegetation control are not feasible 

and only after considering the effectiveness of all potential methods. Following 

integrated weed management procedures, most herbicide treatments will be combined 

with other methods, including removal of treated fuels mechanically or by fire plus 

revegetation. If a noxious weed population is considered to be a fuels hazard or has 

altered the fire regime, fire funding would be a possibility. However, because not all 

noxious weeds are in this category other resource programs could be funding their 

treatment. Treatments may also be funded by other sources. For example, if treatments 

are part of a cooperative weed management area covering differing land ownerships, 

other outside funding may be used as well. 

Comment: Give more detailed explanation of the problem/impacts from weeds in the 

Summary, Purpose and Need sections especially, and elsewhere in the EIS and similar 

places in the PER. 

Response: The BLM has provided additional information on impacts from weeds 

throughout the Final PEIS and PER, and in particular in Chapter 3 under Noxious 

Weeds and other Vegetation. However, the primary objective of the PEIS and PER is 

to document the effects of treating vegetation. 

Comment: The Executive Summaries and the Purpose and Need, discuss the history 

of fire as follows: “...severity and intensity of wildfires in the West has increased 

dramatically...” I can’t find similar comments about the weed expansions that have 

occurred all over the west. 

Response: Information on weed expansion is given in the Introduction in Chapter 1 

and under Noxious Weeds and other Invasive Vegetation in the Vegetation section of 

Chapter 3 of the PEIS. 

Comment: Say something similar about weeds in the Summary and Purpose and 

Need sections of the BLM EIS and PER because weeds have also increased 

dramatically. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0042-054 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action. Additional 

information on noxious weeds and other invasive vegetation has been provided in 

Chapter 3 of the Final PEIS under Noxious Weeds and other Invasive Vegetation in 

the Vegetation section. 

Comment: The reader needs to learn about the common permanency (some authors 

call it “irreversible”) to many weed invasions. Add some language in the Summary 

and Introduction and Purpose and Need like the following: “The impact of (weed) 

invasions can be permanent when economic and environmental factors limit the ability 

of a managing agency to restore the ecosystem to a healthy state” (National Academy 

of Sciences 1992) (pg3-26 USDA EIS 2005)[;] “...Ecological damage from extensive 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-38 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0042-063 

Asher, Jerry 

RMC-0042-064 

Asher, Jerry 

RMC-0042-067 

Asher, Jerry 

RMC-0042-074 

Asher, Jerry 

noxious weed infestations in often permanent” (Utah State, Biological Wildlife 

brochure – enclosed) [; and] “Loss of wildlife habitat function would be irretrievable.” 

This is a great sentence in your [Draft] BLM [P]EIS, under Cumulative impacts, pg 2­

32 [of the Draft PEIS]. However, it is very small print buried in a table. Similar 

language needs to be “up front” in the text of the document. 

Response: The BLM has added language in the Summary, Introduction, and Purpose 

and Need sections on how the impacts of weed invasions that may become permanent 

impacts both ecologically and economically. We have also expanded the section on 

invasive species issues in Chapter 3 under Noxious Weeds and other Invasive 

Vegetation. 

Comment: “The BLM estimates that nearly 36 million acres of public lands were 

infested with weeds in 2000, and that invasive plants and noxious weeds are spreading 

at approximately 2300 acres per day.” (pg 3-26) Great that you included this 

information that is critical to helping people understand the severity of the situation. 

However, it is “buried” back deep in the huge document. 

Response: The text of the Final PEIS and PER has been changed in response to this 

concern. The estimated rate of weed spread has been added to the Executive Summary 

and Chapter 1 of both documents. 

Comment: Include that 2300 acres per day increase in the Summary and the Proposed 

Action/Purpose and Need sections of the [P]EIS and Environmental Report [PER]. 

That is where the Forest Service put their similar estimate of weed spread (USDA 

2005 pg. 1-2). 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0042-063 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action. 

Comment: “...BLM estimates that nearly 36 million acres of public lands were 

infested with weeds in 2000...”. “BLM treated approximately between 250,000 and 

320,000 acres of noxious weeds during 2001 and 2004. (pg. 3-326). On average then, 

BLM is treating about 285,000 acres per year. Therefore, since BLM is treating less 

than one percent of the weed acreage, it would appear that 35 million acres are 

growing and spreading unchecked. (I know BLM does not intend to treat all weed 

acres). If that 35 million is exaggerating, suggest substituting the acreage that is 

growing unchecked – and the amount of weeds spreading unchecked (out of control) 

will still be enormous. 

Response: The BLM proposes to increase treatment acreages of areas infested with 

weeds several-fold from current levels. Treatment levels are determined, in part, by the 

amount of funding approved by Congress; the BLM does not anticipate being able to 

treat more than 6 million acres annually (and only a portion of acres would be treated 

to control weeds), based on project funding and manpower estimates. The BLM hopes 

to slow, and potentially reverse, the increase in the number of acres infested with 

weeds. Even with the proposed treatments, the spread of weeds will continue to be a 

major issue faced by the BLM. 

Comment: Replace threaten with damages, degrades, deterioration, blocks ability to 

meet management objectives, weeds are taking over and dominating many areas. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-39 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0050-004 

Sierra Club Rocky 

Mountain Chapter 

RMC-0069-004 

Desert Survivors 

RMC-0069-006 

Desert Survivors 

Response: The text of the PEIS has been changed in response to this comment. See 

the Introduction in Chapter 1 and the Executive Summary. 

Comment: More generally the document seems to lack a compelling scientific 

argument for why the large-area spraying program discussed is going to have any 

long-term impacts on the BLM’s goal of fire reduction. (Or perhaps the real goal is 

long term employment for the pest control profession!) If there’s a proof of concept 

study out there demonstrating this, then the BLM really should tell us about it. Buying 

into a multimillion dollar, risky management program without a large-scale proof of 

management efficacy is unacceptable and resource-wasting. We all know that the 

accepted and proposed new herbicides kill weeds. What we do not know is what 

returns 2-5 years after the treatment, and how this recovery alters the fuel loads in 

ways that are considered acceptable, desirable, and ecologically and economically 

significant. 

Response: Herbicides are just one tool available for fuels treatments. Managers and 

resource specialists generally have a very good idea of which tools are most effective, 

and a good prediction of the outcome of various vegetation management treatments. 

However, as the commenter suggests, these outcomes are not always exactly as 

predicted. Thus, treatments must be monitored and continually evaluated, which is the 

concept behind adaptive management. If the specific treatment prescribed results in 

the desired condition in subsequent years, then treatment objectives are met. If 

monitoring shows that the desired condition has not been reached, then the treatment 

must be re-evaluated, and modifications made so that future applications produce the 

conditions desired. 

Comment: Many of the “noxious weeds” referred to in the PEIS have been around for 

many years and do not pose a threat to life, whether human, plant or animal. The 

fostering of a “noxious weed threat” is a weird form of mass hysteria that the BLM 

simply repeats and repeats in an attempt to propagandize. Effects of these “noxious 

weeds” are ‘way overblown in the PEIS and are not adequately proven. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0503-010 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action. It is the 

responsibility of the BLM to manage public lands under the Federal Land 

Management and Policy Act. As stated in the Purpose and Need, manipulating 

vegetation on public lands is an important function of the BLM to reduce the risk of 

wildfires, improve resources, and enhance habitats. 

Comment: Fire has been apart of Western ecology for millions of years. Most of the 

vegetation is fire-adapted. The BLM is reacting to spectacular news reports and aweinspiring real-time photos of military spray machines and smoke-jumpers, but really 

the millions of dollars the BLM spends on fires is wasted. Natural fire cleanses the 

landscape. Putting out fires interrupts this process and results in larger fires from the 

larger amounts of fuels that result from the fire being extinguished. A better way to 

deal with fuel buildup is to let the fires burn, thus eliminating the problem. The real 

difficulty comes from the rural community and BLM fire professionals, both of whom 

have come to depend on the fire program for summer employment. These socioeconomic drivers of the fire program are not dealt with in the PEIS, but they should 

be. Using herbicides is not going to solve the fire problem. Letting the fires burn will 

do this for you. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-40 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0069-016 

Desert Survivors 

RMC-0072-006 

Zimmermann, Adele E. 

RMC-0096-003 

The Willits 

Environmental Center 

Response: The commenter is correct in asserting that socioeconomic (and political) 

considerations can become the basis for some land management and vegetation 

management decisions and activities. However, it is important to note that the BLM is 

attempting to increase the use of the Appropriate Management Response to fires, as 

well as planning for more areas to employ Wildland Fire Use concepts. This is being 

done to help reduce the amount of taxpayer dollars spent on wildfire suppression, but 

with the realization that fire is a naturally occurring phenomenon. Under the 

appropriate environmental and management conditions, naturally occurring fire may 

be used to restore or maintain vegetation. The increase in human population in the 

west in recent years, as well as the socioeconomic rationale for fire suppression, 

indicate that some degree of fire suppression and fuels management capability remain 

desirable for BLM-administered public lands. 

Comment: Your herbicide spraying program fails with respect to all four “public 

benefits” touted on your website. It does not “reduce wildland fire risk”, it increases it. 

It does not “improve vegetation condition”, it kills vegetation. It does not “improve 

fish and wildlife habitat”, it kills fish and wildlife. It does not “improve watershed 

condition”, it pollutes the watershed. This proposal to use herbicides on public lands 

must be eradicated. 

Response: As discussed in Chapter 2 of the PEIS under Site Selection Priorities, 

herbicide treatments will be chosen when effective non-chemical methods of 

vegetation control are not feasible, and only after considering the effectiveness of all 

potential methods. Following integrated weed management procedures, most herbicide 

treatments will be combined with other methods, including removal of treated fuels 

mechanically or by fire plus revegetation. If herbicides can control invasive plants that 

have disrupted fire regimes and provide a competitive edge to species that do not 

disrupt fire regimes, then wildland fire risk is reduced. Similarly, providing a means 

for native species to reestablish can also improve vegetation condition. When applied 

following label requirements and using mitigation measures included in the 

PEIS/PER, as well as conservation measures required by regulatory agencies, neither 

habitat or watershed condition will be impacted. 

Comment: If this proposed action has been instigated by businesses which graze 

livestock on public lands; and whose bottom line would be enhanced by using public 

funds and endangering the public’s lives and health and the health of our ecosystems; 

then such action, being against the interests of all but a handful of the residents of the 

states targeted by the action, is illegal. 

Response: The Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action is discussed in Chapter 1 of 

the PEIS. 

Comment: The BLM’s claim that these herbicides are necessary to reduce 

catastrophic wildfires and to protect ecosystems from invasive weeds is false. In 

reality, creating a landscape of dead plant matter will only increase the hazard of large 

scale wildfire. 

Response: The BLM does not agree with this comment. In some cases herbicides are 

applied to prevent emergence of the plant to begin with. In cases where plants are 

treated and killed, a secondary treatment is planned to remove any remaining dead 

plant material. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-41 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0159-002 

Proctor, Gradey 

RMC-0218-040 

Blue Mountains 

Biodiversity Project, 

League of Wilderness 

Defenders 

Comment: Further, nowhere in this document does it address the real reasons why 

invasive plants are so pervasive on public lands (logging, road building, cattle grazing, 

ATVs, and mining). Until the BLM begins to deal with the source of the problem, 

there is only going to be an increase in these heavy-handed tactics to the great 

detriment of the environment. 

Response: See response to comment RMC-0126-002 under Proposed Action and 

Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. The BLM is addressing invasive plants in a 

four-pronged strategy that includes prevention, inventory, control, and rehabilitation 

(Partners Against Weeds - An Action Plan for the BLM; USDI BLM 1996). The BLM 

considers the use of herbicides, in an IPM context, an effective tool for controlling 

invasive species. 

Comment: It is not clear that the proposed control methods would “maintain or 

improve land health on most public lands” as they haven’t so far, so there should have 

been further analysis of alternatives dropped from further analysis, such as “Treat only 

acres needed to protect human health and safety.” There does not appear to be any 

substantiation in the D[raft] PEIS of the need to reduce wildfire risk or the extent of 

human lives and private property threatened by this risk across the BLM lands in 

question – no maps or figures. 

Response: Nationally, there has been a steady increase in acres affected by wildfire 

over the past four and a half decades, with a trend towards severe fire behavior. Two 

to 3 percent of all ignitions escape initial attack, becoming the problem fires that 

damage resources, threaten communities, and cost millions of dollars in suppression 

efforts. There is a process in place that gives treatment priority to projects in the 

Wildland Urban Interface, which is where lives and property are most at risk. This is 

emphasized in the documents A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire 

Risks to Communities and the Environment 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy 

Implementation Plan (USDI and USDA 2006a) and Protecting People and Sustaining 

Resources in Fire Adapted Ecosystems: A Cohesive Strategy (USDA and USDI 

2006b). This process is included in local planning efforts resulting in Community 

Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs) developed by local communities with participation 

by Federal and State wildland fire agencies. Direction for developing these CWPPs 

can be found in Preparing a Community Wildfire Protection Plan, A Handbook for 

Wildland-Urban Interface Communities (2004. Communities Committee, National 

Association of Counties, National Association of State Foresters, Society of American 

Foresters, and Western Governor’s Association, Bethesda, Maryland. Available at: 

www.safnet.org/policy and press/cwpp.cfm). 

While fuel reduction treatments have proven effective in changing fire behavior and 

effects at the individual stand level, the more complex issue of changing landscapescale fire behavior, effects, and suppression costs may also be addressed with fuel 

treatments designed to reduce problem fire spread and intensity on the landscape. The 

deliberate and strategic placement of hazardous treatments on a portion of the 

landscape may dramatically reduce the size and intensity of the problem fires affecting 

the entire landscape. A strategic approach to the placement of treatments, including 

their arrangement on the landscape, orientation relative to the prevailing wind, 

treatment size, treatment shape, and treatment prescription, could reduce the undesired 

effects of problem fires. Current modeling efforts are focused on such a strategy that 

will lead to maintaining and improving land health. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-42 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

An updated section in the final PEIS/PER discusses these efforts and the prioritization 

process is discussed in the PEIS and PER under Site Selection and Treatment 

Priorities. 

Proposed Action and Purpose and Need – Decisions to be Made 

EMC-0640-025 Comment: Though the sole decision in this process is whether to expand the use of 

Animal Welfare herbicides for various purposes on western public lands, it is important that the BLM 

Institute impose restrictions on all vegetation management techniques to prevent the misuse of 

such techniques to intentionally alter natural regimes to create what may be a more 

desirable condition. In other words, using any of the vegetation management 

techniques discussed in the PEIS or PER should not be permitted simply to alter, set 

back, or change natural successional patterns to create or maintain a particular habitat 

condition that may be considered by some to be more desirable than a later 

successional state. For example, using such techniques primarily to improve habitat for 

timber production or livestock grazing should not be permitted as such efforts would 

be to the principal benefit of private commercial interests and may adversely affect 

native wildlife using such areas. More specifically, employing any of the vegetation 

management techniques to remove or kill native shrub or tree species to facilitate the 

expansion of grassland habitat should not be allowed as it would represent an 

interruption in natural succession and would benefit some native species while 

harming others. 

Response: The decision to be made in the PEIS process is to determine which 

herbicides are appropriate for use on public lands, not to decide whether to expand the 

use of herbicides for various purposes on western public lands. The purposes for 

which BLM uses herbicides remains the same for all resource programs, and no new 

purposes are proposed. Vegetation treatments are required to conform to land use 

plans and be consistent with the goals and objectives contained in the land use plan. 

These goals and objectives may include achieving a desired future condition in some 

cases or achieving better forage or timber production, as determined by the guiding 

land use plan. Effects on resources for those types of projects are addressed in 

separate NEPA analyses and are not the subject of this PEIS. See Chapter 1 of the 

PEIS under Decisions to be Made and Scope of Analysis. 

EMC-0640-026 Comment: The current condition of some of our ecosystems may have been created 

Animal Welfare as a result of fire suppression efforts. Assuming such areas are not in the wildlandInstitute urban interface, do not pose a risk of fueling a catastrophic wildfire because of an 

abundance of invasive exotic species, have not been degraded as wildlife habitat 

(including protected species habitat) due to the presence of invasive exotic species, 

and do not require manipulation to benefit a protected species, natural processes 

should be allowed to continue unabated. In time, natural factors such as naturallycaused fires, blowdowns, disease, or age will cause the system to return to an early 

successional stage. While such criteria may appear to be unnecessarily restrictive, they 

are intended to allow natural processes to predominate and for species assemblages to 

change over time as succession proceeds except when vegetation manipulation is 

needed to protect property, native vegetation, native species, and protected species. 

Such criteria, if adopted, would also prevent the BLM from using such treatments to 

primarily benefit commercial interests at the expense of native wildlife. This is not to 

say that no manipulation or control is permitted. Indeed, as suggested, this plan would 

allow for vegetation manipulation to achieve specific results consistent with many of 

the management concerns identified by the BLM in the PEIS and PER. While the use 

of vegetation management techniques under these circumstances would impact the 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-43 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0144-007 

Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department 

RMC-0167-008 

Soda Mountain 

Wilderness Council 

natural successional stage, such impacts would be deemed beneficial overall because 

of the circumstances or species involved. 

Response: Land use plan goals and objectives guide how public lands are managed 

and what types of vegetation treatments may be necessary to effect required results to 

meet those objectives. Public lands that exhibit characteristics of natural functioning 

systems and desirable FRCCs [Fire Regime Condition Classes], and are resilient, are 

typically areas desired by the BLM for conservation and protection with minimal 

vegetative manipulation, usually in the form of maintenance and prevention activities, 

as required to ensure long-term stability of the system and resources. 

Comment: We understand that both documents do not evaluate vegetation treatments 

not associated directly with hazardous fuel reduction or to control vegetation to 

improve rangeland and forestland. They also do not evaluate programs associated the 

other BLM land use activities cited throughout the document as being significant 

contributors to the need for vegetation treatments, such as livestock grazing, OHV, 

recreation, mineral extraction, and ROWs. Some examples are located in the 

discussion of the Treatment [Draft] PER on pages 1-5, 1-6,2-16,3-11,3-20, 3-28, 3-

29,3-30,3-72, 4-17, 4-66,4-80,4-82,4-92 and 4-117 among other; and in the Herbicide 

[Draft] PEIS on pages as 1-4, 2-15, 2-28, 2-30-32, 3-17, 3-19, 3-30, 3-36; 3-58 and 59, 

and 4-21 among others. We are disappointed that all vegetation treatments, regardless 

of program, were not addressed. We do not believe that cumulative effects can or will 

be adequately analyzed and disclosed if all vegetation treatments are not addressed in 

project documents. In, Wyoming, many vegetation treatments are almost exclusively 

designed to increase forage production for livestock. 

Response: The Cumulative Effects Analysis in Chapter 4 of the PEIS considers all 

vegetation modifications on public lands, regardless of resource program. 

Comment: Moreover, “agencies shall insure the professional integrity, including 

scientific integrity, of the discussions and analyses in environmental impact 

statements,” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.24, and thus the BLM is required to look at all methods 

(deemed scientifically viable) to cure the rampant spread of invasive weeds. The single 

track approach that the BLM has utilized in the DEIS [Draft PEIS] and PER quite 

frankly ignores the large quantity of scientific literature that identifies management of 

the causes of the spread of invasive species as the necessary focus in order for eventual 

curtailment of weed invasion. 

Response: The Proposed Action and Purpose and Need are identified in Chapter 1 of 

the PEIS. The identified purpose of this PEIS is not to cure the rampant spread of 

invasive weeds, but to determine which herbicides would be available for BLM 

personnel to accomplish vegetation treatments in a variety of program areas. All 

analysis contained in the PEIS meet standards for professional and scientific integrity. 

Extensive literature sources were reviewed during the development of this PEIS and 

PER. See Chapter 6, References, of the PEIS and Chapter 5 of the PER for a listing of 

the scientific and published literature reviewed. In addition, BLM personnel involved 

with vegetation treatments maintain professional expertise by reviewing existing 

scientific literature; standing in scientific and professional societies; consulting with 

professional and academic experts in such fields as ecology and restoration; and 

coordinating with university extension services, the Natural Resource and 

Conservation Service (NRCS), professional weed societies, and the public, in the 

design of any particular vegetation treatment project proposal. The BLM also relies on 

its extensive experience and success with vegetation treatments, spanning several 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-44 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0191-015 

Ertz, Brian 

RMC-0217-007 

Sierra Club Utah 

Chapter 

RMC-0221-048 

Center for Biological 

Diversity 

decades. 

Comment: Given the BLM’s most substantive argument being whether a given 

course of action is within or outside the scope of a given mandate (whether it be a 

mandate of law as is the case with NEPA as one example, or whether it be a mandate 

of scientific necessity as is the case with consideration of degradates) reading the Draft 

PEIS and speaking with representatives of the Vegetation Treatment PEIS indicates 

the agency’s inability to fulfill the mandates of section 102 of NEPA. It seems as 

though representatives have spent more time crafting explanations aimed at curtailing 

wise and legitimate consideration of science and law than at studying and 

understanding the potential harmful implications to human and environmental health 

of this unnecessarily anthropogenic course of action. 

Response: This PEIS is developed in compliance with Section 102 of NEPA. Current 

science, quantifiable risk assessments, peer-reviewed literature reviews, and 

professional expertise, as well as relevant law, were all considered in the development 

of the PEIS. See Chapter 6 (References) of the PEIS, and references associated with 

Appendixes B (Human Health Risk Assessment) and C (Ecological Risk Assessment). 

Also see Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, and Policies in Chapter 1 of the PEIS 

for a discussion of the legal framework guiding development of this PEIS. 

Comment: The PEIS then identifies a purpose and need which arbitrarily limits the 

analysis of the current situation, the problems or origin of the problem, and the 

availability of techniques for treating the problem. The purposes of the proposed 

action 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. [[Draft] PEIS [page] 1-31] 

Response: The BLM has not arbitrarily limited the analysis of the current situation in 

the PEIS. The Purpose and Need in Chapter 1 of the PEIS frame the analysis required 

to address the Proposed Action, which is to assess the effects of four herbicide 

formulations proposed for use on public lands. The current situation is described in 

Chapter 3 and summarized in the Introduction of Chapter 1 of the PEIS. The problems 

and origins of the problems are discussed in Chapters 1 through 4 of the PEIS and 

PER. The availability of techniques are under Vegetation Treatment Methods in 

Chapter 2 of the PER and also discussed under the analysis of Alternative C in 

Chapter 4 of the Draft PEIS. 

Comment: Comprehensive, site-specific analysis should be provided for all 

vegetation treatments. The manual treatments outlined in the D[raft] PER include 

chaining, tilling, drill seeding, mowing, roller chopping, blading, grubbing, and fellerbunching. The D[raft] PER admits that these methods are not effective for noxious 

weed control, and instead need to be used as a follow-up to herbicide treatments. 

There is no analysis or discussion of how many acres will be subjected to these 

subsequent treatments, which exacerbates the disturbance to which these lands and the 

species that depend on them are subjected. 

Response: See NEPA Requirements of the Program in Chapter 1 of the PEIS for a 

description of the NEPA requirements for vegetation treatments and the step-down 

process for assessing site-specific impacts of vegetation treatment projects. The PEIS 

and PER broadly estimated the acres that potentially could be treated under each 

method. These estimates are not site specific as to location or method(s) used in this 

programmatic analysis. The PEIS and PER are not focused exclusively on noxious 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-45 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

weed control. Also see Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action in Chapter 1 of the 

PEIS. Some mechanical methods may not be effective for primary control of certain 

types of noxious weeds; however, these methods and techniques may be very effective 

for other vegetation treatment objectives. Vegetation treatments are primarily designed 

to stabilize and restore disturbance, not to exacerbate disturbance. 

Proposed Action and Purpose and Need – Scope of Analysis 

EMC-0070-003 

Burke, Erik and 

Jessyca 

EMC-0079-002 

Verrét, Cathy (Product 

Awareness Consulting) 

EMC-0080-004 

EMC-0079-003 

EMC-0082-001 

EMC-0083-003 

EMC-0085-003 

EMC-0089-002 

EMC-0103-001 

EMC-0112-002 

EMC-0114-001 

EMC-0117-001 

EMC-0124-003 

EMC-0127-003 

EMC-0128-002 

EMC-0128-003 

EMC-0136-001 

EMC-0159-003 

EMC-0260-004 

Comment: Invasive plants are often spread by inappropriate uses of public lands such 

as livestock grazing, road construction and use, the use of off-road vehicles, timber 

harvesting, and poorly managed fuel reduction projects. Hikers, campers, horse users, 

and pet owners could benefit from education programs about cleaning themselves and 

their animals to reduce the spread of invasive plants. 

Response: Invasive plants are spread through a number of means and vectors. The 

BLM does not consider uses of public lands under the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act (FLPMA) to be inappropriate. The BLM employs a variety of 

prevention measures, of which public and user education is a central component. The 

BLM publishes literature that is available in every field office on appropriate conduct 

on public lands to prevent the spread of weeds, provides educational programs in local 

schools and other venues, and works with industry and commercial business 

promoting recreational uses of public lands, to educate their customers on weed 

prevention. The BLM also employs similar prevention techniques in its own work on 

public lands, including, but not limited to, vehicle washing, animal grooming and 

quarantine, and use of weed-free hay and mulch. The BLM also cooperates with state 

and local fish and game agencies to set up check stations where guides, outfitters, and 

the public can trade uncertified hay and straw for certified weed-free products during 

peak use times such as hunting season. 

Comment: What are the causes of invasive plant problems? Perhaps addressing the 

cause rather than just the effect would ameliorate the situation enough to eliminate the 

need to spray herbicides. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under Proposed Action and 

Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. 

Comment: You need to consider the causes of invasive plant problems, and then act 

in a manner to prevent and reduce the problem. For instance, livestock grazing, road 

construction and use, use of off-road vehicles, timber harvests, and fuel reduction 

projects all encourage invasive weeds on BLM land. BLM needs to change the way 

the agency manages these activities in order to prevent invasive plant problems. BLM 

also needs to make a strong commitment to reducing its reliance on herbicides. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under Proposed Action and 

Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-46 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0442-002 

EMC-0447-002 

EMC-0489-002 

EMC-0528-002 

EMC-0082-002 

EMC-0081-002 

EMC-0083-004 

EMC-0091-002 

EMC-0093-005 

EMC-0097-004 

EMC-0098-001 

EMC-0103-002 

EMC-0111-001 

EMC-0114-002 

EMC-0119-001 

EMC-0127-003 

EMC-0127-004 

EMC-0128-003 

EMC-0129-002 

EMC-0135-002 

EMC-0138-003 

EMC-0147-002 

EMC-0147-003 

EMC-0148-002 

EMC-0149-003 

EMC-0149-004 

EMC-0150-002 

EMC-0151-002 

EMC-0152-001 

EMC-0154-002 

EMC-0179-002 

EMC-0258-002 

EMC-0260-005 

EMC-0262-012 

EMC-0265-003 

EMC-0293-001 

EMC-0318-003 

EMC-0439-002 

EMC-0441-002 

EMC-0466-002 

EMC-0087-002 

Talpai, Ayala 

Comment: The BLM agency must adopt strong prevention-based practices for 

activities (livestock grazing, road construction and use, of off-road vehicles, timber 

harvests, and fuel reduction projects) that encourage invasive plants. Livestock 

grazing, road construction and use, of off-road vehicles, timber harvests, and fuel 

reduction projects all encourage invasive weeds on BLM land. BLM needs to change 

the way the agency manages these activities in order to prevent invasive plant 

problems. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread, and response to Comment RMC-0055-004 under PEIS Proposed Action and 

Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding limitations on public land uses. 

Comment: Please instead address the reasons that unwanted plants can invade. Poison 

sprays only mask the situation by removing a symptom rather than eliminating what 

caused the problem. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-47 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0092-002; 

EMC-0260-003 

Larson, Lyn 

Jacob, Vicki, and Julia 

Glover 

EMC-0092-004 

Larson, Lyn 

EMC-0096-002 

White, Sally 

Comment: If the BLM doesn’t deal with the causes of this problem, and adopt strong 

prevention-based practices for activities (livestock grazing, road construction and use, 

use of off-road vehicles, timber harvests, and fuel reduction projects) that encourage 

invasive plants, it’s just putting itself on a never-ending treadmill of pesticide use. 

BLM should also make a strong, measurable commitment to reducing its reliance on 

herbicides, not increasing it! Really, there’s plenty of information out there on ways to 

avoid pesticide use, even on such a massive scale. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread, and response to Comment RMC-0055-004 under PEIS Proposed Action and 

Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding limitations on public lands uses. 

Comment: Manage livestock grazing more selectively. Ranchers get such a free ride 

on BLM land. Stop constructing roads in roadless areas! Clinton’s Forest Plan had it 

right! Too bad Bush came along to undo us all. Be more restrictive with off-road 

vehicle use (a tough one, I know, with so many jerks out there saying “it’s a free 

country...”) No more clearcuts. OSU [Oregon State University] School of Forestry will 

never convince me that this is a reasonable forestry practice. Re-plant thinning and 

“fuel reduction” projects intelligently. See attached for what should be planted, and 

where. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread, and response to Comment RMC-0055-004 under PEIS Proposed Action and 

Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding limitations on public lands uses. 

Comment: There are multiple strategies that could be employed in place of the 

temporary fix of using a poison, something that has so many other effects on other 

organisms other than those targeted. What efforts have been made to consider the 

cause and source of these invasive plants? Livestock grazing has a tremendous impact 

on the success of invasive plant species. In addition to cattle causing mass 

disturbances in the soil structure thereby making it easier for invasives to get a 

foothold, they also ingest the seeds of many of these species and deposit them 

undigested in another location complete with the extra fertilizer needed to get a 

healthy head start (middle school science). And we all know that there is a high chance 

of the seeds of plant species considered invasive to be “in the mix” when ranchers 

drop bales of hay off during the seasons where finding forage is a bit more difficult. 

Said ranchers not only pay the very minimum for access to BLM property, I would say 

that they are not held accountable for aiding in the disbursement of invasive plant 

species. 

Road construction is an obvious threat. This would include the actual construction 

process which is greatly disturbing to the environment, and the aftermath of additional 

vehicular travel through the area in which motorists bring unwanted seeds through on 

their tires, clothing and with their pets. Off-road vehicles are probably the worst 

offenders in spreading invasive plant species. They have the “advantage” of being 

allowed to do what on-road vehicles do, but at a higher level of invasion. The method 

in which timber is harvested and fuel reduction projects all encourage invasive plants 

on BLM land. What has the agency done to stem any of these methods that have been 

proven sources of spreading invasive plant species? 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-48 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0097-003 

MacKinnon, Maisie 

EMC-0102-002 

Wheeler, Mark and 

Michele Gila 

EMC-0104-001 

Strong, Marilyn 

EMC-0105-002 

Haines, Margaret 

EMC-0112-001 

Hays, Lynn and 

Evelyn, and Tessa 

Hays-Nordin 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread, and response to Comment RMC-0055-004 under PEIS Proposed Action and 

Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding limitations on public lands uses. See 

also response to Comment RMC-0167-007 under PEIS Alternatives, Vegetation 

Treatment Planning and Management regarding prevention practices implemented by 

the BLM. 

Comment: So far BLM has refused to consider the causes of invasive plant problems. 

Instead, the agency is putting itself on a treadmill of pesticide use. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread. 

Comment: You may have heard it before, but livestock grazing, road construction and 

use, use of off-road vehicles, timber harvests, and fuel reduction projects all encourage 

invasive weeds on BLM land. BLM should change the way the agency manages these 

activities in order to prevent invasive plant problems. BLM also needs to make a 

strong commitment to reducing its reliance on herbicides. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread. 

Comment: Spraying is not an effective way to deal with the agency’s invasive plant 

problem. So far BLM has refused to consider the causes of invasive plant problems. 

Instead, the agency is putting itself on a treadmill of pesticide use. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread. 

Comment: I urge BLM to take a look at the increased use of off-road vehicles, which 

have dramatically hiked the rate of growth of invasive plants in these over-used areas. 

Perhaps some of the other causes can be evaluated as well. Use of pesticides on these 

huge blocks of land is a preventable expense as well as a huge health risk, which needs 

to be avoided at all costs. It is a well known fact that pesticides have been linked to 

several forms of cancer. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread. See Appendix B, Human Health Risks Assessment for a discussion of 

carcinogenicity of the herbicides evaluated in this PEIS. 

Comment: I am writing in regards to the Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides 

Programmatic EIS. There are activities that encourage the spread of invasive plants 

that you are attempting to deal with using herbicides. Use of off the road vehicles & 

road construction, livestock grazing, these are some of the activities. Consider the 

causes of invasive plant problems. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under Proposed Action and 

Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-49 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0120-001 

Kruse, Dave 

EMC-0121-003 

Gladstone, David 

EMC-0125-004 

Seastedt, Timothy R. 

EMC-0133-003 

Ryan, Stephanie 

EMC-0133-004 

Ryan, Stephanie 

EMC-0137-002 

Dankers, Martha 

Comment: Please address invasive species with better management of the public land 

instead of using more herbicides. The spreading of invasive species is often related to 

land management practices. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management. 

Comment: Further, the BLM needs to open its eyes and recognize the causes of the 

invasives before taking a shotgun, detrimental-to-the-earth approach. In particular, 

livestock grazing (at lease rates which do not even cover the cost of land 

maintenance), road construction/use (with concomitant siltation of abutting streams), 

allowance of off-road vehicles, non-sustainable timber harvests, and fuel reduction 

projects (which often are merely pretexts to allow timber companies to cut more trees) 

all encourage the growth and rampant spreading of invasives. Thus BLM should first 

seriously consider changing the way it permits and manages these activities. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread, and response to Comment RMC-0055-004 under PEIS Proposed Action and 

Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding limitations on public land uses. 

Comment: Current and previous management activities by the BLM have contributed 

to these [invasive species] problems. Without dramatic change in land use practices, 

the system is going to remain dominated by non-native species. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding contributions of land use practices 

to the spread of non-native species. 

Comment: Your quick fix here is not only not addressing the root cause of the 

problem it is making matters worse as history has shown that plants develop resistance 

to pesticide use which only requires more pesticides of different, equally toxic nature 

to get the same gain as before. This treadmill is unwise, get off of it now. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread. Pesticide resistance is considered in the design of vegetation treatment projects 

within an integrated pest management (IPM) context. Pesticide resistance is also 

considered in the selection of herbicides to be applied to a target species. 

Comment: Better to consider the system as a whole, invasive plants are caused by 

what? Livestock grazing, road construction and use, use of off-road vehicles, timber 

harvests, and fuel reduction projects all encourage invasive weeds on BLM land. BLM 

needs to change the way the agency manages these activities in order to prevent 

invasive plant problems. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread. 

Comment: However, I urge you to consider the overall environmental conditions that 

encourage the spread of these plants and use non-toxic methods of control. I encourage 

you to examine more closely the use of off-road vehicles, over-grazing and timber 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-50 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0139-003 

Troutman, Doug 

EM-C0139-017 

Troutman, Doug 

EMC-0145-006 

Wahl, Mark 

EMC-0166-002, 003 

EMC-0174-001 

EMC-0185-007, 008 

Burson, Allison 

Concerned Friends of 

Ferry County 

Sverdlove, Jill 

EMC-0170-002 

Brister, Bob 

management practices that foster the spread of invasive plants. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread. 

Comment: The [P]EIS is totally remiss in not identifying livestock grazing as the 

number one source of degradation of native resources and introduction of noxious 

weeds on the public lands. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread. 

Comment: FLPMA calls for multiple use, and places Recreation before grazing! It is 

time that we realized though grazing is a legitimate use, it should not have dominance, 

and should no longer be a “loss leader” and subsidy to industry, yes grazing is run by 

big industry, not mom and pop operations. 

Response: The comment has been noted. 

Comment: Undertake serious examinations of livestock grazing, road construction 

engineering, use of off-road vehicles, timber harvests, and fuel reduction projects. 

Thereby consider measures that will reduce transport of weeds and destruction of 

hardy native growth that holds weeds at bay. Make specific measurable commitments 

to reducing herbicide use through these measures (___% a year). 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread. The BLM is committed to reducing herbicide use over the long-term. BLM 

Manual 9015 Integrated Weed Management states that one of its policies is to 

“promote and facilitate development of use-oriented management strategies that 

reduce the long-term dependence on noxious weed control programs.” 

Comment: We feel that: (a) Invasive species cannot be eliminated without eliminating 

the causes of weed invasion. (b) Herbicides are not only poisonous and expensive, but 

they fail because they are “treating” symptoms, not the causes, of weed invasion and 

undesirable vegetation.(c) The BLM should analyze the Restore Native Ecosystems 

Alternative in the DEIS [Draft PEIS]/PER, a citizens’ alternative submitted to the 

BLM that addresses both the causes and the effects of weed invasion and undesirable 

vegetation on public lands [is available at:} 

(www.blm.gov/nhp/spotlight/vegEIS/vol2/PEIS_Appendix_G_RNEA__Alternative.p 

df).

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread. See response to Comment RMC-0222-013 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Alternative E - No Use of Sulfonylurea and other Acetolactate Synthase-inhibiting 

Active Ingredients regarding analysis of the Restore Native Ecosystems alternative. 

Comment: I believe that the invasive species problem must be addressed, but not by 

massive herbicide use. The introduction and establishment of invasive species is 

mainly caused by logging, road building, off road vehicles and livestock grazing. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-51 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0174-003 

Concerned Friends of 

Ferry County 

EMC-0175-002 

Simonson, Annette 

These harmful activities should be eliminated or restricted. If not, then the problem 

will continue to grow. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread. 

Comment: There was an agreement, as you should be aware, on May, 24 1989, a 

Mediated Agreement on vegetation management in the Pacific Northwest Region of 

the U.S. Forest Service was signed by Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to 

Pesticides, Paul Merrell, the U.S. Forest Service, and Oregonians for Food and Shelter. 

One major purpose of this Mediated Agreement was to clarify the distinction between 

prevention (i.e., detection and amelioration of the conditions that cause or favor the 

presence of competing or unwanted vegetation) and treatment (activities for 

controlling or eradicating infestations of competing or unwanted vegetation) or early 

treatment (i.e., activities for controlling or eradicating initial, small infestations of 

competing or unwanted vegetation). A second major purpose was to operationalize the 

Record of Decision for the Final EIS for Vegetation Management, which stated that 

prevention is the preferred alternative for managing vegetation (emphasis added). The 

Mediated Agreement spells out specific steps required for, among other things, (a) 

site-specific analyses, (b) public participation; and (c) monitoring and evaluation for 

all vegetation management projects. The Mediated Agreement is the Forest Service’s 

Pacific Northwest Region’s interpretation of its obligations under the Record of 

Decision and is part of its administrative practice. The provisions of the Mediated 

Agreement are not optional. The Forest Service must document the prevention they’ve 

done. If they haven’t done it, they’re not abiding by the MA. We expect that the BLM 

should have to go through the same procedure to reach a record of decision that states 

that the prevention is the preferred alternative for managing vegetation and not resort 

to a DM that stresses the use of Herbicides. 

Response: The BLM is not bound by the terms or conditions that the Forest Service 

agreed to when it signed the Mediated Agreement. The BLM was approached by 

plaintiffs in the litigation that led to the Mediated Agreement, but declined for many 

reasons to become a party to the Mediated Agreement. The BLM is still bound by a 

court ordered injunction preventing it from using all but a number of herbicides. The 

PEIS will resolve many of the issues that led to the Oregon court injunction preventing 

the BLM from using modern, safe, and more effective herbicides on public lands in 

Oregon. The BLM will not be following similar procedures prior to reaching a ROD 

on the Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides PEIS. 

Comment: [The noxious plant problem] is brought on by many sources, forest 

harvests, recreationalists and the general mixing of the forest to urban interface. It 

cannot be solved by entering into the short term and toxic solution of herbicide use. As 

a botanist who has worked and also volunteered in noxious weed removal programs, I 

can testify that plants that spread by multi-mechanisms (wind, seed, water, 

rhizomonously, and by animal/human attachment) will not be stopped, or even slowed 

by chemical means, except for the very short term. And, at what costs? 

Response: The BLM agrees plants that spread by multi-mechanisms will not be easily 

stopped. Use of herbicides is not intended to accomplish complete control and 

eradication of noxious or invasive species. Vegetation treatment projects involving 

the use of herbicides are designed to accomplish a specific goal, which in many cases 

may be only one step in the long-term restoration or rehabilitation of an area through 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-52 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0177-001 

Campbell, Larry 

EMC-0181-006 

Artley, Richard 

EMC-0189-003 

Anderson, Bruce H. 

EMC-0196-005 

Lamberts, Frances 

an integrated vegetation management approach. The BLM applies prevention and 

mitigation measures during herbicide use to ensure toxicity impacts are reduced or 

minimized in all cases. 

Comment: It makes absolutely no sense to treat weeds before an analysis of the cause 

of the weeds is complete. Otherwise what you are proposing is a perpetual herbicide 

spray program that does little more than subsidize the chemical industry. You need to 

analyze the vectors for weed seed spread and the cause of ground disturbance that has 

prepared the seed bed. Wherever spraying is proposed you should first manage the 

vectors of seed spread and the cause(s) of ground disturbance. Anything less can not 

be defended scientifically and demonstrates a less than full commitment to weed 

control. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread. 

Comment: Fire danger can be reduced by removing the fine fuels around structures. 

Just see the research findings of Dr. Jack Cohen, a fire physicist working at the 

experiment station in Missoula. 

Response: The BLM agrees with this statement. 

Comment: Is there a better solution? Yes, by first looking at where the invasive plant 

explosion of the last 50 years has come from. Instead of dousing a new problem with a 

short term fix, the BLM must adopt strong prevention-based practices for activities 

(livestock grazing, weed contaminated hay use, road construction and use, use of offroad vehicles, timber harvests, and fuel reduction projects adjacent to invasive weed 

areas) that encourage invasive plants. At the same time, the BLM needs to make a 

specific, measurable commitment to reducing reliance on herbicides. Human activity 

is what has brought the invasive weed explosion of the last 50 years. Focus on the 

cause, not the product, or you are committing your agency to an environmentally 

unsustainable, break the bank costly ever increasing chemical program. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread, and response to Comment RMC-0055-004 under PEIS Proposed Action and 

Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding limitations on public land uses. 

Comment: It is well known that land clearing and disturbance, such as forest clear 

cutting and road building serve to both let weed species “get in” and the resistance 

capacity of the native ecosystem to be weakened. In contrast, as forestry research has 

repeatedly documented, when large, native forest stands are left intact (or 

managed/harvested with minimal canopy breaks and soil disturbance), they can and do 

act as physical barriers to bio-invasive species, even halting the spread of these to 

adjoining lands. This, preventive effect operates in grass land, scrub-vegetation, 

wetlands and other ecosystems your Agency administers and must protect for the 

future: the more that the native vegetation and native insect predators are disrupted, 

eliminated or weakened, the better is the chance that noxious invasive species will 

thrive. I therefore urge the Bureau to pay greater attention to causative, land-disturbing 

activities--range overgrazing, excessive off-roads motoring, forest clearance, mining, 

roads proliferation and the like—in preference to treatment through mechanical 

eradication and herbicides. The latter types of treatments cannot be truly effective, it 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-53 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0205-003 

Flaster, Trish 

(Botanical Liaisons) 

EMC-0205-009 

Flaster, Trish 

(Botanical Liaisons) 

EMC-0217-003 

Umpqua Watersheds 

would seem, unless the causes of noxious weeds proliferation are addressed. I 

recommend, to this effect, that the Bureau consider choice of the Restore-NativeEcosystems alternative in the Programmatic EIS. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding causes and vectors of weed 

spread. See responses to Comments RMC-0126-004 and RMC-0222-013 under PEIS 

Alternatives, Alternative E - No Use of Sulfonylurea and other Acetolactate Synthaseinhibiting Active Ingredients regarding analysis of the Restore Native Ecosystems 

proposal. 

Comment: [The BLM] would be more successful to get more strict with the causes of 

the problem. Down here, there is a problem with overgrazing to be sure, but the worse 

and most destructive damage is being caused by off-road vehicles (especially those 

ATV’s (all-terrain vehicles), but also 4 wheel drive vehicles and motorcycles). There 

is no control (aside from a view generic and un-enforced signs) to keep these people 

from driving all over the place, which they do, often in large groups and often and fast. 

It's tremendously destructive! and disturbing to the wildlife. The dry washes are 

particularly impacted and you see all these ripped up places branching off from the 

roads and washes when they drive too. Everyplace that borders these areas if full to the 

gills with invasive weeds, which of course will spread into every disturbed soil area 

available, not to mention the erosion problem that is happening too. 

Response: The BLM agrees that uncontrolled off-highway vehicle (OHV) activity can 

result in disturbance of vegetation and soils, as well as serve as a vector for weed 

spread. Proper education of OHV recreationists on weed prevention practices and 

agency enforcement of OHV regulations are required to reduce the risk of weed spread 

from this activity. 

Comment: Publicly owned sagebrush lands have been fragmented and degraded by 

livestock grazing, off-road vehicle use, energy development, and road construction for 

the past 150 years. Under the BLM’s draft policies, sagebrush habitats are targeted for 

burning, brush beating, chaining, and herbicide spraying, purportedly to improve 

habitat for sage grouse and other wildlife. Unfortunately, these treatments have not 

been proven to work, or work well, without also eliminating the aforementioned 

causes of weed invasion and undesirable conditions on BLM lands. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread. The PEIS assesses the effects of herbicide use on public land resources across 

the vegetation communities of major ecoregions, which include sagebrush habitats. 

Vegetation treatment success is dependant on many factors, such as available 

precipitation and timing, which is not necessarily related to whether or not a public 

land activity is eliminated. 

Comment: The FEIS should consider the causes of invasive weeds more, instead of 

just spraying the results of problems with herbicides. For instance, invasive weeds are 

often spread by off-road vehicles. The Roseburg BLM especially has a problem with 

enforcing ORVs (off-road vehicles), due in large part to a lack in funds. However, the 

aforementioned statement is not the point. ORVs are just one cause of noxious weeds; 

causes should be addressed rather than symptoms. After all, if only the effects of a 

problem are considered and dealt with, the root of the issue is never fully resolved. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-54 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0232-001 

Unger, Kris 

EMC-0239-004 

Kimmel, Reida 

EMC-0241-002 

Rechel, Eric 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread. 

Comment: As a citizen involved in a local initiative to address issues of invasives and 

native plants (www.earthsangha.org), I’m opposed to an invasive mgmt plan that fails 

to address the vectors introducing invasives to an ecosystem. An integrated approach 

to this issue would involve an analysis and adressal of the responsible vectors. In 

addition, in my experience, indiscriminate blanket applications of herbicides have 

profound and complex consequences for an ecosystem. While localized delivery is 

more expensive, it’s also more effective, in the long run. The best environmental 

solutions are those that most closely rely on established, natural patterns. I thank you 

for your attention. 

Response: The BLM is not proposing indiscriminate blanket applications of 

herbicides on public lands. The BLM has multiple layers of assessment that occur 

prior to a vegetation project being proposed and implemented. These assessments 

include, but are not limited to noxious weed risk assessments, Standard and Guides 

assessments, Riparian Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) assessments, watershed 

assessments, and allotment evaluations. These assessments address both the natural 

and anthropogenic causes of conditions within the assessment area. The results of the 

assessments are used to adjust management of activities as well as identify areas and 

priorities where vegetation manipulation may provide positive benefits and restore 

degraded areas. 

Comment: It is very important to consider causes for the spread of invasive species 

and to try to control them. Loggers and other vehicle users spread weed seeds on their 

tires. The closure of roads, the restriction of recreational ORV use, and a strong public 

education program to inform users of BLM land on the ways they can help to reduce 

the spread of alien invasive species would do a lot to reduce the future spread of 

unwanted weeds. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread, and response to Comment RMC-0055-004 under PEIS Proposed Action and 

Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding limitations on public land uses. The 

BLM has a strong ongoing public education program in place. 

Comment: If you want to control weeds work on the cause of the problem and don’t 

spend my money on a aerial stunt displays. Work to stop grazing, work on controlling 

illegal roads, and work on not permitting any new roads. Your spray program will only 

be a temporary fix and you know it. Until you get to the cause of our weed problem, 

spraying is just a way to throw money at a serious problem here in the west. How do 

you know that if you spray one species of weeds you won’t be setting up an 

environment for another species to take off and be another pervasive problem. Your 

biggest factor causing this weed problem is over grazing. Stop grazing the west and 

you will control the weed problem. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-55 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0249-003 

Chapman, James L. 

EMC-0253-003 

Keeran, Georgia 

EMC-0263-004 

Dalegowski, Daniel 

EMC-0286-005 

Elzinga, Stephen 

(Eagle County Weed 

and Pest Department) 

EMC-0292-002 

Thoen, Cheryl 

Comment: It’s treating the symptoms and not the diseases. The symptoms are the 

invasive weeds, but the diseases are what brought them there - logging, road building, 

off road vehicles and livestock grazing. These weeds “hitchhike” on the tires of 

logging trucks and ORVs [off-road vehicles], on livestock hooves and in feces, and are 

easily established wherever the ground has been disturbed. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread. 

Comment: I urge BLM to first perform in-depth studies to determine how and why 

these plants are being introduced. It would be very short sighted to not study the 

factors involved and simply broadcast herbicide over almost a million acres of public 

land. Please take the time and effort to investigate how the “invasive plants” are being 

introduced: One major factor is very minimal control over ATV’s [all-terrain vehicles] 

and other motor powered recreational vehicles (4WD [4-wheel drive], snowmobiles, 

motorcycles) onto public lands. Please consider the banning of non-essential motor 

powered vehicles on BLM land. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0232-001 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding pre-treatment assessments. See 

response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action and Purpose and 

Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed spread. 

Comment: There is no good reason to employ pesticides to control fire danger or to 

combat invasive species. The best reason to use this strategy is that it is cheap, easily 

conceived, and easily accomplished. A better solution is to eliminate those activities 

on our public lands which lead to the adverse ecological changes in question. 

Discontinue grazing on public lands. Discontinue logging on public lands. Allow 

natural fire regimes to proceed. Move human settlements to safe distances from public 

forests to eliminate risk to society from such natural processes. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread. 

Comment: BLM permittees (recreation, grazing, mineral/energy, etc) should be held 

accountable for the impacts their use of BLM lands cause. 

Response: The BLM allows for accountability by authorized users of the public lands. 

Use authorizations for activities on BLM lands often contain provisions for ensuring 

remediation of impacts of activities. For example, Special Recreation Use Permits may 

include collection of fees for the activity to fund post-activity monitoring and clean up, 

as well as bonds for post-activity remediation. Locatable minerals mining operations 

are fully bonded for future remediation, in some cases up to and exceeding 100 years 

into the future, based on monitoring and reclamation success. Oil and gas operations 

are likewise responsible to ensure proper reclamation under the terms and conditions 

of granted rights-of-way and other permits. Grazing use is regulated through the terms 

and conditions of permits, and penalties are in place for violations to those terms, 

including trespass fees. 

Comment: The BLM needs to consider the causes of invasive plant problems. 

Livestock grazing, the construction and subsequent use of roads in new areas, use of 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-56 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0293-002 

Boulder Regional 

Group 

EMC-0306-003 

Klamath RiverKeeper 

Program and Klamath 

Forest Alliance 

off-road vehicles, timber harvests, and fuel reduction projects all encourage invasive 

weeds. BLM needs to change the way the agency manages these activities in order to 

prevent invasive plant problems. Rather than increasing spraying, the BLM should 

make a strong commitment to reducing its reliance on herbicides, for the good of our 

families and the environment. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread. 

Comment: BLM that the agency needs to make a specific measurable commitment to 

reducing reliance on herbicides. We have personally witnessed many problems such as 

vegetation restoration projects presently being conducted on the Grand Staircase 

Escalante National Monument (GSENM) that have promoted invasive weeds in the 

past prior to NEPA and that do the same now because NEPA is not being conducted 

saying it is an “Emergency” and that more disturbance is mere “maintenance” of the 

already chained and treated areas. This new Veg [P]EIS will only allow outfits such as 

GSENM and every other BLM area office to create more problems that will continue 

to cycle for centuries to come. At some point the BLM must stop passing their 

problems off with more treatments and use of herbicides---and finally deal with the 

real culprits: grazing of domestic livestock and creating or allowing states to build 

large herds of game animals. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread. 

Comment: The United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is proposing to 

spray almost a million acres per year with herbicides to kill invasive plants and control 

excessive fuels. This triples the agency’s current herbicide use on BLM lands in the 

United States. This proposed BLM action is not an effective way to deal with the 

agency’s invasive plant and fuels management problem. This is partly due to the 

BLM’s refusal to adequately consider and address the causes of invasive plant 

problems and to develop fuels management programs that result in the reintroduction 

of natural fire into ecosystems that evolved with fire as a key influence. Instead, the 

agency is depending inappropriately on the use of herbicides to address the invasive 

plant problems and reduce excessive fuels on BLM lands. The BLM’s overdependence on the use of herbicides will not adequately result in the stated purpose 

and need which is to: 1) Reduce Risk from Wildfires and Unwanted Vegetation, and to 

3) Protect Life and Property. In fact the proposed action will more likely result in a 

worse resource condition than currently exists. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread. See pages 2-1 through 2-5 of Chapter 2 of the Final PER for a description of 

the Wildland Fire Management Program, which includes fuels management. A key 

goal of all wildland fire and fuels management is to restore fire adapted ecosystems. 

Herbicides are one tool that may be used in conjunction with other non-chemical 

methods to achieve fuels management objectives. The primary tools applied in fuels 

management projects are prescribed fire and mechanical methods not involving the 

use of herbicides. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-57 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0306-004 

Klamath RiverKeeper 

Program and Klamath 

Forest Alliance 

EMC-0322-002 

Boulder Regional 

Group 

EMC-0324-001 

Rachel Carson Council 

EMC-0361-004 

Name withheld 

Comment: Activities allowed by the BLM, such as: livestock grazing; road 

construction, use and management; use of off-road vehicles; timber harvests; mining; 

energy development; fuels reduction projects; watershed/habitat restoration and 

various forms of recreation all encourage invasive plants to be introduced, occupy, 

spread, and cause harm to the natural and human resources on the BLM lands. Several 

of the Klamath Forest Alliance personnel have witnessed BLM land management 

activities that have encouraged the introduction and spread of invasive plants on BLM 

lands while recreating or visiting BLM lands. The BLM needs to change the way the 

agency manages these activities in order to adequately prevent invasive plant 

problems. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread. 

Comment: We strongly oppose BLM’s proposal to spray herbicides over vast areas of 

the western landscape to control noxious weeds. For many years the BLM has been 

fostering the very activities which have encouraged the growth of the noxious weed. 

Cattle grazing, ORV [off road vehicle] use, Road construction, Timber Sales, Fuel 

Reduction Programs and other activities have all contributed to the current problem. 

The proposal to spray herbicides, many of them proven to be both mutagenic and 

tetragenic, over the already stressed native plants and wildlife is unacceptable. Once 

again the BLM is failing to address the root of the problem and instead adding another 

layer of stressors to our already beleaguered public lands to deal with a problem 

created by uncontrolled and unmanaged grazing and other uses. You are failing to take 

a hard look and do the potentially unpleasant (politically) work of addressing the 

underlying causes of the problem. We request that the BLM take some stronger 

prevention based measures to address the causes of the noxious weed problem. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread. Human Health risk assessments addressing mutagenicity and teratogenicity 

are found in Appendix B of the PEIS. Information on prevention is included in 

Chapter 2 of the PEIS and PER under Prevention of Weeds and Early Detection and 

Rapid Response. 

Comment: We have several reasons for objecting to this widespread spraying. We 

find that there is an apparent failure to deal with the causes of invasive species 

problems. The conditions contributing to the spread of invasive plant species are 

relevant. These include higher temperatures in Alaska, attributed to increased 

atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases. There are local disruptions of areas caused by 

the building of roads, by increased usage of ATVs [all-terrain vehicles] and other 

vehicular traffic. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread. 

Comment: I demand the BLM study further to remedy the cause of evasive weeds 

which have proven to be ORV’s, livestock, logging trucks. Until such time, efforts to 

poison 17 states will surely fail. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-58 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0386-002 

Varvares, Chris 

EMC-0389-002 

Shapiro, Michael 

EMC-0405-003 

Hoover, Victoria N. 

EMC-0405-005 

Hoover, Victoria N. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread. 

Comment: Add to the goal of preventing the spread of noxious weeds, preventing the 

spread of harmful chemicals across the land that can poison water, and threaten 

wildlife and humans, and the whole approach gets turned on its head. Start by looking 

at the causes of the spread of invasive weeds. Indeed, focus on the causes. Yes there 

are trade-offs...limit access, etc. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread. 

Comment: Rather than address the causes of spreading invasives by eliminating these 

activities [logging, road building, off-road vehicles, and livestock grazing], the BLM 

proposes to address the symptoms by increasing the use of herbicides that poison the 

air, land, water, wildlife and humans and require the use of mechanized equipment for 

application. Until the agency addresses the causes of weed invasions, its proposed 

treatments for the weed invasion and other undesirable vegetation will fail. Invasive 

species cannot be eliminated without eliminating the causes of weed invasion. 

Herbicides are not only poisonous and expensive, but they fail because they are 

“treating” symptoms, not the causes, of weed invasion and undesirable vegetation. The 

BLM should analyze the Restore Native Ecosystems Alternative in the DEIS/PER, a 

citizens’ alternative submitted to the BLM that addresses both the causes and the 

effects of weed invasion and undesirable vegetation on public lands 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread. See response to Comment RMC-0126-004 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Alternative E - No Use of Sulfonylurea and other Acetolactate Synthase-inhibiting 

Active Ingredients regarding analysis of the Restore Native Ecosystems (RNE) 

alternative. 

Comment: The EIS [PEIS] fails to look at the causes of why it is claimed these 

treatments are needed. It elaborate proposals for chemical and mechanical treatments 

of vegetation put the cart before the horse. In fact there is no horse. Ways to attack 

symptoms of problems are looked at in excessive detail and the causes of problems are 

carefully ignored. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread. 

Comment: In general herbicides are ineffective because they treat only the symptoms, 

not the causes of weed invasion, causes like livestock overgrazing, wide dispersion of 

off-road vehicles, road construction, etc. And, the herbicides most commonly used 

tend not to be effective against annual grasses that are common throughout the West, 

such as cheat grass [downy brome]. Seeds can remain potentially active in the ground 

for many years—10 to 15 years or longer. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-59 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

spread. The BLM agrees that the seed bank of annual grasses such as downy brome 

can remain potentially active for many years. 

EMC-0416-002 

Lengerich, Tim 

Comment: Invasive species cannot be eliminated without eliminating the causes of 

weed invasion. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread. 

EMC-0416-003 

Lengerich, Tim 

Comment: Herbicides are not only poisonous and expensive, but they fail because 

they are “treating” symptoms, not the causes, of weed invasion and undesirable 

vegetation. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread. 

EMC-0444-001 

Grover, Ravi 

Comment: Herbicides are not only poisonous and expensive, but they ultimately fail 

because they are treating symptoms, not the causes, of weed invasion and undesirable 

vegetation. Instead, the BLM should analyze the Restore Native Ecosystems 

Alternative in the DEIS/PER, a citizens’ alternative submitted to the BLM that 

addresses both the causes and the effects of weed invasion and undesirable vegetation 

on public lands. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread. See response to Comment RMC-0126-004 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Alternative E - No Use of Sulfonylurea and other Acetolactate Synthase-inhibiting 

Active Ingredients regarding analysis of the Restore Native Ecosystems alternative. 

EMC-0456-001 

Mendius, Barbara J. 

Comment: I have recently hear of the BLM’s intended vastly increased use of 

herbicides on public lands in the West. Not only is this approach severely detrimental 

to wildlife and very costly, it also does NOT address the causes of the problem such as 

road building, ORVs [off-road vehicles] and grazing. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread. 

EMC-0462-002 

Newcomb, Jean 

Comment: From this experience, I seriously disagree that spraying herbicides is 

effective. Only the symptoms are being addressed, not the causes or prevention of the 

invasive plant overgrowth. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread. 

EMC-0464-001 

Kaufman, Albert 

Comment: I believe that herbicides are not only poisonous and expensive, but they 

ultimately fail because they are treating symptoms, not the causes, of weed invasion 

and undesirable vegetation. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-60 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0465-003 

Hassell, Janet 

EMC-0466-003 

Atkin, David 

EMC-0467-001 

Garvey, Lydia 

EMC-0513-002 

The Wilderness 

Society 

EMC-0525-012 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread. 

Comment: Causes that need to be addressed include practices that disturb the land. 

This logging, clear cutting, road building, use of off road vehicles and livestock overgrazing. Weed seeds are transported by hooves, tires, and in feces. Of course, natural 

means of seed travel will always occur through wind, animals, and rains. However, if 

we have control over the artificial and additional means of weed spread, this should 

reduce the overall burden of control. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread. 

Comment: The BLM should not continue to rely on the use of herbicides on the 

public lands. Instead, the BLM should concentrate on addressing the activities that 

bring in the invasive plants or contribute to their spread. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread. 

Comment: The BLM plan fails to deal with the sources of invasive weed spread 

(grazing, logging, ORVs [off-road vehicles], roads, mining etc..),& ignorantly just 

addresses the symptoms rather than the causes of. The draft EIS “Vegetation 

Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in 17 Western States”, rather than the 

Goal to control the introduction & dispersal of invasives - is BLM making herbicide 

use itself the purpose! 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread. The Purpose and Need are identified in Chapter 1 of the PEIS. 

Comment: As a preliminary matter, The Wilderness Society wants to emphasize that 

BLM should be giving primary importance to finding and eradicating the causes of the 

noxious weeds, invasive species and other unwanted vegetation that are the target of 

the herbicide treatments (such as roads, off-road vehicle tracks, and transmission 

corridors). Unless and until BLM fulfills these responsibilities, control of unwanted 

vegetation cannot succeed on a long-term basis. We recommend that BLM make a 

formal commitment as part of this PEIS to identify and evaluate the most common 

causes of invasive species proliferation on public lands, including but not limited to 

use of off-road vehicles, and to develop a strategy for controlling these causes 

concurrent with a strategy for applying herbicides or using other unnatural means of 

eliminating existing vegetation. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread. See Scope of Analysis in Chapter 1 of the PEIS. 

Comment: These degraded communities are extremely vulnerable to weed invasion ­

especially with chronic grazing or motorized disturbance. As chronic grazing, roading 

(often linked to livestock facilities or management and other disturbance continues: 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-61 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0525-013 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0525-108 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0525-114 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0525-115 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

Livestock and vehicles assist the spread of weeds via mud trapped in hooves and tires 

and/or on hides; Livestock transport weed seeds in their digestive systems, spreading 

them across the landscape in manure; Livestock trample soils and vegetation, and 

vehicles churn soil and smash vegetation, facilitating weed establishment; Livestock 

crush and trample microbiotic crusts that may inhibit weed establishment; Livestock 

may selecting native species over exotics, providing a competitive advantage to 

invasives species by eliminating competition with native species; Livestock can alter 

landscape variables (such as fire regimes) giving advantages to exotics. (Belsky and 

Gelbard 2000, Gelbard and Belnap 2003). 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread. See Scope of Analysis in Chapter 1 of the PEIS. Livestock grazing is outside 

of the scope of analysis of this PEIS. 

Comment: BLM has failed to assess the combined effects of desertification, livestock 

grazing and exotic species/weed increase and infestation in its hazardous fuels 

problems. Even PRIA [the Public Rangelands Improvement Act] acknowledged that 

production on many BLM lands was below potential, and would decline even further. 

In the [P]EIS/PER, BLM constructs a fantasyland. It ignores chronic grazing as a 

cause of weed invasions and any need for treatment. It ignores consideration of any 

actions/treatments that could lessen the impacts or severity of grazing disturbance. It 

continues the current level of grazing while interjecting or superimposing massive 

treatment disturbance. This will ultimately result in even further loss of soil, 

microbiotic crusts, water, watershed integrity, wildlife habitat, and forage across the 

arid West. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0525-012 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. 

Comment: BLM must also conduct comprehensive assessments, in representative 

sites grazed by livestock, and assess the role of livestock degradation in causing 

hazardous fuels or weed problems. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0525-012 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding livestock grazing. 

Comment: BLM must conduct a current livestock grazing capability and suitability 

analysis. BLM is aware that it has based livestock use areas and stocking rates on old 

adjudication processes – where AUMs [Animal Unit Months] claimed and then 

assigned in the adjudication process were often greatly inflated by ranchers. These 

“adjudicated” AUMs were not based on the ability of the land to sustain such high 

numbers of livestock and levels of use. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0525-012 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. 

Comment: In the [P]EIS capability and suitability analysis, BLM must examine: 

Slope, distance to natural water, dispersion of “forage” across the landscape – i.e. 

many lands have been so depleted that it takes dozens of acres to support an AUM 

[Animal Unit Month] – so the costs (including in weight gain/loss of livestock) are 

often so great that grazing is a resoundingly losing proposition, areas inaccessible due 

to winter snow, summer desiccation, etc. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-62 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0525-116 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0525-117 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0525-121 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0525-122 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0525-124 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0525-012 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. 

Comment: Directly relevant to the Weed EIS [PEIS] is an assessment of the risk that 

continued livestock grazing may push habitats over ecological thresholds from which 

they can not recover. Examples: Continued heavy stocking and degradation of 

mountain big sagebrush opening the door to cheatgrass invasion of understory; 

continued heavy stocking and degradation of juniper leading to cheatgrass invasion of 

understory; continued heavy stocking and degradation of sagebrush leading to both 

juniper and cheatgrass invasion of sagebrush. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0525-012 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. 

Comment: BLM must also determine, for example, if lands where taxpayers may 

spend hundreds of dollars an acre to restore native vegetation that has been destroyed 

by livestock are suitable for continued grazing following treatment. 

Response: Decisions concerning allowable uses, including grazing, are made in local 

land use plans, and are outside the scope of this analysis. 

Comment: BLM must assess the following existing threats to native vegetation and 

special status species, T&E [threatened and endangered] species, and other important 

biota across the project area: Wells and windmills; Pipelines; Troughs; Pipelines; 

Roads (often linked to facilities); Salting Sites; Weed Infestations; Powerlines; Fences; 

and Aquifer depletion. 

Response: The impacts of herbicide use on native vegetation and special status 

species are described in Chapter 4 of the PEIS under Vegetation. Assessing the effects 

of existing facilities on public lands, including aquifer depletion across 17 states on 

native vegetation and special status species, is beyond the scope of analysis for this 

PEIS. 

Comment: BLM must assess the following existing threats to native vegetation and 

special status species, T&E [threatened and endangered] species, and other important 

biota across the project area: Cheatgrass-dominated understories; Cheatgrass, few 

shrubs; Altered understory species composition; Altered understory species structure; 

Altered overstory species composition; Altered overstory species structure (see, for 

example, Katzner and Parker 1997, and Federal Register 68 (43): 10389-10409) 

describing impacts of livestock-altered or thinned sagebrush to pygmy rabbit) 

Response: The impacts of herbicide use on native vegetation and special status 

species are described in Chapter 4 of the PEIS under Vegetation. Assessing the effects 

of undefined altered vegetation composition and structure across 17 states on native 

vegetation and special status species is beyond the scope of analysis for this PEIS. 

Comment: [BLM must assess the following existing threats to native vegetation and 

special status species, threatened and endangered species, and other important biota 

across the project area]: Grazing season/disturbance conflicts with nesting, birthing, 

wintering or other critical period in species life cycle; Grazing use levels fail to 

provide necessary habitat components (cover or food) based on nest available science; 

Livestock structural alteration of shrubs 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-63 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0525-125 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0525-126 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0525-127 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0525-128 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0525-131 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0525-012 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. 

Comment: [BLM must assess the following existing threats to native vegetation and 

special status species, threatened and endangered species, and other important biota 

across the project area]: Energy project siting (wind, geothermal, other) and associated 

roading and infrastructure such as utility corridors and lines; Mines and mining 

exploration and associated roading; Oil and Gas exploration and Development. 

Response: See Scope of Analysis in Chapter 1 of the PEIS. Also see NEPA 

Requirements of the Program in Chapter 1 of the PEIS. Site-specific projects for 

public land uses are assessed under NEPA at the time they are proposed. These 

projects are outside the scope of analysis of this PEIS. 

Comment: [BLM must assess the following existing threats to native vegetation and 

special status species, threatened and endangered species, and other important biota 

across the project area]: OHV [off-highway vehicle] races; Areas of high OHV use; 

Unregulated motorized use; Road densities; Communication towers and other vertical 

structures 

Response: See Scope of Analysis in Chapter 1 of the PEIS. OHV use is outside the 

scope of analysis for this PEIS and unrelated to the Proposed Action in this PEIS. 

Comment: [BLM must assess the following existing threats to native vegetation and 

special status species, threatened and endangered species, and other important biota 

across the project area]: De-watering proposals (example – aquifer depletion and water 

export to Las Vegas), land disposal proposals. 

Response: These projects are outside the scope of analysis of this PEIS and are 

unrelated to the Proposed Action in the PEIS. Many of these projects (e.g., water 

export to Las Vegas, land disposal proposals) are currently being analyzed or have 

been previously analyzed in site-specific EISs. 

Comment: Often overlooked threats from livestock facilities and structures include: 

Physical harm to species - obstacles such as fences that can cause injury or mortality; 

Structures cause species avoidance of areas, i.e. sage grouse avoid vertical structures. 

Providing elevated predator perches and nest predator perches (in the case of 

songbirds – brood parasite perches). Attract predators and act as sinks; Attract brood 

parasites 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0525-012 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. 

Comment: The impacts of grazing on native wildlife, including species displaced by 

treatments into neighboring or sub-optimal habitats, must be assessed. For example, 

inundating sage grouse nesting or brood rearing habitats with large numbers of cattle 

or sheep during nesting season may cause: Removal of cover necessary to protect 

nesting birds and to hide and provide essential insect food for chicks; cause flushing of 

birds from nests – thus revealing nests to predators; cause separation of broods and 

increased vulnerability to predation; strip essential cover to hide hens and nests and 

conceal chicks from aerial vision-oriented predators and screen scent from groundbased predators. If this is coupled with loss of a significant portion of nesting habitat 

due to a BLM sagebrush Tebuthiuron “treatment”, impacts will be magnified, and 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-64 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0525-134 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0525-136 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0525-138 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0525-140 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

populations suffer significant losses. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0525-012 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. Also see NEPA Requirements of the 

Program and Figure 1-1 in Chapter 1 of the PEIS. Any proposal to apply tebuthiuron 

in sagebrush habitat would have site-specific project impacts on resources and wildlife 

assessed through NEPA at the time the project is proposed. 

Comment: BLM must study the extent of cheatgrass in understories, and areas 

already dominated by cheatgrass. BLM must assess the risk of cheatgrass invasion of 

understories with continued or extended livestock use or disturbance. BLM cannot 

gloss over the role of ongoing livestock grazing in continuing disturbance that spreads 

and promotes cheatgrass, medusahead and other weed growth; in retarding recovery 

and continuing weakening of native vegetation in plant communities that still have a 

significant component of native species present, etc. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0525-012 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. 

Comment: In any discussion of plant communities where BLM claims the fuels/fuel 

loading is too heavy, BLM must examine causes heavy fuels related to livestock 

degradation, topsoil loss and change in site potential, climate change, etc. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0525-012 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. 

Comment: In addition, with extensive depletion over large areas, BLM must assess 

the diminishing returns – and increased ecological damage done by livestock having to 

roam over dozens if not hundreds of acres to sustain themselves/harvest an AUM 

[Animal Unit Month]. This may lead to more trampling impacts, more disturbance, 

more sites for weeds to take hold, and more livestock-vectored movement of weed 

seeds across the landscape. BLM must identify areas where grazing is unsustainable, 

or where it will cause harm to still-intact communities, as part of the capability and 

suitability analyses. What lands are really capable, or suitable, to be grazed posttreatment? 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0525-012 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. 

Comment: BLM fails to address shifted, intensified or increased use by livestock that 

may occur as livestock are shifted into untreated lands. Nowhere does the [P]EIS 

mandate removal of livestock grazed on treated lands, not merely displacement of 

livestock and their impacts to nearby areas. Increasingly, we are seeing BLM fail to 

reduce AUMs [Animal Unit Months] following fire, and Nevada BLM often takes no 

action whatsoever to limit livestock use of treatments. This all reduces the 

effectiveness of any treatments, and increases likelihood of increased weed 

proliferation in the wake of treatment or post-fire disturbance. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0525-012 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. BLM policy is to rest treatment areas at 

least two growing seasons following rehabilitation after fire or until treatment goals 

are achieved. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-65 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0525-142 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0525-143 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0525-156 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0525-166 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0525-168 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0538-002 

Trochlell, Cathy 

Comment: All impacts of livestock grazing on all elements of the [P]EIS must be 

assessed during drought. How does drought affect productivity of vegetation? What 

are the additive, synergistic and cumulative impacts of grazing depletion and drought 

on loss of plant vigor, weakening, or death? 

Response: The analysis of drought and livestock grazing on plant vigor are outside the 

scope of analysis of this PEIS. 

Comment: How much are plants of good vs. poor vigor affected by drought? What 

utilization levels are appropriate on drought-stressed vegetation? What stocking rates 

are necessary to prevent depletion during drought? How does drought affect fuels and 

fire danger in plant communities weakened by the combined effects of grazing and 

drought? Do they become vulnerable to cheatgrass and other weeds that increase fire 

dangers and cause fuels problems? 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0525-012 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. 

Comment: BLM must conduct a full inventory and assessment of all existing 

livestock facilities and developments on lands identified by its Field Offices for 

treatment under the [P]EIS/PER, including, all water haul and salting sites, and all 

vegetation treatments that have been conducted on these lands. The full array of direct, 

indirect, cumulative and synergistic impacts of these projects and activities must be 

assessed. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0525-012 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. 

Comment: Instead of taking strong and decisive action to restore and enhance habitats 

and populations, BLM pursues a path of new and extended habitat alteration and 

fragmentation across the allotments under the guise of hazardous fuels, and restoring a 

“natural” fire interval that can no longer be considered natural under the chronic 

disturbance caused by livestock and in the face of exotic species invasions. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0525-012 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. See Wildland Fire Management Program 

under Planning and Management at the National Level in Chapter 2 of the PER for a 

description of the BLM Fire Management program, including hazardous fuels 

management. 

Comment: The habitat for many native wildlife species across the [P]EIS lands is 

already fragmented. Fragmentation would continue and escalate with new livestock 

developments, livestock management practices that result in zones of livestock 

concentration, and other disturbances under the actions as laid out in the [P]EIS/PER. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0525-012 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. 

Comment: Yes, it’s true that there is a problem with invasive weeds on BLM lands. 

This is due to the regular introduction of those weeds through overgrazing, off-road 

vehicle use and other poor management practices. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-66 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0538-003 

Trochlell, Cathy 

EMC-0561-002 

Petroleum Association 

of Wyoming 

EMC-0562-007 

The Lands Council 

EMC-0562-008 

The Lands Council 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread. 

Comment: I request that you use my tax dollars to eliminate grazing and ORV use on 

my public lands. The use of herbicides will only pollute MY air, land, water, and 

wildlife found on my public lands. Furthermore, the BLM should analyze the Restore 

Native Ecosystems Alternative in the DEIS [Draft PEIS]/PER, a citizens’ alternative 

submitted to the BLM that addresses both the causes and the effects of weed invasion 

and undesirable vegetation on public lands. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-004 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management regarding analysis of the Restore 

Native Ecosystems alternative. 

Comment: PAW [Petroleum Association of Wyoming] commends the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) in its efforts compile this programmatic environmental 

impact statement (PEIS). It is our understanding that the primary objective of these 

documents is identification of herbicides suitable for use on public lands and the report 

does not address energy production activities as stated on page 1-6 [of Chapter 1] and 

the PEIS [PER] also does not address energy production as stated on page 1-4 [of the 

PER]. Both documents, however, have the potential to influence reclamation work that 

is done by our members in our efforts and commitment to land stewardship. 

Response: The decisions on which herbicides are appropriate for use on public lands, 

and any constraints identified in the PEIS on their use, would apply to all activities that 

utilize herbicides, including reclamation work by authorized users of the public lands. 

Comment: The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its implementing 

regulations require the Region to address the causes of invasive plants and to design 

alternatives around eliminating the introduction of them. 40 C.F.R. [Code of Federal 

Regulations] § 1508.25 (scope of the proposed project). The selected invasive plant 

management project focuses too much on herbicidal treatment of the spread of 

invasive plants e.g. the increasing number of populations of weeds – rather than 

preventing the underlying causes of these increases. The BLM standards must 

adequately address prevention of the spread of invasives by other means. Logging, 

road building, off road vehicles and livestock grazing are causes for the introduction 

and establishment of non-native plant species on public lands. Invasive weeds 

“hitchhike” on the tires of logging trucks, ORV’s [off-road vehicles], and on livestock 

hooves. Noxious weeds such as Dalmatian Toad Flax and Knapweed are easily 

established when the ground has been disturbed by these activities. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread, and response to Comment RMC-0055-004 under PEIS Proposed Action and 

Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding limitations on public land uses. 

Comment: Herbicide treatments fail because they are “treating” symptoms, not the 

causes, of weed invasion and undesirable vegetation. Passive restoration is a more 

potent management tool than the broad application of new toxic herbicides. This 

involves the cessation of all activities, including herbicide applications that cause or 

can exacerbate conditions conducive to the establishment and growth of invasive 

species. Instead, the BLM should close areas to grazing and exclude operators and 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-67 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0580-003 

Okuzumi, Margaret 

EMC-0580-004 

Okuzumi, Margaret 

EMC-0580-005 

Okuzumi, Margaret 

EMC-0584-002 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

users where a weed problem exists. This includes closing all roads that are weed 

vectors as well as requiring weed free feed on all BLM lands. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread, and response to Comment RMC-0055-004 under PEIS Proposed Action and 

Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding limitations on public land uses. 

Comment: Please consider the causes of vegetation conversions and the spread of 

invasive species in the western landscapes, as well as the causes of catastrophic fire, 

unhealthy ecosystems and impaired wildlife habitat. Management objectives on public 

lands should emphasize environmentally-benign biological and mechanical control of 

invasive plant species, and no management activities should be permitted that may 

cause further introduction of non-native species. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread. See also the Introduction in Chapter 1 of the PEIS for a discussion of the 

context under which this PEIS was developed. 

Comment: The spread of invasive plants is caused by removal of native vegetation 

and ground disturbance by off-road vehicles, logging and grazing. I ask BLM to stop 

the spread of invasive plant species by restricting or limiting these activities from 

intact native ecosystems, particularly in riparian areas. The PEIS must offer these 

types of preventative management measures as an alternative to herbicide spraying - a 

major shortfall of the plan. 

Response: See Scope of Analysis in Chapter 1 of the PEIS. See also response to 

Comment RMC-0055-004 under PEIS Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Scope 

of Analysis. Restricting or limiting public land uses authorized under the Federal Land 

Policy Management Act (FLPMA) is outside the scope of analysis for this PEIS. 

Comment: Examining the causes of the spread of invasive plant species instead of 

one simplistic treatment could result in a management plan that is far more sensible 

and beneficial in restoring the land to long-term health and productivity. These public 

lands need long-term management strategies that will restore native ecosystems, not 

simply attempts to eliminate invasive plant species. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread. Long term management strategies are developed and implemented through 

local land use plans. 

Comment: The Draft [P]EIS fails to adequately address the role of livestock, and 

BLM and other agency management of livestock, on the ecological health and fire 

regime of lands across the Project area. It fails to present scientific information and 

analysis necessary to understand the role of livestock in causing fuels problems – 

including the role of ongoing livestock grazing across the lands of the EIS area and 

adjoining National Forest, state and private lands. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0525-012 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-68 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0584-003 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0584-004 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0584-005 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0584-007 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0584-009 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

Comment: The [P]EIS and alternatives are based on BLM’s false premise that it can 

impose fire and other treatments to bring about “historical” ranges of fire occurrence 

and achieve some artificially derived “desired” future conditions. This is not based on 

the hard, cold facts that cattle and sheep grazing and other human disturbances in the 

arid West have created an unnatural environmental setting – often with massive topsoil 

loss, lowered ecological site potential, desertification, and great vulnerability to weed 

invasion following disturbance. The risk of alien invasive species dominance of sites 

following BLM’s proposed disturbance treatments interjects great risk into BLM’s 

claims that it can restore lands by inflicting large-scale new disturbances. 

Response: See the Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action in Chapter 1 of the 

PEIS. The PEIS and alternatives address the use of herbicides on public lands. The 

BLM is not proposing large scale new disturbances to restore lands. 

Comment: In this setting, BLM’s premise that chaining, fire and other disturbance 

will have beneficial outcomes, especially with no significant changes in land 

management (reduced grazing, roading, other continued sources of degradation) is 

unrealistic and not based on either common sense or scientific reality. 

Response: Beneficial outcomes of non-chemical vegetation treatment methods are 

described in the PER. Vegetation treatment projects are designed within a milieu of 

ongoing management activities, which may include changes to land management at 

the local scale in conjunction with treatment activities. This PEIS/PER does not 

preclude local consideration of changes to management of public land uses consistent 

with local land use plans. 

Comment: BLM must recognize the deficiencies of livestock grazing and other 

allocation components of Land Use Plans, and their role in contributing to hazardous 

fuels, weeds and other ecological problems. The livestock grazing and vegetation 

portions of many Land Use Plans are woefully outdated. New Land Use Plans ignore 

(example, Craters of the Moon, Black Rock) fail to address forage allocations in any 

way. There is no management requirement for conservative use levels, no specific new 

or updated allocation for livestock, no concrete habitat goals related to livestock use, 

and BLM continues to apply known harmful levels of vegetation use. 

Response: See the Scope of Analysis in Chapter 1 of the PEIS. Land use planning or 

the content of approved land use plans is outside of the scope of this PEIS. 

Comment: As management on the ground over the course of the [P]EIS/PER will be 

carried out under out-dated old plans, and new plans with often even fewer standards 

and that do not address forage/stocking allocations, we believe it is not possible for 

BLM to predict rosy short, mid or long-term outcomes to its proposed treatments. 

Response: The comment has been noted. The analysis contained in the PEIS discloses 

the impacts of herbicide use based on best available information. 

Comment: An [P]EIS grappling with weeds, and fire, fuels and vegetation treatment 

must address livestock grazing as a causal agent; analyze the impacts of livestock 

grazing in continuing to cause “unnatural” fire cycles and weed problems; honestly 

assess the impact of chronic livestock grazing on the ultimate 

outcome/effectiveness/success of any treatments; develop a range of alternatives that 

minimizes livestock and other disturbances as prevention and part of an Integrated 

Pest Management Strategy. Without including significant changes in livestock grazing 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-69 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0584-015 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0584-017 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

practices including reduced stocking rates and/or removal of livestock from lands at 

risk to cheatgrass/weed invasion or dominance, or where restoration actions may be 

undertaken, and more protective levels and standards of use, BLM will be wasting 

taxpayer dollars on this Fire EIS[PEIS] effort. 

BLM must fully address livestock as a causal agent in ecosystem disruption, and 

alteration of composition, structure and function of native ecosystems in the arid lands 

(see Fleischner 1994) covered by the EIS. The role of livestock in causing any fuels 

problem must be fully assessed, including all direct, indirect and cumulative impacts 

of past and ongoing livestock use on rangeland health problems associated with fire, 

hazardous fuels and weeds. A wide range of up-to-date livestock management 

alternative components must accompany all alternatives in this [P]EIS process. These 

should include analysis of a range of reductions in stocking rates and use levels, and 

their effects on ecosystem processes, fire, fuels, weeds, restoration, rehabilitation 

efforts. 

BLM must fully analyze reductions in, or cessation of livestock use and grazing permit 

retirement as part of any treatment analysis that is conducted. Federal fire funds should 

be used to buyout and retire grazing permits on lands that are treated and where 

subsequent grazing will result in new weed problems, or still-intact lands determined 

to be at risk to weed invasion, or determined to be at risk of crossing thresholds from 

which recovery may not be possible. The inextricable linked fire/fuels problems and 

livestock grazing effects must be addressed. 

Background information that must be presented and assessed includes: Current 

stocking rates (average actual use as well as active permitted use) in all allotments, and 

in all vegetation types and all lands where Field Offices slated treatment in 

information used to form the basis of this [P]EIS/PER; Utilization levels and other 

management standards applied on the affected lands vs. current range science texts; 

[and] Current ecological condition of soils, vegetation, habitats related to stocking 

rates, levels of use allowed, etc. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0525-012 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. Congress determines the scope and use of 

federal fire funds. At this time, federal fire funds are not authorized to be used in the 

livestock grazing program to buy out and retire grazing permits. 

Comment: The [P]EIS’s discussion of vegetation communities and treatments ignores 

honest assessment of alterations in ecosystem composition, function and structure that 

exist in the real world as a result of livestock grazing and other disturbances, past 

vegetation treatments followed by livestock grazing, etc. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0525-012 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. 

Comment: The DEIS [Draft PEIS]/PER fails to provide information to tie proposed 

treatments to such land areas, and fails to assess the role (and ecological condition) of 

past treatments past and current livestock management (especially under out-dated 

paradigms and levels of use), and develop new goals, objectives and allocations that 

better address the pressing habitat needs of many important species and that address 

root causes of hazardous fuels problems, and thus provide better and more costeffective protection from hazardous fuel and weed problems. What are the risks of 

treating wild lands, as BLM proposes, under the current alternatives, or under a new 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-70 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0584-019 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0584-022 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0584-023 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0584-024 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

range of reasonable alternatives? 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0525-012 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. Also see Relationships among Land Use, 

Land Use Planning, Land Health Standards, Ecosystem Functionality, and Vegetation 

Treatments in Chapter 1 of the PER for a discussion on the relationship of vegetation 

treatments to land use planning. Goals, objectives, and allocations are determined in 

land use planning and are beyond the scope of analysis of the PEIS. 

Comment: In many areas of BLM lands across the West, sheep AUMs [Animal Unit 

Months] have been converted to cattle AUMs, with no necessary reduction in AUMs, 

and no examination of the impacts of sheep vs. cattle use, and the often decreased 

capability of steep, rocky or other terrain for cattle use (vs. sheep). This capability and 

suitability of lands for livestock grazing must be assessed as part of any treatment this 

process. Please see USFS [Forest Service] methods used in development of the Boise, 

Payette and other recent southern Idaho Forest Plans. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0525-012 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. 

Comment: BLM must determine if stocking of grazing lands that are not capable or 

suitable is a major contributing factor to fuels and weeds problems. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0525-012 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. 

Comment: All alternatives must include provisions for regulation of livestock 

disturbance based on current science and current capability and suitability 

determinations. This includes science-based standards of use, such as 25% or less 

allowable utilization of upland vegetation, no grazing during critical growing periods 

for native species, no grazing during nesting periods for migratory birds and sage 

grouse, measurement of livestock trampling damage to native vegetation and 

microbiotic crusts and means to minimize trampling damage, no movement of 

livestock from lands infested with exotics to more intact communities. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0525-012 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. 

Comment: BLM does not take into account the scientific literature – including that 

published in the Journal of Range Management – demonstrating that utilization limits 

historically followed by BLM (typically, 40%, 50% or 60% utilization limits) 

contribute to degradation of native vegetation, and plant community changes that 

result in fuel and weed problems, and other ecological problems affecting a host of 

important habitats. These ecological problems include disturbance and loss of soils 

and microbiotic crusts that results in extensive weed problems. See Anderson 1991, 

Anderson and Holte 1981, Anderson and Inouye 2001, Belnap 1995, Belnap and 

Gillette 1997, Belnap et al. BLM Tech Bull. 2001, Belsky and Gelbard 2000, Beymer 

and Klopatek 1992, Braun 1998, Connelly et al. 2004, Donahue 1999, Fleischner 

1994, Freilich et al. 2003, Galt et al. 1999, Galt et al. 2000, Gelbard and Belnap 2003, 

Hockett 2002, Holechek 1996b, Holechek et al. 1998, Holechek et al. 1999 a and b, 

Holechek et al. 2000, Holechek et al. 2001. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-71 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0584-026 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0584-060 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0584-085 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-002 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0525-012 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. 

Comment: Road/ORV [off-road vehicle] trail closure and rehab/restoration treatment: 

Closures and restoration treatments quell the spread of flammable invasive species 

from disturbed road and trail edges. Roads are known to serve as conduits for weed 

invasion (Gelbard and Belnap 2003). Then, domestic livestock spread weeds from 

road or trail margins crosscountry into wild land areas. Road closure coupled with 

grazing reductions can have large-scale positive effects, as roads as weed conduits can 

be closed, and livestock reductions minimize spread of weeds already present within 

the area. 

Allowing natural successional processes and healing processes to occur in plant 

communities that are still relatively intact is the most cost-effective method of 

attaining natural fire cycles, reducing buildup of hazardous fuels over time, etc. 

Natural mortality occurs in sagebrush, sagebrush-bitterbrush and other vegetation 

types. Allowing natural processes to play out, while removing or minimizing those 

agents that are disturbing natural ecological processes takes patience, but minimizes 

risks of exotic invasion that accompany aggressive intervention such as fire or 

mowing. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread. The benefits of passive treatments are described under Prevention of Weeds 

and Early Detection and Rapid Response in Chapter 2 of the Final PEIS. 

Comment: We often encounter areas on public lands – such as leafy spurge spraying 

in the Lost River Area or white top spraying near Battle Mountain or on the Owyhee 

Front – where all native veg. has been killed by herbicides, and leafy spurge continues 

to thrive. The role of continued livestock grazing post-treatment in continuing weed 

invasion must be addressed – and the [P]EIS does not do this. 

Response: Livestock grazing is outside the scope of analysis of the PEIS. Posttreatment objectives include, but are not limited to, rest from grazing for up to two 

growing seasons following treatments or until management objectives are met as 

determined through monitoring. Many noxious weeds, especially leafy spurge, are 

extremely pernicious and difficult to control. Herbicide applications may at times 

include non-target vegetation within the project area in order to achieve effective 

results. 

Comment: Recently discovered mercury contamination of Idaho waters and lands 

from gold roasting in Nevada must be considered in this analysis, also as these 

substances will pollute waters on top of the chemical, sediment or other substances 

from treated lands. 

Response: Air and water quality impacts from hard rock mining activities are outside 

the scope of the analysis of the PEIS. 

Comment: It is impossible to determine exactly what the [P]EIS covers. In [P]EIS at 

[page] 1-4 Scope of Analysis BLM states: “the [P]EIS does not evaluate vegetation 

treatment activities involving herbicides not directly related to the need to reduce 

hazardous fuels, or to modify the vegetation community to improve rangeland 

health...”. But BLM also states that the [P]EIS does not address treatments designed to 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-72 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0585-018 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-096 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC0585-244 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

increase forage production or the effects of livestock grazing on vegetation. Yet, 

elsewhere it sounds like it does. It is extremely difficult to get a straight answer, either 

from reading the [P]EIS, or in WWP’s [Western Watersheds Project’s] inquiries and 

attendance at public meetings, to get a straight answer on what herbicide use and 

treatments are, or are not, covered by this [P]EIS. No criteria are established to allow 

treatments for various purposes to be differentiated. 

Response: As noted in the comment and in Chapter 1, the PEIS evaluates treatments 

related to the need to reduce hazardous fuels and improve rangeland and forestland 

health. Although herbicide treatments would improve forage for livestock, this was not 

the focus of the PEIS, and rangeland improvement to benefit livestock has been 

evaluated in earlier EISs. Rangeland and forestland improvements to benefit fish and 

wildlife, cultural resources, wilderness values, and visual resources were not the focus 

of earlier livestock EISs, and thus have been covered in more detail in the PEIS and 

PER. 

Comment: BLM ignores assessing the role of chronic livestock grazing disturbance; 

its own extensive past vegetation treatments (often undertaken for livestock); livestock 

facilities and often associated roading; and previous treatments that have been claimed 

to be undertaken to reduce “invading” species, “reintroducing fire” or other 

disturbance, and wildlife and habitat improvement and the hazardous fuels funding has 

been used -- in fostering spread of hazardous fuels such as cheatgrass. 

Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis and Comment EMC-0525-012 under PEIS 

Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. 

Comment: Mining, oil and gas, and other activities conducted on public lands destabilize soils and alter vegetation in wild lands. These activities involve the use of 

harmful substances that may pollute lands and waters, as well as disturb underlying 

rocks or aquifers and may bring harmful substances to the surface or bring these 

substances into contact with ground or surface waters. These impacts on top of 

herbicide or treatment disturbance have not been assessed. 

Response: See Scope of Analysis in Chapter 1 of the PEIS. These activities are 

outside the scope of analysis of this PEIS. 

Comment: BLM claims that “if livestock grazing is managed to maintain the vigor of 

native perennial plants especially grasses, the chance of weeds invading rangeland is 

much less”. Yet, BLM never provides data (such as that from current FRH [Federal 

Rangeland Health] assessments), analysis, acreage figures or maps, showing where 

such management is occurring. Nor does it provide any information on the lands 

where native grasses have been depleted, and are rarely present, or present at only 

reduced levels. Plus, in this claim, BLM undercuts the role of forbs, shrubs, trees and 

other native vegetation, and intact function, structure and composition of vegetation 

communities in limiting or slowing invasions (see Fleischner 1994, describing 

livestock alteration of composition, function and structure of native ecosystems in the 

arid West). (2-15). 

Response: Please refer to the Decision to be Made and Scope of Analysis section of 

Chapter 1 of the PEIS. Evaluation of livestock grazing management is outside the 

scope of the PEIS. The BLM agrees that healthy rangelands and landscapes, exhibiting 

characteristics of intact function, structure and composition of plant communities, 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-73 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0619-006 

Bellovary, Christopher 

EMC-0619-007 

Bellovary, Christopher 

EMC-0623-005 

Defenders of Wildlife 

inclusive of forbs, shrubs, trees, and other native vegetation, can help to slow down or 

prevent invasions. Vegetation treatments proposed by the BLM are designed to 

accomplish these goals along with site-specific objectives. 

Comment: BLM has failed to consider the causes of vegetation conversions and the 

spread of invasive species in the western landscapes, as well as the causes of 

catastrophic fire, unhealthy ecosystems and impaired wildlife habitat. Management 

objectives on public lands should emphasize environmentally benign biological and 

mechanical control of invasive plant species, and no management activities should be 

permitted that may cause further introduction of non-native species. The spread of 

invasive plants is caused by removal of native vegetation and ground disturbance by 

off-road vehicles, logging and grazing. BLM can stop the spread of invasive plant 

species by restricting or limiting these activities from intact native ecosystems, 

particularly in riparian areas. The PEIS offers none of these preventative management 

measures as an alternative to herbicide spraying. This is a major shortfall of the plan, 

and need to be evaluated as an alternative, or else this PEIS will be woefully 

incomplete and insufficient to pass judicial review. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread, and response to Comment RMC-0055-004 under PEIS Proposed Action and 

Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding limitations on public lands uses. 

Prevention is discussed in Chapter 2 of the PEIS and PER under Prevention and Early 

Detection of Weeds. 

Comment: Looking at the causes of the spread of invasive plant species instead of 

simply one type of treatment could result in a management plan that would be far 

more sensible and beneficial in restoring the land to long-term health and productivity. 

These public lands need long-term management strategies that will restore native 

ecosystems, not simply attempts to eliminate invasive plant species. The 

Programmatic Environmental Report (PER) that was issued along with the PEIS does 

nothing to remedy these shortcomings; it simply addresses treatments other than 

herbicide spraying that may be used to control invasive plants. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread, and response to Comment RMC-0055-004 under PEIS Proposed Action and 

Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding limitations on public lands uses. 

Long-term management strategies are outlined in the goals and objectives of local land 

use plans. The PER discloses the effects of non-chemical treatment methods on public 

land resources. The PEIS and PER do not represent a management plan. 

Comment: Curtail Deliberate Introductions. For any noxious weed strategy to be 

effective BLM must consider the root causes that have led to the widespread invasion 

of invasive exotics. Therefore, the [P]EIS should investigate the role of BLM's own 

and other agency activities with respect to introduction of invasive species. Deliberate 

introduction has been a root cause of the spread of many noxious weeds (Tamarix, 

Melaleuca, etc). Executive Order 13112 directs all federal agencies to cease activities 

that lead to the proliferation of invasive species. BLM should consider as a 

management alternative the adoption of a precautionary stance toward introductions of 

plants, seeking native alternatives wherever feasible. The [P]EIS should also consider 

avenues of coordination with other agencies engaged in revegetation work to eliminate 

the use of exotic species. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-74 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0623-006 

Defenders of Wildlife 

EMC-0623-012 

Defenders of Wildlife 

EMC-0627-002 

EMC-0633-004 

Rude, Monica (Desert 

Woman Botanicals) 

Wanek, Catherine 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread, and response to Comment RMC-0055-004 under PEIS Proposed Action and 

Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding limitations on public lands uses. 

Executive Order [E.O.] 13112 does not direct agencies to cease activities that lead to 

the proliferation of invasive species. Rather, E.O. 13112 directs federal agencies to not 

authorize, fund, or carry out actions that it believes are likely to cause or promote the 

introduction or spread of invasive species in the United States. The BLM does not 

propose to deliberately introduce any noxious weeds or invasive species on public 

lands. Coordination with other agencies is described in Chapter 1 of the PEIS under 

Interrelationships and Coordination with Agencies. 

Comment: Evaluate Impact of Land Use Practices. The [P]EIS should also consider 

the role of land management practices in facilitating the spread of invasive plants. In 

particular, the [P]EIS should study of role of livestock grazing and motorized vehicle 

use in contributing to the spread of noxious weeds and the resulting loss of ecosystem 

health. Livestock grazing and motorized vehicles both carry the seeds of exotic species 

throughout BLM lands and facilitate establishment of these species by disturbing soil 

and the native vegetation community. The [P]EIS should recognize the detrimental 

effects of motor vehicle use and livestock grazing. Restriction of grazing, motor 

vehicles and other activities may well be a critical element in both the rehabilitation of 

lands affected by invasives and the protection of lands not already impacted. 

Restriction of grazing and vehicle use on such lands should be considered in 

management alternatives. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread, and response to Comment RMC-0055-004 under PEIS Proposed Action and 

Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding limitations on public lands uses. 

Comment: Focus foremost on preventing new weed infestations, by immediately 

ceasing deliberate introduction of exotic species; evaluating current land use and 

management practices and discontinuing practices that have a high potential to 

inadvertently spread noxious weeds and implementing mitigation strategies to 

minimize introductions associated with moderate risk practices; and implementing a 

monitoring and rapid response program to quickly detect and eliminate new invasions. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread, and response to Comment RMC-0055-004 under PEIS Proposed Action and 

Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding limitations on public lands uses. 

Comment: Second of all, let’s look at why the invasive plants are spreading in the 

first place, often because the soil has been disturbed by logging and off-road vehicles, 

the native plants eaten by cattle, all of which create an opportunity for more aggressive 

plants to take over. Why don’t you consider restricting these activities, a sort of 

preventative management, which would also help restore native ecosystems, instead of 

further degrading them with chemicals? Desert lands are very fragile, easily damaged 

and take a long long time to recover from casual damage, if they ever do recover. 

Every time we do something to the land, it has an impact, often one we cannot predict. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-75 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0628-004 

Needs, Kelly 

EMC-0633-003 

Wanek, Catherine 

EMC-0640-023 

Animal Welfare 

Institute 

spread, and response to Comment RMC-0055-004 under PEIS Proposed Action and 

Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding limitations on public lands uses. 

Comment: It is unreasonable and unethical to propose a vegetation treatment that 

does not take into account economic factors that adversely effect the land in question. 

Commercial logging, livestock, and energy production are direct causes of habitat 

destruction and weed vectors and ignoring these facts does not make them go away. 

The government refusal to confront these issues makes every American pay twice for 

the insult. First to have our valuable land used at the cost of the taxpayer and then to 

pay for out of control problems such as habitat loss and massive weed populations not 

only with money but incalculable risks to our health. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread, and response to Comment RMC-0055-004 under PEIS Proposed Action and 

Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding limitations on public lands uses. 

Comment: Also, invasive plants are spreading in the first place because the soil has 

been disturbed by off-road vehicles and the native plants have been consumed by 

cattle -- which allows more aggressive plants to take over. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread, and response to Comment RMC-0055-004 under PEIS Proposed Action and 

Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding limitations on public lands uses. 

Comment: Furthermore, to make matters worse, the BLM explicitly excluded from its 

analysis any discussion of livestock grazing, off-road vehicle use, logging activities, 

oil and gas development, or other human uses of BLM managed lands that contribute 

to the introduction and spread of invasive exotic species on public lands in the west. It 

simply makes no sense to engage in a concerted effort to control, eliminate, or manage 

invasive exotic species using techniques, including the use of poisonous chemicals, 

that will adversely impact, temporarily or long-term, soils, air and water quality, nontarget vegetation, fish, invertebrates, amphibians/reptiles, birds, and mammals without 

taking proactive steps to reduce some of the primary pathways or mechanisms that 

caused the invasive exotic species to take hold in the first place. 

Again, if the BLM had properly defined the scope of its analysis it should have 

provided a more complete strategy to address the threat of the spread of invasive 

exotic species on western public lands by encompassing both the causes of the 

problem and a full array of potential solutions. Such solutions could include, but 

would not be limited to, vegetation management (as discussed in the PEIS and PER), 

closure of grazing allotments, restriction in ORV [off-road-vehicle] recreational access 

to BLM lands, closure and reclamation/restoration of illegal and unnecessary roads, 

restrictions on oil and gas development, and other limitations or restrictions on human 

use intended to minimize the chance of the introduction or spread of invasive exotic 

species. The Restore Native Ecosystems alternative proposed by American Lands 

Alliance provides such a comprehensive strategy to address such threats and should be 

adopted by the BLM as a framework for the preparation of a new programmatic 

document to address its management issues of concern. 

To address such deficiencies and, in particular, to both properly define the scope of the 

PEIS and to clarify the decision to be made, the BLM should broaden the parameters 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-76 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0641-003 

Idaho Conservation 

League 

EMC-0641-008 

Idaho Conservation 

League 

EMC-0641-009 

Idaho Conservation 

League 

of its analysis to include both causes and potential treatments for the management 

issues of concern (i.e. hazardous fuel reduction, improving ecosystem health, 

controlling weeds and invasive species, restoring fire damaged lands, and 

manipulating vegetation to improve wildlife habitat), comprehensively address the 

environmental impacts of all such activities in relationship to the issues of concern, 

and reissue the PEIS, PER and associated documents for public review. Such a holistic 

approach to this issue will not only result in a more informed and ecologically 

responsible decision, but it will also be consistent with both the plain language and 

intent of NEPA. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread, and response to Comment RMC-0055-004 under PEIS Proposed Action and 

Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding limitations on public lands uses. See 

also response to Comment RMC-0222-013 regarding analysis of the Restore Native 

Ecosystems alternative. The Scope of Analysis for the Proposed Action is properly 

defined and outlined in Chapter 1 of the PEIS. 

Comment: While treatment is an important aspect of this project, the BLM should 

prioritize efforts to prevent the initial introduction, disturbance of soils, and vectors for 

the spread of weeds into the area. In particular, we believe that more should be done to 

address major causes of the spread of noxious weeds such as high road densities, 

overgrazing, soil disturbance from vegetation management, and irresponsible ORV 

[off-road vehicle] use. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread; response to Comment RMC-0055-004 under PEIS Proposed Action and 

Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding limitations on public lands uses; and 

response to Comment RMC-0218-005 under PEIS Proposed Action and Purpose and 

Need, Scope of Analysis regarding prevention. 

Comment: The BLM needs to require the development of updated Travel 

Management Plans that incorporate aggressive strategies for the control of noxious 

weed infestations. Travel Plans should include a requirement for the establishment of a 

system that designates specific roads, trails, areas, and time frames for motor vehicle 

use. Though the adoption of such a designation system may not be appropriate or 

feasible on a regional scale, on a local scale, it is a crucial part of a proactive, 

comprehensive noxious weed management program. We hope that the BLM will 

incorporate significantly stronger standards for travel plan compliance as part of both 

this ROD and the Travel Plan ROD. 

Response: Off-road vehicle use and travel management are outside the scope of 

analysis of this PEIS, as discussed in Chapter 1 under Scope of Analysis. Travel 

management plans are developed in conjunction with land use planning at the local 

level. 

Comment: Additionally, the PEIS should consider road decommissioning as an 

effective way of reducing noxious weed invasions and recovering native ecosystems. 

The PEIS should include a road density analysis, which identifies unclassified, highrisk, and low-use roads that could feasibly be decommissioned and obliterated. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-77 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0641-010 

Idaho Conservation 

League 

EMC-0641-012 

Idaho Conservation 

League 

EMC-0641-013 

Idaho Conservation 

League 

EMC-0643-010 

California Indian 

Basketweavers 

Association 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0641-008 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. 

Comment: ORVs [off-road vehicles] act as major vectors for the spread of noxious 

weeds both by carrying seeds of invasive species throughout BLM lands and by 

promoting the establishment of these species by disturbing soil. The BLM should 

coordinate with the Idaho State Department of the Interior, the Idaho Department of 

Parks and Recreation, and local Cooperative Weed Management Agencies regarding 

options for the prevention and control of illegal and irresponsible ORV use. The 

[P]EIS needs to include an analysis of the contribution of cross-country ORV use to 

the spread of noxious weeds. Managers should recognize which species of noxious 

weeds are spread by ORVs and which species take advantage of ORV-disturbed trails. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread, and response to Comment RMC-0055-004 under PEIS Proposed Action and 

Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding limitations on public lands uses. See 

Scope of Analysis in Chapter 1 of the PEIS; ORV use is outside the scope of analysis 

of this PEIS. 

Comment: Livestock are significant vectors of noxious weed. Livestock can transport 

weed seeds in their hooves and hides as well as in their digestive tract. In addition, 

overgrazed areas are significantly more susceptible to noxious weed invasion. The EIS 

fails to recognize the relationship between livestock grazing and the spread of noxious 

weeds, and the alternatives provided include no measures to control and prevent 

infestations related to grazing activities. The issue of grazing is particularly significant 

to this PEIS as the majority of proposed treatments would occur in Nevada, Idaho, 

Oregon, and Wyoming, four grazing intensive states. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0525-012 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding livestock grazing. 

Comment: The BLM needs to assess the role that overgrazing has played in noxious 

weed expansion and assess different management strategies to reduce this threat. 

Specifically, the BLM should analyze how changing the frequency and intensity of 

grazing will affect noxious weed spread and native species restoration. We 

recommend that the BLM follow the lead of the Forest Service’s Pacific Northwest 

Region which adopted a standard that uses “available administrative mechanisms to 

incorporate invasive plant prevention practices into rangeland management.” The 

mechanisms to be utilized include the revision of permits and allotment management 

plans and annual operating instructions. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0525-012 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding livestock grazing. The BLM 

livestock grazing program has similar prevention practices in its grazing program 

administration. 

Comment: However, we assert as we did in 2002 that it is not legally or scientifically 

valid to ignore the “cause and effect” bases for weed establishment while conducting 

analysis of the environmental impacts of alternative treatments including herbicides to 

kill weeds. It is not possible to accurately evaluate a range of alternatives without 

analysis and understanding of the sources and causes of weed establishment. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-78 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0646-209 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

RMC-0222-096 

Salvo, Mark 

(Sagebrush Sea 

Campaign), Cox, 

Caroline (Northwest 

Coalition for 

Alternatives to 

Pesticides), and 

O’Brien, Mary 

EMC-0455-002 

Tashjian, Randy 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread. The Alternatives analyzed in the PEIS are appropriate for the Purpose and 

Need for the Proposed Action found in Chapter 1 of the PEIS. 

Comment: CATs [Californians for Alternatives to Toxics] is concerned that the BLM 

has failed to discuss, analyze, or evaluate weed vectors as part of the PEIS. The BLM 

should determine the major sources of weed spread (waterways, vehicles, area visitors, 

livestock grazing, wind and/or wildlife) and include a plan to prevent the cause of 

weed spread, not just treat the symptoms. Including preventative measures as part of 

any treatment strategy is critical for long-term control of invasive species and noxious 

weeds. The BLM’s PEIS is doomed to be unsuccessful without first focusing on the 

cause of the weed infestations and utilizing a holistic native species ecosystem health 

approach to combating exotic species. For that reason CATs supports the Restore 

Native Ecosystems Alternative (which we didn’t see evaluated as one of the 

alternatives, even though we know a coalition of groups presented it to the BLM 

during the scoping phase of the PEIS). We will attach a copy as Appendix B as part of 

our comments. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread. The BLM Partners Against Weeds - An Action Plan for the BLM (USDI BLM 

1996) outlines the prevention strategies being implemented by the agency. See 

responses to Comments RMC-0126-004 and RMC-0222-013 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Alternative E - No Use of Sulfonylurea and other Acetolactate Synthase-inhibiting 

Active Ingredients regarding analysis of the Restore Native Ecosystems alternative. 

Comment: The DEIS [Draft PEIS]/PER also does not address the potential of 

removing roads to restore weed free habitats. Ripping roadbeds, restoring stream 

crossings, and recontouring roads were all found to reduce weed invasion. Bradley 

(1997) found that ripping the roadbed discouraged weed invasion in western Montana. 

In northern California, Madej et al. (2001) reported that following full recontour and 

stream crossing restoration some weeds emerged on hot dry terrain; however, very few 

weeds appeared in the more common moister terrain. Following hundreds of miles of 

full road recontour, few weeds were reported in north central Idaho (USDA FS [Forest 

Service] 2003). 

Response: The PEIS addresses the effects of herbicide use on human health and 

public lands resources. Road removal and road re-contouring are management actions 

unrelated to the purpose and need of the PEIS, and are beyond the scope of analysis. 

Road closure, removal and re-contouring decisions are made at the local field office 

level based on the goals and objectives contained in local land use plans. 

Comment: Rather than address the causes of spreading invasives by eliminating these 

activities, the BLM proposes to address the symptoms by increasing the use of 

herbicides that poison the air, land, water, wildlife and humans and require the use of 

mechanized equipment for application. This is not the best way to handle this 

situation, in my opinion. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-79 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0455-003 

Tashjian, Randy 

EMC-0455-004 

Tashjian, Randy 

EMC-0525-106 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0525-111 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-105 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

Comment: Invasive species cannot be eliminated without eliminating the causes of 

weed invasion. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread. 

Comment: Herbicides are not only poisonous and expensive, but they fail because 

they are “treating” symptoms, not the causes, of weed invasion and undesirable 

vegetation. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread. 

Comment: BLM can not ignore evidence that its limited old data does show - i.e., 

only a small fraction of larger size grasses present are present in most sites that should 

be dominated by these species. Thus, desertification has occurred, and “production” is 

greatly less than that of good or better condition sites, and this is typical of nearly all 

sites. BLM must also tie water developments, water hauling or other livestock 

management practices to site depletion and alteration of species structure, composition 

and weeds, hazardous fuels and fire problems. 

Response: Please refer to Chapter 1 of the PEIS, Scope of Analysis. Evaluation of 

livestock grazing and facilities is outside the scope of the PEIS. 

Comment: BLM must conduct a comprehensive analysis of pre-existing projects and 

disturbance across the landscape, and include analyses of treatments and disturbance 

factors across land ownership boundaries. BLM must also assess significant ecological 

problems that may have arisen in the wake of past manipulation, hazardous fuels or 

other treatments. 

Response: An analysis of this magnitude is outside the scope of the 17-state PEIS, and 

is not essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives to determine which herbicides 

considered in this PEIS are appropriate for use on public lands. An analysis similar to 

the one described in the comment was undertaken in the mid-1990s by the Interior 

Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, over portions of a four-state area. 

The science assessment team conducted this analysis, which was used by the EIS team 

to develop a Draft EIS and a subsequent Supplementary Draft EIS. However, no 

Record of Decision for the Final EIS was implemented by the Forest Service or BLM 

for this project. One reason is that such an assessment, even over a four-state area, is 

not scientifically defensible because no validated model(s) exist to support the 

simulations or analysis. Models and their attendant analyses must be replicable, 

verifiable, and valid, both empirically and statistically, for an agency to rely upon them 

in its decision-making. As no such models currently exist, it is not possible for the 

BLM as an agency to compile and analyze such data in this manner. The cost of 

developing and validating appropriate models to address ecological questions at the 

sub-continental scale would be exorbitant, and would not contribute significantly to 

the decisions to be made through this PEIS. 

Comment: [Page] ES-5 [of the Draft PEIS] claims treatments “over the long term” 

would make landscapes “more appealing” as native vegetation was restored. Yet, there 

is no evidence provided that native vegetation would be restored, as BLM fails to 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-80 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0585-108 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-110 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-173 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

address root causes of weed problems/treatment needs. This claim is typical of 

analysis throughout the [P]EIS. As the [P]EIS does not address causes of weeds, it can 

not assume that post-treatment restoration of native vegetation will occur − especially 

over the long term, as the same land management practices (grazing, roading, oil and 

gas, etc.) that have resulted in the proliferation of cheatgrass and other weeds will 

harm or preclude the recovery of native vegetation. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under Proposed Action and 

Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. 

Comment: SE [Executive Summary]-6 [of the Draft PEIS]. “although the number of 

domestic livestock and wild horses and burros that public lands can support has 

declined from historic levels, treatments should improve rangelands for these animals, 

and ensure that the public lands can support viable populations of wild horses and 

burros and a healthy ranching industry”. BLM fails to mention that – despite the 

number that public land can support having declined, stocking rates of domestic 

livestock on the very same lands often have. Lands overstocked with domestic cattle 

and sheep is a fundamental cause of weed problems and degradation that this [P]EIS 

avoids addressing. Plus, even in areas where AUMs [Animal Unit Months] have 

remained the same, the average weight of cattle and sheep has increased due to 

breeding, hormone implants, etc. This means that the amount of forage consumed, and 

disturbance caused, has increased. 

Response: Stocking rates of domestic livestock have decreased on public lands, and 

there has been a gradual decrease in the amount of grazing use since the Taylor 

Grazing Act was passed in the mid-1930s. This decrease is reflected in both the 

number of AUMs permitted and available for use and the number of AUMs actually 

used, and the trend continues today. Domestic livestock can create or contribute to 

invasive species problems. These issues must be dealt with at the local level. The 

rangeland health assessment is one key point in time to address the contribution of 

livestock grazing in promoting invasive species. The scope of the PEIS is intended to 

deal with specific vegetation treatments, and grazing management in general is outside 

the scope of this particular action. 

Comment: The [P]EIS wrongly attributes nearly all of this change in vegetation and 

increase in hazardous fuels to fire exclusion policies. BLM ignores Best Available 

Science by failing to address and assess impacts of livestock grazing, roading, its own 

past vegetation manipulation projects, and other human-induced disturbance on 

vegetation change and accompanying changes in severity and intensity of wildfire. 

Response: Fire exclusion policies have played a significant role in hazardous fuels 

build up over the past century. Other factors affecting vegetation and leading to the 

build up of hazardous fuels include numerous anthropogenic and natural influences. 

See Chapter 3, Affected Environment, and Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, 

and the Cumulative Effects Analysis in the PEIS for a description of the context of 

current vegetation conditions. 

Comment: [Page] B-29 [of Appendix B of the Draft PEIS] further discusses use of 

expanded list of herbicides on “public Domain Forestland”, and energy and mineral 

sites. Yet, the [P]EIS claims it does not address use of herbicides on these sites. 

Spraying imazapic and sulfometuron methyl including aerially – on forests may have 

serious harmful consequences. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-81 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0585-254 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0597(a)-002 

Beeland, DeLene 

EMC-0643-017 

California Indian 

Basketweavers 

Association 

EMC-0646-094 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

Response: The section is referred to as an Overview of the BLM Vegetation 

Treatment Program in the Human Health Risk Assessment, found in Appendix B. This 

appendix discusses how herbicides are used and the methods applied, inclusively, for 

all the various BLM resource programs that involve potential vegetation treatments 

using herbicides and contact with humans. 

Comment: The [P]EIS/PER, in ignoring the impacts of these projects on Forest 

products and values, violates the provisions of the Land Use Plans in many of the 

affected wild land areas. 

Response: Vegetation treatments are required to be in conformance with local land 

use plans prior to being approved for implementation. Effects of vegetation treatments 

on forest products as a commodity are assessed in the NEPA analysis of the guiding 

land use plan. The PEIS assesses the effects of herbicide use on vegetation, not the 

products of vegetation. See Scope of Analysis in Chapter 1 of the PEIS. 

Comment: Let’s get to the heart of the three main issues as to why we have invasive 

grasses: leased grazing allotments used by private ranchers for cows, sheep and goat 

production; off-road vehicle “wreak-reation”; and oil and gas drilling, pumping, piping 

and associated roads. If the following root issues were addressed in more detail, 

invasive grasses would decline and there would be no need for aerial spraying of 

herbicides. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread. 

Comment: Further, it has been well documented in the historical and scientific 

literature that the BLM has a long history of programs and policies to clear native 

sagebrush, shinnery oak, juniper and pinyon pine from this region to make more 

rangeland, to provide fuelwood and charcoal, and to produce timber for mining. Some 

of these programs are on-going today. Treatment alternatives that amount to treating 

the symptoms only, rather than the causes of unwanted vegetation changes, are a waste 

of taxpayers’ money during a time of tight budgets. This course may also result in 

causing further harm when evaluated correctly in the context of cumulative impacts. 

Accurate analysis is essential in order to develop appropriate alternatives and to 

evaluate the impacts of the use of herbicides at this scope, and requires “cause and 

effect” analysis of the root causes and sources of non-native species invasions and 

altered fire regimes. Such analyses will provide the BLM with the information needed 

to plan cost-effective and ecologically sustainable alternatives to restore public lands. 

It is not accurate for the BLM to portray the issues so narrowly that appropriate 

alternatives cannot even be developed. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread. Alternatives developed for the PEIS address the Purpose and Need identified 

in Chapter 1 of the PEIS. 

Comment: Since many of the issues are similar or even identical to the current 

proposed program, we would respectfully ask that the public records for both of the 

Cottonwood Fire Vegetation Management Projects EAs, and the public record for the 

current Cottonwood Fire Vegetation Management Project FEIS, be incorporated by 

reference into the public record for this program, the BLM Vegetation Treatments 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-82 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0646-219 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

EMC-0646-246 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

Using Herbicides PEIS. 

Response: The public record for the site-specific projects referenced is outside the 

scope of this PEIS. 

Comment: Logging, whether part of fuel reduction thinning efforts, or timber 

harvesting, changes canopy levels, causes disturbances to soil and vegetation, and 

opens lands to possible invasive species infestations. For example, the scotch and 

french brooms both grow best in dry, disturbed soils with plenty of sunlight, such as 

those created with new partial cutting timber harvest techniques (Raj 2002). The 

literature also says that brooms rapidly invade following logging and land clearing and 

conversely don’t do well in heavily forested, heavy shade areas (CDFA 

Encycloweedia website, Huckins and Soll 2004, Hoshovsky 1986). Logging 

equipment, vehicles, and workers also facilitate the movement of exotic weed seeds. 

The BLM should analyze the impacts of logging and fuel reduction activities will have 

on the spread of invasive species and noxious weeds both on and near BLM lands. 

Response: Hazardous fuels reduction treatments will be designed to reduce the 

potential for crown fire in the wildland urban interface and in forest types where the 

native fire regimes have been significantly altered. In many cases, these treatments 

will create stand densities that are characteristic of the native forest structures that 

existed prior to the exclusion of fire. The overriding goal is to treat vegetation on lands 

only where necessary, and to prioritize treatment methods based on their effectiveness 

and likelihood of having minimal impact on the environment. To assist with 

vegetation management planning, key resource elements, such as plant community 

types, aquatic habitats, sensitive areas, and invasive species concentration areas, are 

inventoried and mapped regionally and district-wide. Inventories and maps allow field 

managers to identify areas of high ecological integrity; to ensure that there is suitable 

habitat for wide-ranging species; to identify areas where land uses may be 

incompatible with long-term ecosystem health; and to identify areas that could benefit 

from improved management. Inventories and mapping are also done at the local level 

to help managers better understand how proposed projects fit in with vegetative 

conditions on a larger scale, such as within ecoregions or watersheds. The BLM also 

cooperates with other agencies, organizations, and landowners in regional planning 

efforts, including establishment of Cooperative Weed Management Areas, as 

discussed in Chapter 2 of the PEIS under Vegetation Treatment Planning and 

Management. In addition, the BLM will use Standard Operating Procedures to control 

invasive species and noxious weeds following ground-disturbing vegetation 

treatments. 

Comment: Without a description of which species are most problematic, what their 

response is to various treatment options, what their current and anticipated scope of 

invasion is or what are the various regional influences, the DEIS [Draft PEIS] fails to 

provide the evaluation necessary for informing the public and making an informed 

decision. For all the DEIS [Draft PEIS] tells us regarding the influences of the 

environment on the vegetation management program, we could guess that the problem 

is occurring on Mars, or in the sands of Saudi Arabia, or perhaps in Florida or Nova 

Scotia. NEPA requires more than this of a programmatic EIS. Without adequate 

description of the problem and the range of responses that may be taken, and with 

constant assurance that all that’s necessary will be described at the more site-specific 

level in an EA or EIS, it is not possible to gain an adequate vision of what is in store 

under the various alternatives with the current DEIS [Draft PEIS]. That is not 

consistent with the demands of NEPA. The analysis cannot be delayed to the future 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-83 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0646-247 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

EMC-0648-005 

Idaho Cattle 

Association 

because those future NEPA documents must tier to this one, and without a solid basis 

in the programmatic EIS, those documents will fail. To put it plainly, such piece 

mealing is patently illegal under NEPA. The decision maker and the public would 

have to scramble in the future to read every project proposal and NEPA document that 

flows from the current EIS to piece together a picture of the extent of the program, the 

priority given to particular species, the treatment options most likely to be employed, 

and what effects regional differences may make in the approach to controlling invasive 

plants. This is one of the primary failures of the DEIS [Draft PEIS] as it is currently 

written. 

Response: The PEIS assesses the effects of herbicide use on human health and public 

land resources, including sensitive species. The PEIS does not assess invasive species 

and their response to specific treatments. The public lands covered by this PEIS are 

described on Map 1-1 in Chapter 1 of the PEIS. The NEPA Requirements of the 

Program in Chapter 1 of the PEIS include a description of how future analyses will be 

conducted at the site-specific level at the time a project is proposed and ready for 

analysis. Analysis of unspecified site-specific treatments is not possible at this 

programmatic level. Future EAs and EISs for site-specific projects may tier onto this 

PEIS. Tiering does not constitute piece-mealing under NEPA. 

Comment: As it currently stands the BLM’s PEIS is doomed to be unsuccessful 

without first focusing on the cause of the weed infestations and utilizing a holistic 

native species ecosystem health approach to combating exotic species. For that reason 

CATs [Californians for Alternatives to Toxics] supports the Restore Native 

Ecosystems Alternative (which should be added to the Final PEIS for consideration). 

Of the alternatives included in the Draft PEIS, we can only support Alternative C, the 

no pesticides alternative. Yet no alternative can be adopted until a fully informative 

NEPA document is prepared. As described above, this Draft PEIS does not achieve the 

informational standard required by NEPA. We urge you to correct these deficiencies 

in the Final PEIS. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management regarding the causes and vectors of 

weed spread. See response to Comment RMC-0126-004 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Alternative E - No Use of Sulfonylurea and other Acetolactate Synthase-inhibiting 

Active Ingredients regarding analysis of the Restore Native Ecosystem alternative. 

The PEIS meets the informational standards required under the Council on 

Environmental Quality regulations implementing NEPA for informed decisionmaking relative to the Proposed Action and Purpose and Need identified in Chapter 1 

of the PEIS. 

Comment: As the BLM takes a more aggressive approach in controlling weeds, as is 

greatly needed, we must however stress the importance that other existing BLM range 

programs are not depleted. With decreasing budgets, we are concerned that the BLM 

will not be able to effectually implement this [P]EIS and the associated monitoring 

that would be required. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0584-076 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Monitoring. Implementation of the decision to approve or not approve specific 

herbicides analyzed in this PEIS for use on public lands is not dependent upon funding 

of resource programs and associated projects. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-84 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

FXC-0027-003 

Firmage, Robert and 

Gertrud 

FXC-0028-002 

Little, Amanda Jane 

FXC-0032-004 

Germino, Matthew J. 

(Idaho State 

University) 

FXC-0059-005 

Evans, Gail 

FXC-0070-002 

Latir Neighborhood 

Association 

Comment: We would suggest that greater attention might be given to the contribution 

of overgrazing to such unwanted propagation as well as the introduction of seeds into 

wilderness areas through unrestricted ORV [off-road vehicle]- and ATV [all-terrain 

vehicle] use. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread. 

Comment: Of course, the problem is complex due to many factors. But it is those 

factors (overgrazing, unrestricted motor vehicle use and pollution) that need to be 

considered more seriously on the side of the environment. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread. 

Comment: Herbicide and other eradication efforts fail because they only treat the 

symptoms and not the causes of exotic plant invasions. Also, there is far too much 

uncertainty in the environmental risk of using herbicides as well as biological control 

agents to justify their use. Moreover, there is uncertainty in just how much certain 

weeds are really a problem and really need to be eradicated. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread. Environmental risk uncertainty is addressed in the human health and 

ecological risk assessments found in Appendixes B and C of the PEIS. 

Comment: In order to combat the spread of invasive plant species, the causes of 

invasive plant introduction and dispersal must be revisited, namely: livestock grazing, 

logging, roads, off-road vehicles, and such ground-disturbing activities as gravel pits 

and mining. These activities must be severely limited on public land. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread and response to Comment RMC-0055-004 under PEIS Proposed Action and 

Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding limitations on public land uses. 

Comment: The weeds have flourished through soil disturbance and seed mobility 

brought about by poorly managed land use (livestock grazing, off road vehicles, etc). 

Without prevention (curtailing these activities), no amount of perpetual poison 

application will solve the problem. Living organisms have an astonishing ability to 

adapt. The only real effect of herbicides, long term, is to select for herbicide resistant 

weeds. In the big picture, application of chemicals will never eradicate the weeds, but 

rather make them heartier. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread and response to Comment RMC-0055-004 under PEIS Proposed Action and 

Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding limitations on public land uses. Total 

eradication of weeds is an unrealistic goal and is not part of the BLM proposed action 

in this PEIS. Chemical treatment methods have been shown to be effective on 

vegetation. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-85 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

FXC-0071-021 

Campbell, Bruce 

PHC-005-003 

K. Fite

RMC-0055-004 

Lamberts, Frances 

Comment: While page 1-4 of the Draft Programmatic EIS mentions that certain 

activities will not be evaluated in the documents – for example, as it says on page 1-4 

of the Draft Progr. EIS: “Thus, this PEIS does not evaluate vegetation management 

that is primarily focused on commercial timber or other forest product enhancement or 

use activities that are not related to improving forest or rangeland health or work 

authorized under the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003.” Page 6 of 8 of BLM’s 

Frequently Asked Questions says that “The PEIS/PER will not address vegetation 

management that is primarily focused on commercial timber or other forest product 

enhancement and use, livestock forage enhancement and use”. But, the Healthy 

Forests Act, despite its nice-sounding name, is a bill focusing on helping timber 

companies log valuable trees (even in locations usually off-limits) under the guise of 

fire safety (even though removing large trees including under the “goods for service” 

ploy) actually exacerbates fire risk, especially the risk of catastrophic fire. Thus, I call 

for analysis in a Supplemental Draft Programmatic EIS and ER about the purpose and 

need for herbicide spraying in 17 Western states. And while it is claimed that the 

issues mentioned earlier in this paragraph will not be addressed or evaluated, clearly 

the main reason for herbicide spraying on forestland is to replace natural diversity of 

trees with monoculture conifer plantations, and the main reason to change plant 

species on rangeland is to help the grazing industry. I discovered sections on 

Rangeland and on Public Domain Forests on page B-29 [of Appendix B] of the Draft 

PEIS – so it was mentioned for various uses but certainly not thoroughly analyzed. 

Will there be thorough analysis of such in a Supplemental Draft PEIS or PER or in the 

Final PEIS or PER? 

Response: The purpose and need for herbicide use in 17 western states is analyzed in 

the PEIS and PER. The Draft PEIS assesses the effects of herbicide use in vegetation 

treatments to reduce hazardous fuels, control weeds and invasive species, benefit fish 

and wildlife habitat, improve riparian and wetland areas, and improve water quality in 

priority watersheds. A Supplemental EIS to analyze the purpose and need again is not 

required. Appendix B, Human Health Risk Assessment, applies to all activities within 

the BLM that may utilize herbicides. The discussion in Appendix B, Overview of the 

BLM Vegetation Treatment Program, provides supplemental information on all BLM 

programs that use herbicides relative to human health risk. 

Comment: What I see here is BLM is proposing, in the report, massive, massive new 

disturbance – expanding disturbance from mechanical methods, fire, and other 

methods on public lands. While at the same time, not undertaking actions that are 

needed to address the causes of weeds and the causes of any heightened risk. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under Proposed Action and 

Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. 

Comment: I therefore urge the Bureau to pay greater attention to causative, landdisturbing activities—range overgrazing, excessive off-roads motoring, forest 

clearance, mining, roads proliferation and the like—in preference to treatment through 

mechanical eradication and herbicides. The latter types of treatments cannot truly be 

effective, it would seem, unless the causes of noxious weeds proliferation are 

addressed. I recommend, to this effect, that the Bureau consider the choice of the 

Restore-Native-Ecosystems alternative in the Programmatic EIS. 

Response: The BLM has a mandate (see Introduction in Chapter 1 of the PEIS) to 

address increased hazardous fuels through direct reduction activities through a full 

range of treatment methods, as well as to manage for noxious weeds and invasive 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-86 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0067-009 

Wyoming Outdoor 

Council 

RMC-0072-005 

Zimmermann, Adele E. 

RMC-0126-002 

Stevens, Dean 

species in the same manner. Mechanical and herbicide treatments through an 

integrated vegetation management program are considered effective for vegetation 

treatments and weed management. For all authorized activities, the BLM incorporates 

standard operating procedures and noxious weed and invasive species prevention 

measures into its land use authorizations. This is a direct acknowledgement that 

certain uses and activities have potential effects on resources; therefore, preventative 

and mitigating measures are put into place through development of the NEPA analysis 

and subsequent authorization for any project. 

Elimination or curtailment of uses completely from public lands, such as described in 

the Restore Native Ecosystem Alternative in Appendix G, is contrary to numerous 

statutes and regulations, and outside the scope of analysis of the PEIS. The Scope of 

Analysis in Chapter 1 of the PEIS states that the PEIS does not evaluate policies and 

programs associated with land use activities, and does not make land use allocations, 

nor amend land use plans. 

Comment: BLM should ensure that the causes of invasive weed invasions are 

addressed; as proposed BLM will only treat the symptoms of the problem, which will 

do little or no good. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding causes and vectors of weed 

spread. 

Comment: If this is an effort to protect communities which have invaded wild lands 

from fire, it is the responsibility of those who chose to build in an area subject to 

wildfires to protect their ill-placed homes. Wholesale destruction of vegetation in wild 

lands to protect a few reckless homeowners is unwarranted. 

Response: Lands administered by the BLM tend to be intermingled with state and 

private lands. Private landowners have the right to build on their lands as they see fit, 

in compliance with local zoning laws. The Bureau does work with local communities 

to influence local zoning laws, and to provide information to landowners on how to 

make their homes more defensible in the case they are threatened by a wildland fire. 

Comment: Invasive species cannot be eliminated without eliminating the causes of 

weed invasion. 

Response: Elimination of invasive species and noxious weeds is an unrealistic goal 

given the widespread nature of this global problem. With current technology, the best 

that can be attained is successful containment and control of invasive and noxious 

weed species where they exist. One of the first steps is to identify the infestation area, 

develop a management scheme to address the problem, introduce control measures to 

contain or reduce the infestation, and implement prevention measures to halt further 

spread and establishment of new infestations. Determining the causes of invasive 

species spread is problematical in that the mechanisms and vectors for spread are 

many and varied and rooted in the history of the settlement of this continent and the 

West. 

Many of the public categorize the perceived “causes” of invasive species spread, as 

evidenced by comments on this and similar EISs, under four or five basic categories: 

livestock grazing, timber harvest, off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, and oil and gas 

exploration and development. By eliminating these disturbance activities, weed spread 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-87 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0126-003 

Stevens, Dean 

RMC-0139-004 

Jacobson, Don 

would be reduced and the need for vegetation treatments would also be reduced or 

eliminated. However, the dynamics of weed spread are complex and cannot simply be 

tied to causes of extractive uses or recreation. As stated in response to a similar 

comment in the Northwest Area Noxious Weed Control Program EIS (USDI BLM 

1985a), in relation to livestock grazing, “Heavy grazing can contribute to the noxious 

weed problem by reducing desirable vegetation, allowing noxious weeds to better 

compete. One cannot say that noxious weeds occur as a result of or only in areas 

heavily grazed by livestock. Noxious weeds occur in forest land, good condition 

rangeland, and areas ungrazed by livestock (p. 94).” While this response is dated, it 

still holds true. Indeed, noxious weeds and invasive species are gaining foothold in 

many protected special areas such as wilderness study areas and wilderness areas that 

have little or no history of livestock grazing, timber harvest, OHV use, or oil and gas 

exploration. Many intact and healthy ecosystems have invasive and noxious weeds 

that cannot be attributed to any specific cause or land use. It is important to note that 

the vast majority of public lands where these activities take place are not infested with 

invasive or noxious weed species. 

The primary weed vectors are wind, water, wildlife, and self- propagation. Secondary 

factors are ground disturbance and fire. Human influences are responsible for much of 

the spread and establishment of weeds we know today. Many weeds are documented 

on private lands and have spread onto public lands without help from livestock, OHV 

recreationists, or other commodity producers and vice versa. In areas of commingled 

land ownership—public, private, state—separating the “causes” to a common 

infestation would be futile. Because a disturbance takes place, it is not a forgone 

conclusion that invasive or noxious weeds will establish. There needs to be 1) 

conditions favorable to establishment of the species, 2) a seed or propagule source 

nearby, and 3) an effective vector to transport the seed or propagule to the site. If a 

source is not present, then the risk from infestation is minimal. 

The BLM is mandated to manage vegetation for healthy plant communities, address 

invasive and noxious weed species where they occur, and implement prevention, 

containment, and control measures. Within an integrated pest management program, 

herbicides have consistently been demonstrated to be effective for vegetation control 

alone or in combination with other treatment tools, such as mechanical, fire, 

biological, and manual techniques, including passive management, in those cases 

where rehabilitation objectives can be met through those means. The key issue is 

managing vegetative competition and maintaining conditions that favor healthy plant 

communities that can outcompete invasive plants or that do not allow niches into 

which invasive plants can establish and spread. 

Comment: Herbicides are not only poisonous and expensive, but they fail because 

they are “treating” symptoms, not the causes of weed invasion and undesirable 

vegetation. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under Proposed Action and 

Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. 

Comment: Invasive species cannot be eliminated without eliminating the causes of 

weed invasion. Herbicides are not only poisonous and expensive, but they fail because 

they are “treating” symptoms, not the causes, of weed invasion and undesirable 

vegetation. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-88 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0160-002 

Natural Habitat 

RMC-0160-005 

Natural Habitat 

RMC-0167-002 

Soda Mountain 

Wilderness Council 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Ch. 2 under 

Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. 

Comment: We agree with our colleagues, who have studied the draft, that you are 

addressing the symptoms rather than the causes and will be doing much more harm 

than good. You have made herbicide use itself the purpose rather than a credible 

concern about the causes of widespread invasive plants. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Ch. 2 under 

Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. 

Comment: Of special concern to our group is: Uncontrolled livestock grazing; Offroad vehicles; [and] Prescribed fire with resumption of heavy livestock grazing. 

Response: The concerns have been noted. See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 

under Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. 

Comment: Unfortunately, because both the draft environmental impact statement 

(“DEIS”) and programmatic environmental report (“PER”) fail to adequately address 

the causes of invasive species problem (instead opting to focus on methods to treat 

areas already invaded by weeds), the BLM has not yet created a successful strategy to 

deal with one of the West’s most rampant causes of environmental degradation. For 

this reason, SMWC [Soda Mountain Wilderness Council] submits the following 

comments to encourage the BLM to rethink their approach so that BLM will come up 

with an effective solution to the problem of invasive weeds, rather than causing 

additional environmental problems by overconfidently applying herbicides to our 

public lands indiscriminately. 

Response: The Purpose and Need for the PEIS is stated in Chapter 1 of the PEIS. The 

BLM acknowledges there are causes to invasive species spread, an issue that is 

discussed under Prevention and Early Detection of Weeds in Chapter 2, under 

Noxious Weeds and Other Invasive Vegetation in Chapter 3, and throughout Chapter 4 

of the PEIS and PER. The decision to be made—determining which USEPAregistered herbicides will be available for use by the BLM for vegetation treatments 

and control overall, including, but not limited to, treatments addressing invasive and 

noxious species—does not require detailed analysis of the causes of invasive species 

proliferation in order to implement various BLM programs using herbicides. The 

decision to determine which USEPA-approved herbicides will be available does 

require detailed analysis of the environmental effects of the use of these herbicides on 

humans, animals, sensitive species, and other resources. Extensive risk assessments for 

human health and plants and animals were conducted to support a decision. The 

decision to utilize herbicides in an integrated pest management context for vegetation 

control has been affirmed in all past EIS Records of Decision, based on the need to 

control vegetation to meet ecological health goals and objectives. 

The BLM disagrees with the assertion that it has no successful strategy in place to 

address these problems. The Partners Against Weeds - An Action Plan for the BLM 

(USDI BLM 1996) outlines the strategy the BLM follows to address invasive and 

noxious weed spread, including general and specific goals and objectives. This 

strategy is based on prevention, identification and inventory, control, and rehabilitation 

of infested lands within a multiple use context. A key feature of this strategy is to work 

with local partners, conservation groups, private landowners, and agencies, to form 

cooperative weed management areas, share resources and funding, and manage and 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-89 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0167-004 

Soda Mountain 

Wilderness Council 

RMC-0167-006 

Soda Mountain 

Wilderness Council 

RMC-0167-010 

Soda Mountain 

Wilderness Council 

RMC-0200-002 

Lindsay, Dianne 

control invasive and noxious weeds. Individual states, such as Nevada, have developed 

state-wide strategies based on the BLM model, which have demonstrated success in 

reducing infestations and restoring land health across the West. BLM application of 

herbicides is a controlled and conscientious process beginning with identifying the 

need, designing the project, and ensuring appropriate safeguards are in place prior to 

and after a project is implemented. This process is accomplished in an integrated pest 

management context, and the need for herbicides is determined by the best science 

weighed against other methods or combinations of methods. The BLM does not agree 

that the process to determine if herbicides are to be used in any given circumstance 

and how they are applied is indiscriminate. To do so would violate the Federal 

Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act and ignore the BLM’s obligation to 

comply with NEPA, Endangered Species Act, and numerous other statutes and 

regulations. 

Comment: However, the BLM hamstrings itself (to the detriment of the public lands) 

by focusing only on herbicides and other treatments, rather than the primary vectors 

that cause the spread of invasive weeds (including roads and livestock grazing). To 

achieve the stated goal that is quoted above, it is imperative that BLM focus on the 

primary causes of the invasive weed problem. In addition, the BLM should not give 

short shrift to passive treatments that can be used as effective treatment methods, and 

which do not have the negative ecosystem and human health issues associated with 

herbicide. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding vectors and spread. See expanded 

discussion under Prevention of Weeds and Early Detection and Rapid Response in 

Chapter 2 in the Final PEIS and PER regarding passive treatments and their role. 

Comment: It is simply irrational for an agency to seek to “improve ecosystem health 

by controlling weeds and invasive plant species and managing vegetation to benefit 

fish and wildlife habitat, improve riparian and wetlands areas, and improve water 

quality in priority watersheds” without analyzing means to curb the introduction of 

invasive weeds (before the spread happens) and without fully analyzing the benefits 

associated with passive treatments of invasive weed? 

Response: See responses to Comments RMC-0167-002 and RMC-0126-002 under 

PEIS Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. 

Comment: The BLM is legally obligated to revisit its approach to control invasive 

weeds and nonnative plant species and consider vectors that cause the spread of 

invasive weeds (such as livestock grazing). 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0562-008 under Proposed Action and 

Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. 

Comment: The PEIS/PER fails to adequately acknowledge the “cause” of vegetation 

problems. The Proposed Action and Purpose and Need are erroneous as stated: ([Draft 

PEIS] page 1 of the Executive Summary, paragraph 4 and line 8.) “Invasive vegetation 

and noxious weeds threaten soil productivity ... It should state “Livestock grazing, 

timber extraction and other resource extraction threatens soil productivity...” 

Response: The Proposed Action and Purpose and Need are stated in Chapter 1 of the 

PEIS. The BLM has determined the statement in the Executive Summary is correct. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-90 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0200-003 

Lindsay, Dianne 

RMC-0211-012 

Ghandi, Theresa Marie 

K. 

RMC-0214-021 

Natural Resources 

Defense Council and 

National Wildlife 

Federation 

No change to the text is required. 

Comment: The PEIS/PER fails to outline the best way to improve ecosystem health is 

by limiting resource extraction. This option is not included. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0055-004 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding limitations on public land uses. 

See Scope of Analysis in Chapter 1 of the PEIS. Limiting resource extractive activities 

is outside the scope of analysis of this PEIS. 

Comment: Using cheat grass as a reason to apply herbicides annually to prevent 

wildfires does not get at the root cause of the presence of the cheat grass and its spread 

through out 73% of leased public lands, 270 million acres, in western states used for 

cattle grazing. Approximately 2000 large ranchers have leases that cover about 74­

78% of federally leased grazing lands (data from a 1992 US Government Accounting 

Office study). Rather the cattle grazing, pulling up native species (such as bunch 

grasses) by the roots, breaking up the biotic soil crusts (lichens and algae), which 

cover much of soil in native systems, get trampled, churned up, and decline which 

worsens conditions for the native perennial grasses further, and also make it more 

difficult for seedlings of these species to establish. Herbicide treatments will fail until 

the root cause, large ranchers grazing cattle, is eliminated. Should BLM continue the 

grazing leases, then any plan to eliminate cheat grass [downy brome] will fail, short of 

ranchers switching to buffalo and restoring native soil and plant species as a condition 

of their leases. 

Response: Elimination of livestock grazing is beyond the scope of this analysis. 

Livestock grazing is authorized under the grazing regulations at 43 CFR [Code of 

Federal Regulations] 4100. Land use plan decisions provide for allocations of public 

lands for livestock use. See Scope of Analysis in Chapter 1 of the PEIS. The PEIS 

does not state that downy brome is the reason to apply herbicides annually to prevent 

wildfires. It is not reasonable or cost effective to attempt to spray herbicides on downy 

brome infested rangelands, annually, in their entirety, for fire suppression. Herbicide 

treatments may feasibly occur after a fire, e.g., as a pre-emergent to prevent or retard 

the introduction of downy brome and allow native species to outcompete this 

aggressive invader. Once downy brome is established in a rangeland situation, the 

eventual restoration of perennial grasses and shrublands is a long-term process 

requiring different management strategies based on local conditions. These could 

include techniques such as mechanical disking and seeding of desirable species, or as 

appropriate, livestock grazing management or passive techniques including rest from 

grazing for rehabilitation success purposes. 

Comment: BLM neglected to analyze the reasons for the spread of invasive species. 

BLM has failed to fulfill the most basic requirement of NEPA which is to 

scientifically analyze the subject at hand. The agency is proposing a solution before it 

has documented the nature of the problem. Any rigorous scientific analysis cannot 

occur unless there is an identification and subsequent examination of the phenomena. 

BLM did not take a look (let alone a ‘hard look’) at the phenomena associated with the 

spread of invasive species that are central to the problem of invasive species. 

Response: See responses to Comments RMC-0126-002 and RMC-0214-019 under 

PEIS Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-91 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0214-022 

Natural Resources 

Defense Council and 

National Wildlife 

Federation 

RMC-0214-023 

Natural Resources 

Defense Council and 

National Wildlife 

Federation 

RMC-0214-024 

Natural Resources 

Defense Council and 

National Wildlife 

Federation 

Comment: The Bureau fails to address the contributions that activities such as 

livestock grazing, building and maintenance of roads and trails, and motorized 

recreation make to the establishment and spread of invasive plant species on the public 

lands. These activities transport seeds and other propagules onto the land, then create 

ideal conditions for the invaders’ establishment by disturbing the native vegetation and 

soil. 

Response: See responses to Comments RMC-0126-002 under Proposed Action and 

Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis and RMC-0214-019 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management. 

Comment: Under Executive Order 13112, Sec. 2, paragraph (3), the Bureau is obliged 

to avoid authorizing, funding, or carrying out “actions that it believes are likely to 

cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species ... unless, pursuant to 

guidelines that it has prescribed, the agency has determined and made public its 

determination that the benefits of such actions clearly outweigh the potential harm 

caused by invasive species; and that all feasible and prudent measures to minimize risk 

of harm will be taken in conjunction with the actions.” 

Response: The BLM is not proposing any actions it believes are likely to cause or 

promote the introduction or spread of invasive species. The BLM is proposing to adopt 

tools to aid in the reduction and spread of invasive species on public lands. 

Comment: Of all of the activities that contribute to the spread of invasive species, 

livestock grazing is paramount. But the D[raft] PEIS barely investigates the 

relationships that livestock grazing and the spread of noxious weeds share. BLM 

asserts that analysis of livestock grazing is outside the scope of the D[raft] PEIS 

([Draft] PER [page] 1-6). Arbitrarily excluding the examination of known 

relationships between the spread of invasive species and an activity on BLM lands that 

directly contributes to the spread of invasive species is not permissible under the 

dictates of NEPA. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding causes and vectors of weed 

spread in relation to livestock grazing. The Draft PEIS in Chapter 1 under Scope of 

Analysis states: “This PEIS does not evaluate policies and programs associated with 

land use activities authorized by the BLM, such as livestock use, off highway vehicle 

(OHV) use, and timber harvesting, and does not make land use allocations nor amend 

land use plans (Federal Register 2002).” The scope of the PEIS does include an 

examination of the effects of herbicide use on livestock grazing, as with all BLM 

programs. The PEIS broadly examines the use of herbicides in relation to hazardous 

fuels reduction activities and managing and controlling invasive species for the benefit 

of wildlife habitat. The effects of livestock grazing on rangeland health has been 

previously assessed in the Rangeland Reform ’94 EIS (USDI BLM 1994) and most 

recently in the October 2004 Final EIS (USDI BLM. 2004. Proposed Revisions to 

Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands. FES 04-39. Washington, D.C.) and March 

31, 2006, addendum to the Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public 

Lands (2006. Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Statement FES 04-39 

Proposed Revisons to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands. Washington, D.C. 

Available at: http://www.blm.gov/grazing/). The livestock grazing program is also 

assessed in Resource Management Plan EISs, which outline the goals and objectives 

for landscape health that livestock grazing practices must meet. Limitations or 

restrictions on grazing due to invasive species spread are determined through activities 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-92 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0214-025 

Natural Resources 

Defense Council and 

National Wildlife 

Federation 

RMC-0214-026 

Natural Resources 

Defense Council and 

National Wildlife 

Federation 

RMC-0214-028 

Natural Resources 

Defense Council and 

National Wildlife 

Federation 

such as allotment monitoring, permit authorizations, and watershed assessments. 

Comment: Given that it is BLM’s regulatory responsibility to facilitate multiple use 

on its lands, BLM should be critically analyzing solutions to the invasive species 

issues that benefit multiple use activities such as livestock grazing. Sustainable grazing 

can benefit from strategies that recognize that overgrazing can lead to significant 

infestations of invasive species. Overgrazing invites invasive weeds to consume the 

range, ultimately hindering the potential forage capacity of the range and the success 

of a livestock grazing enterprise. On the other end of this approach, BLM choose in 

the D[raft] PEIS/PER to promote livestock grazing as a “tool” for the suppression and 

elimination of noxious weed communities (PER ch.4). 

Response: As discussed in Chapter 1 of the PER, “the BLM strives to attain a balance 

between the use of the land under its jurisdiction, and the protection of the 

environmental, historic, cultural, and scenic values that are so important to the 

American public.” The BLM recognizes that human uses, including livestock grazing, 

can harm the land, and BLM managers try to limit the threats and risks to healthy 

lands. The effects of overgrazing, and the measures the BLM is taking to correct these 

effects, are discussed for several resources in Chapter 4 of the PEIS, primarily under 

Cumulative Effects Analysis. However, as discussed under Scope of Report in Chapter 

1 of the PER and Scope of Analysis in Chapter 1 of the PEIS, the BLM did not 

evaluate policies and programs associated with land use activities authorized by the 

BLM, including livestock use, in these documents; these activities have been analyzed 

in earlier EISs. Livestock grazing is a tool to control invasive vegetation, and since the 

PER and PEIS focus on invasive vegetation control, the use of livestock to control 

vegetation was discussed in the PER. 

Comment: Clearly BLM is promoting the activity of livestock grazing without also 

looking seriously at the harmful relationship between livestock grazing and the spread 

of invasive species like Downy Brome. If the BLM was serious about complying with 

NEPA and thoroughly examining the problem of invasive species, it would have 

identified the vectors that lead to the spread of these communities. And it would have 

paid special attention to the ecological relationship that livestock grazing has with the 

invasion of cheatgrass, which is threatening to eliminate many opportunities for 

sustainable livestock grazing in the West. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding causes and vectors of weed 

spread. Also see response to Comment RMC-0214-024 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. 

Comment: BLM should also consider additional steps not referred in the D[raft] PEIS 

that would be beneficial in slowing the spread of invasive plants on public lands. 

Many plant species that are invading natural systems in the West are not yet 

designated as “noxious”; these plants will escape regulation under this provision. 

Examples of species not now designated as noxious weeds that could be transported in 

hay, straw, or mulch include cheat grass and other Bromus species, various 

wheatgrasses, several Setaria grasses, and spreading knotweed. The agency should 

identify plant species invading its lands that are not now listed as “noxious” and work 

with state agricultural and transportation officials, including existing Invasive Species 

Councils; with the agricultural industry; with conservation organizations; and with 

public land users and ranchers to curtail the inadvertent spread of these plants, as well. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-93 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0217-004 

Sierra Club Utah 

Chapter 

RMC-0218-004 

Blue Mountains 

Biodiversity Project, 

League of Wilderness 

Defenders 

Response: The PEIS and PER address all invasive species, not just species designated 

as noxious weeds. Standard Operating Procedures and other protection measures 

identified in Tables 2-8 and 2-9 in the PEIS, and 2-5 in the PER would help to reduce 

the spread of invasive vegetation and reduce the effects of vegetation treatments on 

resources. As noted in Chapter 1 of the PEIS, under Interrelationships and 

Coordination with Agencies, the BLM coordinates extensively with invasive species 

councils and other environmental groups, scientific and trade organizations, and other 

federal, state and local agencies to manage vegetation and control the spread of 

invasive vegetation. 

Comment: This paragraph segues from a discussion of hazardous fuels to the inherent 

harm resulting from invasion by exotic plant species and noxious weeds. There is no 

transition or relationship provided by this paragraph. This is stated despite the fact that 

the exotic cheat grass is a major hazardous fuel on public lands. The paragraph also 

fails to deal with the full range of permitted activities that are major contributors to 

altered fire regimes and fire suppression. Livestock grazing, road building, water 

diversions and impoundments, and timber cutting have all contributed to the 

suppression of fires. In some plant communities these permitted activities far out 

weigh fire fighting in terms of fire suppression. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding causes and vectors of weed 

spread. The text in the Introduction of Chapter 1 of the PEIS and PER has been 

revised to reflect relationship between downy brome (cheatgrass) and hazardous fuels 

and to clarify the contributions of public land activities to altered fire regimes. 

Comment: What’s wrong with this picture? In addition to heavy-handed management 

instead of more natural, passive restoration techniques, the BLM’s plan fails to deal 

with the many sources of invasive weed spread, such as the primary vectors of 

invasive plant introduction and dispersal: Livestock grazing, logging, off-road 

vehicles, roads, and other ground-disturbing activities such as mining and gravel pits. 

You simply can’t solve a problem by addressing the symptoms rather than the causes. 

Indeed, the real purpose of this plan may have more to do with clearing the land for 

more cattle and sheep than getting serious about controlling invasive plants. Although 

invasive plants and reducing the risk of “catastrophic” fire (a favorite Bush Inc. public 

relations rationale for logging and magic words for getting federal funding) are 

referenced in the text , the actual title of the draft [P]EIS is “Vegetation Treatments 

Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States”--

rather than the purpose or goal being to control the introduction and dispersal of 

invasive plants, which is ostensibly the purpose, judging by the bulk of the text. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding causes and vectors of weed 

spread. The Purpose and Need, which are stated in Chapter 1 of the PEIS, do not 

include proposals for clearing land for more cattle and sheep. As stated under Scope of 

Analysis in Chapter 1 of the PEIS, the PEIS does not address vegetation treatments 

exclusively designed to increase forage production. The title of the PEIS is accurate. 

There is no stated goal in the PEIS to control the introduction and dispersal of invasive 

plants. The purpose of the PEIS is to examine the effects of herbicide use on public 

land resources. The actual use of herbicides is determined at the project development 

stage in an integrated pest management context. The BLM is not proposing to 

exclusively use herbicides on public lands. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-94 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0218-029 

Blue Mountains 

Biodiversity Project, 

League of Wilderness 

Defenders 

RMC-0218-039 

Blue Mountains 

Biodiversity Project, 

League of Wilderness 

Defenders 

RMC-0218-044 

Blue Mountains 

Biodiversity Project, 

League of Wilderness 

Defenders 

Comment: Many issues, such as potential impacts to sage grouse, were not 

adequately analyzed with an eye to other cumulative impacts combined with the 

proposed action (e.g. Livestock grazing, roads, development, ORV [off-road vehicle] 

use, hunting, mining non-chemical control methods proposed, etc.) and the need to 

deal with root cause of invasive plant spread that are embedded in status quo 

management practices (e.g. livestock grazing, logging, soil disturbance, quarries, 

roading, etc.) that are considered too sacrosanct to touch. (e.g. of sage grouse issue 

analysis in NCAP [Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides] comments). 

Response: The Proposed Action in the PEIS does not propose any treatments that 

would directly or indirectly impact sage-grouse. Herbicide or non-herbicide vegetation 

treatments in sage-grouse habitat or with the potential to impact sage-grouse 

populations would be assessed in site-specific NEPA analysis at the time the project 

was proposed. Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on sage-grouse would be 

assessed within the context of the site-specific analysis at the time the project was 

proposed. Because of the programmatic nature of this EIS, it is not possible to assess 

the effects of herbicide use on any one species, since there is no site-specific data on 

where a treatment project would occur or what species may be present. The PEIS 

assesses the impacts on plant communities as described in the ecoregions covered 

under the analysis for Wildlife Resources in Chapter 4 of the PEIS. 

See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action and Purpose 

and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding causes and vectors of weed spread. 

Cumulative effects to vegetation and wildlife resources are discussed in the respective 

resource sections of the Cumulative Effects Analysis section in Chapter 4 of the PEIS. 

See the Wildlife Resources section in Chapter 4 of the PEIS for a description of the 

herbicide exposure characterization that was developed to assess effects to the full 

range of species that may occur on public lands. See Appendix C of the PEIS for a full 

discussion of the exposure characterization process used in the ecological risk 

assessments. The exposure characterization for wildlife species was developed in 

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

Service, and the Environmental Protection Agency, and uses the best available science 

to assess impacts to wildlife species at the programmatic level. 

Comment: Why were these control methods insufficient? It is likely that their 

insufficiency was due to failure to deal with the root causes of invasive plant 

introduction and dispersal, in which case, more of the same “treatment” will continue 

to be ineffective. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0222-013 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Alternative E - No Use of Sulfonylurea and other Acetolactate Synthase-inhibiting 

Active Ingredients regarding causes of invasive plant introduction and dispersal. 

Comment: Precommercial thinning and prescribed fire (and in some cases, shrub 

mowing) can be used to accomplish these ends without the hazardous use of toxic 

chemicals. In the case of prescribed fire, the effect is much more similar to natural 

processes. Herbicides should only be used as a last resort to control or eradicate exotic 

invasive species, if they are used at all, not to artificially clear land of sagebrush for 

livestock or thin stands of trees for maximum commercial plantation growth or public 

lands. Yet these expansions of the uses to which herbicides are applied are not 

analyzed or justified in the DEIS [Draft PEIS] in violation of NEPA. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-95 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0218-046 

Blue Mountains 

Biodiversity Project, 

League of Wilderness 

Defenders 

RMC-0218-050 

Blue Mountains 

Biodiversity Project, 

League of Wilderness 

Defenders 

Response: As discussed under Scope of Analysis in the Decisions to be Made and 

Scope of Analysis section of Chapter 1 of the PEIS, the PEIS does not address 

herbicide use relative to livestock grazing or commercial timber production. Also see 

response to Comment RMC-0049-003 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, 

How the Effects of the Alternatives Were Estimated. 

Comment: We are also very concerned by admissions on pp. [pages] 4-62 - 4-63 [of 

the Draft PEIS] that even under the “No Action” alternative (status quo management) 

(and presumably under the preferred alternative, although this is not clear), herbicide 

application would focus on “controlling” many native desert species that no one but 

ranchers would usually consider a problem – including sagebrush, rabbitbrush, pinyon 

trees (a native cultural plant of significance and limited occurrence), juniper trees, 

“other evergreen woodland species” (p. 4-62 [of the Draft PEIS]) and plant 

community indicators in the Sonoran and Chihuahuan desert such as mesquite (also of 

Native cultural importance), creosotebush and snakeweed, as well as oak species! (p. 

4-63 [of the Draft PEIS]) Who gave the BLM a mandate to “control” all these native 

desert species which form the critical underpinning of distinct habitat niches for 

adapted wildlife?! This seems like a thinly veiled plan to convert the temperate desert, 

temperate steppe, subtropical desert and subtropical steppe ecoregions to cattle and 

sheep pasture on a large scale. Artificial conversion via poisoning with toxic chemicals 

is even more insidious than using logging or prescribed fire in that the chemicals to be 

used are acknowledged to change the native plant species composition and 

biodiversity of the application sites. 

Response: See Scope of Analysis in the Decisions to be Made and Scope of Analysis 

section of Chapter 1 of the PEIS. Conversion of plant communities to cattle and sheep 

pasture is outside the scope of this PEIS. The BLM is guided by statutory and 

regulatory considerations in regard to application of herbicides on public lands. 

Intentional over-contamination of public lands with would violate a number of 

statutes, including, but not limited to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act, NEPA, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. The BLM 

has not closed any public lands to public use as a result of herbicide treatments, nor 

artificially converted ecoregions to cattle and sheep use. 

Comment: The use of toxic herbicides planned for use in these environments are thus 

acknowledged to potentially convert fundamental plant species composition, altering 

ecological niche habitats and affecting biodiversity as well as removing targeted native 

components of these ecosystems (e.g. pinyon pine, sagebrush, mesquite, etc.) This 

planned conversion of native plant communities to something else (presumably 

livestock pasture) and the potential conversion of these native ecosystems to artificial 

environments, sometimes dominated by the very invasive plants the DEIS [Draft 

PEIS] implies it is the purpose of this program to eradicate (e.g. Downy brome, 

medusahead and Russian thistle) must be analyzed thoroughly in the DEIS [Draft 

PEIS] as part of the intentional or foreseen consequences and purpose of the action 

alternatives with herbicide use (and through tree and brush manual and fire-removal, 

part of the “No Herbicides use” alternative as well) yet the DEIS [Draft PEIS] appears 

to incorporate no such analysis or admission that conversion to pasture is part of the 

plan. Without such admission and analysis, decision-making may be made in 

ignorance of the true intent or consequences of the program. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread. Total eradication of weeds is an unrealistic goal and is not part of the BLM 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-96 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0218-052 

Blue Mountains 

Biodiversity Project, 

League of Wilderness 

Defenders 

RMC-0218-053 

Blue Mountains 

Biodiversity Project, 

League of Wilderness 

Defenders 

RMC-0218-054 

Blue Mountains 

Biodiversity Project, 

League of Wilderness 

Defenders 

RMC-0218-055 

Blue Mountains 

Biodiversity Project, 

League of Wilderness 

Defenders 

Proposed Action in the PEIS. Chemical treatment methods have been shown to be 

effective on vegetation. 

Comment: As the NCAP [Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides] 

comments describe at length, it is known that herbicide use, livestock grazing and 

prescribed fire have all harmed sage grouse and their essential habitat components, yet 

this was not analyzed in the DEIS [Draft PEIS] (a violation of NEPA disclosure, 

analysis and scientific accuracy requirements) nor was the predictable loss of critical 

habitat for sage grouse and possible direct loss of individual sage grouse adequately 

considered and mitigated (a violation of the APA [Administrative Procedures Act] and 

ESA [Endangered Species Act].) 

Response: The BLM has complied with all NEPA disclosure, analysis, and scientific 

accuracy requirements for the Proposed Action described in Chapter 1 of the PEIS. 

The BLM has violated neither the APA, nor the ESA in the development of the PEIS. 

See response to Comment RMC-0218-029 under PEIS Proposed Action and Purpose 

and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the proposed action and analysis of impacts to 

sage-grouse. Although the sage-grouse is the subject of petitions for listing, it is not a 

listed species at this time, nor has critical habitat been identified for this species; thus 

the sage-grouse is not subject to ESA requirements. In any case, should sage-grouse be 

considered a listed species, the BLM would treat it as a listed species, and consult 

under the ESA. 

Comment: Livestock grazing is obviously within the scope of this DEIS [Draft PEIS] 

as it could both contribute to the spread of invasive plants as a root cause of their 

introduction and dispersal (and has done so) and could benefit from invasive plant 

control. Yet the impacts of livestock grazing re: the spread of invasives are not 

analyzed in the DEIS [Draft PEIS]. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0214-036 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Monitoring. Livestock grazing is outside of the scope of the PEIS. The intent of the 

PEIS is not to assess the alleged spread of invasive species via livestock grazing. 

Comment: It is interesting how enthusiastic the BLM is about using herbicides to 

counter the rapid expansion of invasive plants across public lands as “one of the 

primary threats to ecosystem health” (DEIS [Draft PEIS] p. 4-73), when in reality, 

active management practices by the BLM, including livestock grazing, logging, 

mining, roading and allowing the use of off-road vehicles are far greater threats to the 

ecosystem and also all introduce invasive plants and disperse them throughout public 

lands. Yet known means to control these management practice vectors of invasive 

plant introduction and dispersal are not considered and analyzed, although dealing 

with them is absolutely essential to stopping or slowing the invasive weed problems. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under Proposed Action and 

Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. 

Comment: Similarly, there is no analysis in the DEIS [Draft PEIS] of the need to 

change or reduce the scale of these management practices themselves (beyond vehicle 

cleansing to reducing overall soil disturbances, eliminating unnecessary roads, 

prohibiting larger forest canopy openings, reducing livestock number and access to 

riparian areas, banning open pit mining, controlling the number and vehicle access/use 

of quarries, etc.) The fall back argument is FLPMA’s [Federal Land Policy 

Management Act’s] multiple use requirement, but there is no reason the BLM can’t 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-97 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0221-004 

Center for Biological 

Diversity 

RMC-0221-016 

Center for Biological 

Diversity 

control (regulate) or change the nature of these management activities or reduce or 

prohibit them in sensitive areas, so these core roots of the problem are basic to the 

purpose and need of the BLM plan, within the scope of the project, and must be 

thoroughly analyzed and considered in an alternative (or more than one alternative) as 

required by NEPA. This could easily have been done by analyzing (and hopefully 

adopting) the “Restore Native Ecosystems Alternative” already carefully prepared. 

Why was this scientifically defensible citizen’s proposal not included as an alternative 

to be considered instead of buried in an appendix? This is an obvious breach of 

NEPA’s requirements for a full range of alternatives. 

Response: The BLM agrees that it does have discretion under FLPMA to control 

(regulate) or change the nature of management activities or reduce or prohibit them in 

sensitive areas. This is accomplished through the land use planning process (FLMPA 

Section 202) at the local level, and is not the subject of this PEIS. As stated in the 

Scope of Analysis in Chapter 1 of the PEIS, this document does not evaluate policies 

and programs associated with land use activities authorized by the BLM, and does not 

make land use allocations nor amend approved land use plans. Also see response to 

Comment RMC-0126-04 regarding analysis of the Restore Native Ecosystems 

alternative. 

Comment: In general, this type of overarching, programmatic analysis can only be 

useful if there is also site-specific analysis conducted for each and every on-the-ground 

application. At best, a programmatic EIS can only identify and analyze the likely 

impacts of such an expansive project by reference to general parameters. This D[raft] 

PEIS does not even meet those general standards because it fails to identify and 

analyze the causes of the problem it is attempting to solve and it has completely failed 

to adequately identify and analyze likely impacts of the project, including, but not 

limited to, impacts to native species, ecosystems, air and water quality, and human 

health. If the BLM chooses to go forward with this ill-conceived project, the BLM 

should acknowledge that programmatically approved treatments will not be 

appropriate on any of the public lands that it is charged with managing and that it must 

prepare subsequent site-specific EISs for each and every such project. 

Response: The PEIS is not intended to programmatically approve any vegetation 

treatments, and specific treatments are not proposed in this document. It has been 

clearly identified in the Draft PEIS that site-specific NEPA analysis, as well as ESA 

[Endangered Species Act] consultation, must be completed prior to any project 

approval. Chapter 1 of the PEIS, under NEPA Requirements of the Program, and 

Figure 1-1 in Chapter 1 of the PEIS, describe the “step-down” process used to ensure 

the appropriate analysis is conducted at each level of consideration for vegetation 

treatments. 

See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action and Purpose 

and Need, Scope of Analysis in regard to causes and vectors of weed spread. As a 

point of clarification, the BLM has not proposed this analysis to solve a problem of the 

causes of weed spread, but to assess the effects of herbicide use on human health and 

public land resources. Impacts to native species, ecosystems, air and water quality, and 

human health from proposed herbicide use are described in Chapter 4 of the PEIS 

(Environmental Consequences). 

Comment: First, and most importantly, the BLM has failed to consider the causes of 

vegetation conversions in the western landscapes and the causes of catastrophic fire, 

unhealthy ecosystems, and impaired wildlife habitat. Looking at the causes of the 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-98 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0221-028 

Center for Biological 

Diversity 

RMC-0221-029 

Center for Biological 

Diversity 

problem along with proposed treatments is critical to restoring the land to long-term 

health. The lands managed by BLM need long-term preventative management, not just 

triage. The BLM’s misidentification of the proper scope of the project fundamentally 

undermines the adequacy of the DEIS [Draft PEIS]. The BLM cannot separate the 

ways in which its management practices have allowed and continue to allow nonnative 

plants to flourish and invade large areas of the western landscape from its proposals to 

“treat” those non-native plants where they have taken hold. This overall flaw in 

BLM’s conception of the proposed project has inevitably led to a DEIS [Draft PEIS] 

whose scope and stated purpose and need are far too narrowly conceived. Limiting the 

scope of the proposed project and the DEIS [Draft PEIS] to only vegetation treatments 

using herbicides is both nonsensical and violates NEPA’s requirement that an EIS look 

at the whole of the action including “the relationship between short-term uses of man’s 

environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity.” 42 

U.S.C. [United States Code] § 4332(C)(iv). 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread. See also the discussion under Chapter 4, Cumulative Effects Analysis, under 

Vegetation for a discussion of conversions in the western landscapes and the causes of 

catastrophic fire, unhealthy ecosystems, and impaired wildlife habitat. See response to 

Comment RMC-0218-055 under PEIS Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Scope 

of Analysis regarding BLM management practices and the proper avenue for 

addressing changes in resource management or allowable activities on public lands. 

Discussion of the relationship between short-term uses of the human environment and 

the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity is found under 

Relationship between the Local Short-term Used and Maintenance and Enhancement 

of Long-term Productivity in Chapter 4 of the PEIS. 

Comment: As part of the D[raft] PEIS, the BLM must identify other ongoing projects 

that impact the areas affected by the proposed project. In this instance, the BLM has 

failed to include many significant ongoing activities that impact the introduction, 

establishment, and spread of invasive plants in the environmental baseline analysis, the 

no-action alternative, or in the cumulative impacts analysis. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding causes and vectors of invasive 

species spread. The environmental baseline is adequately described under Chapter 3 

Affected Environment, as well as the cumulative impacts discussion found in Chapter 

4 of the PEIS. The environmental baseline has also been previously discussed in the 

four EISs considered in the PEIS. The No Action Alternative of the PEIS, which is the 

continuation of management described in the previous EISs, takes the baseline into 

account. 

Comment: One of the fundamental causes of vegetation-type conversion, catastrophic 

wildfires and non-native weed invasions in the West is livestock grazing. Livestock 

are grazed on 165 million acre of BLM lands on the seventeen western states, but the 

DEIS [Draft PEIS] fails to address livestock as a vector of non-native species, 

widespread surface disturbance, and impaired watersheds leading to vegetation-type 

conversion, contributing to the very conditions that this DEIS [Draft PEIS] seeks to 

address. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-99 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

spread. The PEIS is responding to the need for additional tools to meet the intent of the 

Administration and Congress to address healthy landscapes through the National Fire 

Plan and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003. 

RMC-0221-034 Comment: The impacts of livestock on our public lands are not limited to general 

Center for Biological vegetation effects – the specific impacts to particular ecosystems is also well known. 

Diversity The DEIS [Draft PEIS] addresses the impacts of the alternatives on these areas, but 

fails to enumerate the disturbance and vegetation conversion caused by livestock in 

these areas. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0214-024 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. 

RMC-0221-042 Comment: All of these impacts of livestock grazing can contribute to the 

Center for Biological establishment and colonization of non-native species, but the DEIS [Draft PEIS] fails 

Diversity to address these causative factors and instead retains its focus on herbicide treatments 

alone. The BLM should reduce the spread of invasive weeds by livestock grazing by 

retired permits in infested areas, suspending livestock grazing in areas of high 

disturbance and in ecologically-susceptible areas (riparian corridors, post-fire, wet 

meadows, disrupted biological crusts), and avoiding grazing in areas with intact native 

vegetation communities. One of the most comprehensive treatments available to the 

BLM is to limit livestock grazing in our public lands, improving the aesthetic and 

ecological landscape for all public lands users and diminishing the need to use 

chemical and biological controls. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread. See also response to Comment RMC-0221-016 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. 

RMC-0221-043 Comment: Off-highway vehicle (“OHV”) use is a widespread and potentially harmful 

Center for Biological land use that the BLM failed to consider in the DEIS [Draft PEIS]. Preventing further 

Diversity colonization and invasions of non-native plant species can be partially attained through 

strict management of this type of recreation, and yet the DEIS [Draft PEIS] fails to 

address this type of preventative and proactive “treatment” in its analysis. 

Response: Off-highway vehicle management is properly addressed through land use 

planning, and is outside the scope of this analysis. See Scope of Analysis in Chapter 1 

of the PEIS. Prevention is discussed in Chapter 2 of the PER and PEIS under 

Prevention of Weeds and Early Detection and Rapid Response. See also response to 

Comment RMC-0167-002 under PEIS Alternatives, Vegetation Treatment Planning 

and Management regarding BLM prevention strategies. 

RMC-0222-003 Comment: We are further concerned that the DEIS [Draft PEIS] and PER that BLM 

Salvo, Mark has produced are contrary to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). There is 

(Sagebrush Sea a direct link – cause and effect – between some land uses (such as livestock grazing), 

Campaign), Cox, the spread of invasive species and the need for “vegetation treatments” (e.g., 

Caroline (Northwest manipulation, burning, herbicide spraying. It is folly not to address these links in the 

Coalition for DEIS [Draft PEIS]/PER. Furthermore, splitting out non-chemical vegetation 

Alternatives to treatments from herbicides (while avoiding the issue of passive restoration altogether) 

Pesticides), and in two separate documents (one of which is an EIS and the other a “report” is 

O’Brien, Mary “segmentation,” which is disallowed under NEPA. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-100 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0222-006 

Salvo, Mark 

(Sagebrush Sea 

Campaign), Cox, 

Caroline (Northwest 

Coalition for 

Alternatives to 

Pesticides), and 

O’Brien, Mary 

Response: The PEIS has been developed following the CEQ [Council on 

Environmental Quality] regulations and is in compliance with NEPA. The PER 

accompanies the PEIS to provide supporting information for the Alternative C analysis 

(No Use of Herbicides), cumulative impact analysis, and the Biological Assessment, 

pertaining to the effects of non-herbicide vegetation treatments on public lands 

resources. See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes of weed spread. 

Passive restoration is a valid technique for addressing vegetation problems and is not 

precluded from use by the analysis of effects of herbicides on human health and public 

land resources. Passive treatments are addressed in Chapter 2 of the PEIS and PER. 

Developing an environmental report to disclose effects of non-herbicide treatments on 

an estimated number of acres to support an EIS analysis does not constitute 

segmentation. Segmentation is the process of conducting individual analyses resulting 

in individual decisions for segments of a single connected action, such as a highway or 

transmission line. In the context of vegetation treatments, segmentation would take the 

form of analyzing and approving multiple contiguous smaller treatment projects 

derived from larger landscape-based proposal. 

The baseline acre figure used in the PER is a fixed number representing potential acres 

to be treated. This figure was identified in the Department of Interior Cohesive 

Strategy policy document as the number of acres that would need to be addressed to 

make progress towards reducing hazardous fuels to prevent catastrophic fire. See the 

discussion Chapter 2 of the PEIS for Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from 

Detailed Analysis. 

See response to Comment RMC-0214-011 under PEIS Proposed Action and Purpose 

and Need, Organization of the Vegetation Treatments Assessments for a discussion of 

the development of the PER. 

Comment: Finally, in addition to the number of states and acres treated, the BLM has 

proposed a broader vegetation management program with different and greater goals 

that would employ more active (and no passive) treatment methods on more habitat 

types and in different combinations than was authorized in previous environmental 

impact statements and agency records of decision. As the [Draft] PER ([page] 1-1) 

states, “previous EISs primarily focused on vegetation control of competing and 

unwanted vegetation for resource enhancement (forestry and rangelands), noxious and 

invasive weed control related to surface use activities (oil and gas, rights-of-way), and 

reduction of hazardous fuels to protect resources at risk from wildfire damage.” The 

new BLM vegetation management program as described in the NEPA-less PER is 

intended to “reduce hazardous fuels, improve rangeland health, and manage and 

control vegetation affecting other resources.” ([Draft] PER: [page] 1-5. emphasis 

added) including wildlife habitat and watersheds. Thus, the BLM seeks to expand its 

current program from basic weed and hazardous fuel control to a landscape-scale 

vegetation management program with significant environmental impacts. This 

enlarged program requires further analysis under NEPA, particularly as it is linked to 

major increases in herbicide use. 

Response: The BLM has not proposed a broader vegetation management program 

with different or greater goals than currently exist today. The analysis focuses on an 

increase in the number of acres to be potentially treated by herbicides, based on the 

policy context described in Chapter 1 of the PEIS. The resource programs, vegetation, 

and habitat types included in the analysis are the same as those that have been 

previously assessed for herbicides in the past. No previous analysis has considered 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-101 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0222-032 

Salvo, Mark 

(Sagebrush Sea 

Campaign), Cox, 

Caroline (Northwest 

Coalition for 

Alternatives to 

Pesticides), and 

O’Brien, Mary 

Alaska, however. Therefore, the environmental impacts of herbicides on the 

vegetation and habitat types in that state have been included in the analysis in the 

PEIS. 

Comment: The Restoration Alternative conditions herbicide use on avoidance of 

unnecessary invasive species spread by livestock (EIS [Draft PEIS]: G-8): 

Action- Prevention 3- Reduce spread of invasive weeds caused by domestic livestock 

grazing: 

1. retire domestic livestock grazing permits at earliest opportunity where grazing 

has been found to promote invasion or persistence of invasive species 

2. prioritize invasives prevention and restoration activities for areas where 

domestic livestock grazing has been permanently ended 

3. manage livestock movement patterns to insure animals are not moving seeds of 

invasive species from infested to uninfested areas 

4. suspend livestock grazing on non-cohesive soils in perennially saturated 

meadows 

5. manage livestock grazing to favor native species 

6. avoid grazing in systems still containing a strong component of native 

perennials, biological soil crusts, or other features known to act as natural 

barriers to invasion or increase of invasive exotic species. 

Perhaps the BLM politically does not want to rein in livestock grazing in this manner, 

but it is under a NEPA obligation to consider how reductions in the need for herbicide 

use might directly, indirectly, or cumulatively result from such constraints on livestock 

grazing. 

Response: Although grazing can contribute to some invasive species problems, one 

cannot assume that all invasive species problems are associated with grazing of 

domestic livestock. The comment makes some good suggestions, such as managing 

grazing to favor native vegetation, and managing livestock movement patterns to 

avoid moving seeds of invasive plants from infested areas to uninfested areas. The 

BLM does manage the grazing program with these kinds of objectives in mind. The 

BLM rangeland health assessments consider the presence of invasive species when 

assessing overall rangeland health, and if the BLM determines that livestock grazing is 

significantly contributing to invasive species problems, the grazing management is 

changed to address the problem. The BLM is not able to implement all of the actions 

identified in this comment because, when taken as a whole, they are too restrictive and 

would cause the agency to be in violation of several laws, including the Taylor 

Grazing Act, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. These laws direct the 

agency to manage for multiple uses, and specifically identify grazing as an acceptable 

use of the public lands managed by the BLM. This comment suggests that if livestock 

grazing is found to promote invasion or persistence of invasive species, the only 

option available to address the issue would be to retire the grazing permits. Similarly, 

if livestock grazing is managed to favor native species, then grazing would be avoided 

in those areas to provide a barrier to further invasions. Since livestock grazing would 

be eliminated regardless of whether invasive species were present, the BLM would be 

unable to remain in compliance with those laws that direct the agency to manage for 

multiple uses that include grazing. The PEIS has been revised to include some 

discussion of how other activities can affect invasive species problems. Although the 

effects of these other activities are discussed in relation to the need for vegetation 

treatments, these activities are outside the scope of the PEIS analysis, and comments 

concerning changes in those activities must be addressed during site-specific decisions 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-102 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0222-033 

Salvo, Mark 

(Sagebrush Sea 

Campaign), Cox, 

Caroline (Northwest 

Coalition for 

Alternatives to 

Pesticides), and 

O’Brien, Mary 

RMC-0222-035 

Salvo, Mark 

(Sagebrush Sea 

Campaign), Cox, 

Caroline (Northwest 

Coalition for 

Alternatives to 

Pesticides), and 

O’Brien, Mary 

and/or local land use planning efforts. 

Comment: As another example, the DEIS [Draft PEIS] does not estimate how control 

of invasive species (a Purpose of the PEIS) might be increased by following the 

Restoration Alternative’s conditioning of herbicide use on prevention of off-road 

vehicle use that results in invasive species (DEIS [Draft PEIS]: [Appendix G, page] G9), e.g.: Action- Prevention 5 - Precede all road or off-road vehicle route 

reconstruction, and any consideration of adding existing or illegal user-created roads 

and off-road vehicle routes to the transportation system, by NEPA analyses of their 

impacts, including potential to facilitate the spread of invasive species into native 

ecosystems. Action- Prevention 6 - Close or restrict non-essential, designated routes 

for motorized vehicle travel in areas of high risk for spread of invasive species. 

The DEIS [Draft PEIS] admits ([page] 2-13) that Alternative E (the BLM’s version of 

the Restoration Alternative) would “place greater emphasis on passive 

restoration...where...activities [e.g., livestock grazing and ORV [off-road vehicle] 

driving] have promoted a less desirable vegetation community [e.g., invasive species] 

or increased erosion [i.e., a condition associated with invasive species],” but avoids 

analyzing the meaning for this herbicide use, stating: 

Since these activities [e.g., livestock grazing and ORV driving] are allowed under 

FLPMA [Federal Land Policy and Management Act], however, restrictions on their 

use would only be considered to the extent they are consistent with BLM vegetation 

and land use management practices (e g . excluding grazing animals from recently 

seeded areas). 

Response: The BLM conducts NEPA analysis on all federal actions. The spread of 

noxious weeds and invasive species is one of the critical elements of the human 

environment and is considered in all NEPA analyses undertaken by the BLM. The 

reconstruction of off-highway vehicle (OHV) routes, placement of OHV routes into 

BLM transportation systems, and closure or restriction of OHV use and routes is 

outside the scope of the analysis of the PEIS. There is no established relationship 

between OHV road closures and the need to use herbicides. 

Comment: Consider the following failure to include prevention in livestock 

management: Continue to graze livestock where grazing has been found to promote 

invasion or persistence of invasive species more invasive species (i.e., a greater 

number of invasive species and/or increased introduction, establishment and/or spread 

of invasive species) 

• more herbicide treatments 

• more forage for cattle 

• continued or increased cattle grazing 

• more invasive species 

• more herbicide treatments - and so on. 

Response: The BLM includes prevention practices in its livestock grazing program, 

e.g., use of weed-free forage and quarantine prior to placement of livestock onto the 

range, in addition to the terms and conditions of grazing use authorizations. The 

scenario presented above, which assumes more herbicide treatments due to livestock 

grazing and the premise of increased livestock grazing, is unsubstantiated in fact, 

ignores other potential integrated weed management vegetative treatments using nonherbicide methods (including passive techniques), and is outside the scope of analysis 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-103 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

of the PEIS. See Scope of Analysis in Chapter 1 of the PEIS. The PEIS does not 

address vegetation treatments exclusively designed to increase forage production or 

the effects of livestock grazing on vegetation. 

RMC-0222-043 Comment: Elsewhere, the DEIS [Draft PEIS] ([page] 4-45) does note that merely 

Salvo, Mark poisoning invasive species may not result in native vegetation returning: 

(Sagebrush Sea 

Campaign), Cox, Some treatments are very successful at removing weeds over the short term, but are 

Caroline (Northwest not successful at promoting the establishment of native species in their place. In such 

Coalition for cases, seeding of native plant species would be beneficial. Weeds may resprout or 

Alternatives to reseed quickly, outcompeting native species, and in some cases increasing vigor as a 

Pesticides), and result of treatments. The success of treatments would depend on numerous factors, and 

O’Brien, Mary could require the use of a combination of methods to combat undesirable species. 

Although the above passage refers to the need to “use a combination of methods to 

combat undesirable species”, the DEIS [Draft PEIS] in fact gives only the example of 

seeding species as an example of combining methods. For example, the DEIS [Draft 

PEIS] never mentions combining herbicide use with removal of livestock grazing or 

ORV [off-road vehicle] use. 

Response: Most of the discussion on using multiple methods to control vegetation, 

including use of active treatments (e.g., use of herbicides, fire, mechanical control) in 

combination with passive treatments (e.g., removing livestock, ORV management), is 

found in Chapter 2 of the PER (Site Selection and Treatment Priorities; Vegetation 

Treatment Methods; and Vegetation Treatment Standard Operating Procedures and 

Guidelines sections). Much of this material is included in the Final PEIS to help the 

reader better understand BLM vegetation treatment policies and procedures. 

RMC-0222-082 Comment: The Programmatic Environmental Report (PER) proposed a three-fold 

Salvo, Mark increase in vegetation treated directly, from 2 million to 6 million acres per year (PER 

(Sagebrush Sea [page] ES-2). These treatments will have significant impacts in and of themselves. 

Campaign), Cox, Likewise, they will include ground disturbances and removal of vegetation, favoring 

Caroline (Northwest invasive species, the primary response to which will be herbicides, which will have 

Coalition for additional impacts (PER [page] ES-2). This should not be examined in a report, but 

Alternatives to through NEPA, which will: Fully analyze reasonable alternatives for vegetation 

Pesticides), and treatments, including the Restoration Alternative ([Draft] [P]EIS, Appendix I) and 

O’Brien, Mary insure public review of the scientific accuracy of conclusions regarding benefits and 

impacts. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0214-011 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Organization of the Vegetation Treatments Assessments 

regarding development of the PER and its relationship to the PEIS. See Appendix I in 

the Final PEIS for the Policy Analysis Summary of the Restoration Alternative. The 

PER accompanies the PEIS and is subject to the same public review and comment as 

the PEIS regarding its scientific accuracy of conclusions. 

RMC-0222-091 Comment: Another recent (2005) publication from the Pacific Northwest Research 

Salvo, Mark Station (USDA FS [Forest Service]) has a similar conclusion. “Herbicides, prescribed 

(Sagebrush Sea fire, and other methods kill weeds, but without a source of native seeds or a long-term 

Campaign), Cox, strategy for restoration, the treated areas are recolonized by the same species or by 

Caroline (Northwest other, potentially more damaging, invasive plants.” The publication does point out, 

Coalition for however, that this problem can be solved by addressing the causes of invasive plant 

Alternatives to problems: “Research can contribute information on best practices to minimize invasive 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-104 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Pesticides), and 

O’Brien, Mary 

RMC-0222-136 

Salvo, Mark 

(Sagebrush Sea 

Campaign), Cox, 

Caroline (Northwest 

Coalition for 

Alternatives to 

Pesticides), and 

O’Brien, Mary 

RMC-0222-137 

Salvo, Mark 

(Sagebrush Sea 

Campaign), Cox, 

Caroline (Northwest 

Coalition for 

Alternatives to 

Pesticides), and 

O’Brien, Mary 

risks in road maintenance, recreation, range management, prescribed fire, thinning, 

wildlife habitat improvement, and timber management.” Such an analysis is necessary 

for the DEIS [Draft PEIS]/PER to succeed, but it has been ignored in both the[P]EIS 

and NEPA-less PER. 

Response: The BLM does not dispute the conclusions of the reference cited. See Site 

Selection and Treatment Priorities, and Revegetation, in Chapter 2 of the PER for a 

discussion on post-treatment restoration practices. The BLM considers restoration and 

site rehabilitation when designing and planning vegetation treatment projects, and does 

not consider treatments without follow-up actions to ensure the project meets site 

restoration objectives. The BLM agrees with the conclusion that research can 

contribute information on best practices to minimize invasive risks. The BLM relies 

on available past and current research, as well as professional expertise, in applying 

best practices to vegetation treatment projects. 

Comment: The BLM scarcely acknowledges the effects of livestock grazing on sage 

grouse (PER: [pages] 4-80 - 81) and its role in the spread of invasive species, and 

ultimately shirks responsibility for managing grazing in the DEIS [Draft PEIS] /PER 

by stating that such land use decisions are outside the scope of either document. 

“Although this PER addresses vegetation treatments, it will not directly address any 

other aspects of the livestock grazing program” (PER: [page] 1-6). Similarly, the PER 

only addresses soil stabilization as it specifically relates to vegetation treatment 

activities (and not soil disturbance related to land use, such as livestock grazing, which 

creates seedbeds for invasive weeds) (PER: [page] 1-6). The BLM claims that it is not 

permitted to “to restrict, limit, or eliminate FLPMA [Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act]-authorized activities as a means to restore land health” in the DEIS 

[Draft PEIS] /PER (PER: [page] 1-6). 

Response: The effects of livestock grazing on sage-grouse and the spread of invasive 

species are outside the scope of analysis of this PEIS. Under NEPA, analysis of 

impacts of livestock grazing effects on any resource requires a proposed action 

directly related to livestock management, e.g., livestock grazing permit authorizations, 

changes in grazing use or grazing systems. See Proposed Action and Scope of 

Analysis in Chapter 1 of the PEIS for a full description of the issues analyzed in this 

PEIS. 

Comment: However, the BLM is also required by FLPMA [Federal Land Policy 

Management Act] to manage public lands “in a manner that will protect the quality of 

...environmental ...resources” (PER: [page] 1-7). There are many cases across the 

West where the agency has adjusted grazing intensity, duration, and season of use to 

achieve resource goals on public lands without compromising multiple-use 

management. FLPMA allows the BLM to make such adjustments, and the Restore 

Native Ecosystems Alternative [RNE] includes a full set of grazing prescriptions to 

control invasive species and restore native vegetation. Unfortunately, the BLM failed 

to develop its own grazing rules for public lands beset by invasive species. 

Response: The BLM agrees that grazing practices may be adjusted to meet resource 

goals and objectives. The regulations governing adjustments to livestock grazing, 

found at 43 CFR [Code of Federal Regulations] 4100, are not the subject of this PEIS. 

Grazing regulations are addressed in separate EISs related to grazing management, 

including the Range Reform EIS (1995), and more recently in the Proposed Revisions 

to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands (BLM October 2004). See Appendix I in 

the Final PEIS for a policy analysis of the RNE alternative. The grazing prescriptions 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-105 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

contained in this alternative are outside the scope of the analysis of the PEIS. 

Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Documents that Influence the Scope of the PEIS 

EMC-0646-101 Comment: Once again, because the issues are identical, we would respectfully ask 

Californians for that the public record for the Forest Service’s R6 [Region 6] Invasive Plant Program 

Alternatives to Toxics EIS, 2005, (which the BLM is tiering to), be incorporated by reference into the public 

record for this program, the BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides PEIS. 

Some of the comments provided in Appendix A refer to the document USDA 2003 (or 

Bakke 2003). 

Response: The public record of the Forest Service’s Region 6 Invasive Plant Program 

EIS is outside the scope of this PEIS. This PEIS does not tier to the Region 6 EIS. The 

BLM has incorporated by reference into this PEIS the results of recent toxicological 

analyses conducted by the Forest Service. Council on Environmental Quality 

regulations at 40 CFR [Code of Federal Regulations] 1502.21, Incorporation by 

Reference, state: Agencies shall incorporate material into an [EIS] by reference when 

the effect will be to cut down on bulk without impeding agency and public review of 

the action. 

RMC-0163-003 Comment: The last EIS the BLM used to assess, compare and disclose the effects of 

Skrine, Eugene its vegetation treatment program, including - herbicides, manual, mechanical, 

biological control, and the use of fire was developed in the late 1980s and early 1990s. 

A lot has been learned about the underlying causes and behaviors of invasive plants 

since that time. The BLM’s 1980s analysis is likely out of date, and in need of revision 

(Malheur case). Without this type of updated analysis, how can the true effects of the 

treatments be disclosed? Without this type of more inclusive analysis, how can even 

the tradeoffs between the use of different herbicides be accurately disclosed, i.e., “how 

does the public know how critical a certain chemical is to meeting the need for action? 

Is this chemical the only way, or can the problem also be controlled, possibly better, 

thru a combination of methods, including, prevention, and nonchemical treatment 

methods?” 

Response: As noted in the Introduction in Chapter 1 of the PEIS, because much of the 

analysis done in the late 1980s and early 1990s is out of date and covered fewer acres 

than the current proposal, the BLM decided to update the information on herbicide 

(PEIS) and other treatment (PER) uses and their effects. The analysis of effects from 

the use of herbicides on plants and animals was based on risk assessments prepared 

since the late 1990s (and in 2005 for the 10 herbicides analyzed by the BLM), and on 

humans for 6 herbicides evaluated in risk assessments in 2005 and a literature review 

of effects of the other herbicides done in the late 1990s. The PEIS and PER analyzed a 

variety of treatment methods, and combinations, including passive treatments. 

Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, and Policies that Influence 

Vegetation Treatments 

EMC-0606-001 Comment: Why are the previous years’, (1986 all the way through to 1992!)!!!! 

Johnson, Kathy studies/times/monies having to be replaced? Where is the oversight committee and 

who is it? Where is the accountability for those four existing, (implemented?) EIS’s. 

Response: The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) provides oversight to 

implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Environmental impact 

analysis often requires periodic updating to account for new information and to reflect 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-106 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0087-006 

Central Valley 

California Regional 

Water Quality Control 

Board 

RMC-0218-057 

Blue Mountains 

Biodiversity Project, 

League of Wilderness 

Defenders 

RMC-0218-058 

Blue Mountains 

Biodiversity Project, 

League of Wilderness 

Defenders 

the current environmental baseline relative to a proposed action. Replacing existing 

EISs with new analyses furthers the purposes of NEPA and is within the agency's 

discretion to do so and is required under regulation when the agency determines new 

analysis is necessary for understanding environmental effects of agency decisionmaking (43 CFR [Code of Federal Regulations] 1502.4, 1502.9). The CEQ counsels in 

its 40 Most Asked Questions, for EISs that concern on-going programs, EISs more 

than 5 years old should be carefully re-examined to determine if the criteria under 43 

CFR 1502.9 compel preparation of an EIS supplement. The agency made the decision 

to complete one programmatic EIS rather than supplement 4 separate EISs. 

Comment: At the very least, the evaluation of new active ingredients must confirm 

that their use will result in compliance with applicable water quality regulations. Also 

note that new products may not be applied to water unless allowed by the NPDES 

permit. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0087-004 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, and Policies. As stated in 

Chapter 1 under Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, and Policies, the BLM must 

comply with the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act, among other state and 

federal regulations and statutes. 

Comment: The following was not considered (as required) in the BLM PEIS or 

appendixes: “Project practices must be consistent with direction from the February 3, 

1999 Executive Order on Invasive Species (Executive Order #13112), which requires 

federal agencies to use relevant programs and authorities to prevent the introduction 

and spread of invasive species (Noxious Weed Risk Assessment, Appendix B).” (as 

quoted from the 18 Fire Competing Vegetation Control Environmental Assessment, p. 

60, emphasis ours – Deschutes National Forest, Bend-Fort Rock District). 

Response: The BLM is guided by the relevant authorities listed under Relationship to 

Statutes, Regulations, and Priorities of Chapter 1 of the PEIS, including Executive 

Order 13112. The BLM actively uses its relevant programs and authorities to prevent 

the introduction and spread of weeds. The PEIS examines the use of herbicide tools 

for managing vegetation, including the use of herbicides to reduce and prevent the 

spread of weeds. 

Comment: There is a need to ensure compliance with the Clean Water Act in regard 

to prohibiting additional water quality impacts to 303(d) listed water quality – listed 

streams, which was not met by the BLM PEIS, PER or appendixes regarding potential 

herbicide-induced water quality impairment to these streams. This should have been 

analyzed and additional herbicide or other management impairment to 303(d) listed 

streams prohibited at the programmatic level. 

Response: BLM offices are required to coordinate with state agencies and the USEPA 

concerning activities on federal lands in 303(d) listed waterways, to ensure that 

planned activities meet the requirements for no further degradation of those water 

bodies. Degradation includes both immediate and cumulative impacts. Central to this 

analysis is why the water quality has been degraded and whether the action would 

contribute to further or sustained impacts relative to the specific impairment(s) of that 

water body. If this examination shows further or sustained impairment, then these 

agencies will examine alternatives and their impacts and make decisions based on 

these discussions and written comments. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-107 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0087-004 

Central Valley 

California Regional 

Water Quality Control 

Board 

EMC-0213-002 

Mike Carroll (Larimer 

County Weed Control 

District) 

EMC-0267-002 

Medbery, Angela 

EMC-0278-013 

Lutjens, William 

(BLM) 

Streams listed under section 303(d) are listed by the offending pollutant, such as 

sediment, temperature, or a specific metal. In non-agricultural areas it is highly 

unlikely that a stream would be listed on 303(d) for pesticides/herbicides. In the rare 

event that a stream on public lands is listed on 303(d) for pesticides/herbicides, the 

BLM would not continue to apply pesticides/herbicides in that stream’s drainage 

basin. Water quality monitoring is a requirement of every application of pesticide or 

herbicide. Chemical application plans require review and approval by hydrologists to 

ensure, among other things, compliance with the Clean Water Act. 

Comment: Prior to applying aquatic pesticides directly into a waterbody in California, 

the BLM must apply for a Statewide General NDPES [National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System] permit for use of aquatic pesticides. Information regarding this 

permit and the applicable fee schedule can be found at this website: 

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/aquatic/index.html. 

Response: The BLM will follow USEPA, or, if applicable, USEPA-approved state 

guidance, in these matters, including any requirements for permits. Also see response 

to Comment RMC-0087-006 under PEIS Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, 

Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, and Policies and PEIS Alternatives, Herbicide 

Active Ingredients Evaluated under the Proposed Alternatives. 

Comment: You should cite EPA approval of herbicides under the FIFRA (Federal 

Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act) registration process and the danger of 

limiting BLM’s vegetation management tools. 

Response: A discussion of the FIFRA process is in Chapter 1 of the PEIS under 

Federal Laws, Regulations, and Policies that Influence Vegetation Treatments. 

Comment: All people using pesticides on public lands need to be trained, certified, 

registered and/or licensed with regular continuing education according to the relevant 

state regulation. 

Response: As discussed in Chapter 1 of the PEIS under Relationship to Statutes, 

Regulations, and Policies, “All the herbicides evaluated in this PEIS are registered 

with the USEPA, and all applicators that apply them on public lands (i.e., certified 

applicators or those directly supervised by a certified applicator) must comply. . .” It 

is the policy of the BLM, as stated in Manual 9011 (.12) (B.) (5) (a.), that all persons 

applying pesticides, both general and restricted use, on BLM-administered lands be 

certified or under the direct supervision of a certified applicator. The BLM plan for 

training and certification of pesticide applicators, Appendix 2 Handbook H-9011-1, 

Chemical Pest Control, outlines how the BLM certifies its applicators. This process is 

very similar to the method by which individual states certify their respective 

applicators. In both cases, the certification plans are approved by the USEPA. One 

notable exception is that state certification is required only for “restricted use” 

pesticides, while the BLM certification is required for the application of both 

“general” and “restricted use” pesticides. 

Comment: What ability will the BLM have to abide by the Carlson-Foley Act of 1968 

without the aid of herbicides? 

Response: The BLM will continue to abide by all applicable statutes and regulations 

regarding herbicide use, including the Carlson-Foley Act. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-108 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

FXC-0041-008 Comment: I would also encourage BLM to address environmental issues by 

Gunnison Watershed educating those entities in the final decision by explaining EPA’s registration process, 

Weed Commission the best available science (Integrated Pest Management), and the extent of the noxious 

weed issue particularly if herbicides are not used. 

Response: The extent of the weed problem is discussed in detail in Chapter 3 of the 

PER and PEIS under Noxious Weeds and Other Invasive Vegetation in the Vegetation 

section of the chapters. Use of best available science is discussed in Chapter 2 of both 

documents under Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management; the USEPA 

registration process is also discussed in Chapter 2 of the PEIS under Herbicide Active 

Ingredients Evaluated under the Proposed Action, and in Chapter 1 under 

Relationships to Statutes, Laws, and Regulations. Information on registering 

herbicides can also be found on the USEPA website at: 

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/index.htm. 

FXC-0071-022 Comment: I do not believe that BLM is abiding by a number of laws in regards to this 

Campbell, Bruce extensive herbicide spraying proposal. The previous paragraph mentions basically that 

specific needs for vegetation management are not thoroughly addressed, yet if both 

rangeland and forestland herbicide application (and “needs”) were thoroughly 

evaluated, some sane conclusions would be to greatly reduce activities which create 

increasingly dry forests (such as logging big trees and planting overstocked 

monoculture conifer plantations) as well as reduce road-building and vehicular use 

(including logging-related transport as well as off-highway vehicle use) in order to not 

spread noxious and invasive weeds. In this theme of the need to prevent conditions 

which some feel necessitate herbicide applications, and in the spirit and letter of the 

need to obey laws of the USA, I feel that Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species, is 

being violated since it “directs federal agencies to prevent the introduction of invasive 

species”. The Carlson-Foley Act of 1968 and Plant Protection Act of 2000 calls for 

BLM to “prevent, or retard the spread of any noxious weeds in federal lands.” The 

Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Safe Drinking Water Act are all violated by these 

plans. 

Response: See Relationship to Statutes, Regulations and Policies in Chapter 1 of the 

PEIS. The BLM does not agree that any statutes or Executive Orders (EO) are violated 

by the Proposed Action analyzed in the PEIS. The Proposed Action is consistent with 

the direction cited in the Carson-Foley Act and E.O. 13112, as noted in this section of 

the PEIS. 

Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, NEPA Requirements of the Program 

EMC-0155-002 Comment: No longer will BLM have to take the necessary “hard look” at the 

Kozlowski, James C. environmental impacts of any proposed use of herbicides and pesticides in a particular 

(National Society for situation. Rather, once adopted, a programmatic EIS necessarily assumes that the 

Park Resources, environmental impacts of herbicide and pesticide use by BLM has been adequately 

National Recreation addressed on a nationwide basis, making any further analysis of the issue unnecessary 

and Park Association) in subsequent site specific environmental documents. Contrary to BLM’s view, I do 

not think that site-specific analysis of vegetation treatment activities is unrealistic, nor 

is repetitive or routine, given the potential environmental impacts. 

Response: As discussed in Chapter 1 of the PEIS under NEPA Requirements of the 

Program, the PEIS provides overall guidance to the BLM on the use of herbicides and 

Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and other mitigation that must be followed by 

local field offices for specific projects. However, field offices would still be required 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-109 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0405-004 

Hoover, Victoria N. 

EMC-0503-008 

John Day-Snake 

Resource Advisory 

Council 

EMC-0584-087 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0584-090 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-005 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

to conduct their own NEPA analysis of project-specific impacts and to coordinate 

closely with the public during this analysis. Local field offices can use information 

provided in the PEIS when developing their own environmental assessments. For 

example, information on risks to plants, animals, and humans that resulted from the 

risk assessments could be used by local field offices to determine appropriate 

treatments, SOPs, and mitigation. 

Comment: Site-specific information, needed to make decisions, is lacking. A 

programmatic EIS like this, that generalizes management, fails because it is impossible 

to know if a vegetative treatment is appropriate, or what its impacts would be, without 

detailed site-specific information. Some management actions might be appropriate, but 

this document does not allow members of the public to ascertain the facts, so it is quite 

useless, and contrary to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) to disclose the impacts of a proposed action. 

Response: The information required to make decisions on adopting the use of certain 

herbicides on public lands is presented in the PEIS. A Programmatic EIS represents a 

broad analysis and is not intended to be site-specific. Site-specific analysis will occur 

at such time as a project is proposed. 

Comment: We feel that BLM should describe the process by which this [P]EIS will 

be used to develop on-the-ground treatments. Provide enough detail to describe the 

step-down process to on-the-ground projects. 

Response: See NEPA Requirements of the Program and Figure 1-1 in Chapter 1 of 

the PEIS. 

Comment: The BLM must require as part of the [P]EIS/PER ROD [Record of 

Decision] that all future projects that are tiered or related to this EIS undergo, further 

environmental review at the level of an EA [Environmental Assessment] or EIS with 

full and open public comment and participation in the process. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0155-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, NEPA Requirements of the Program. 

Comment: BLM should use this [P]EIS process to set science-based post 

fire/treatment standards to be incorporated in all ESR [Emergency Stabilization and 

Rehabilitation] agency plans. 

Response: The purpose of the PEIS is to provide an analysis of impacts to human 

health and public land resources resulting from the expected increase in the use of 

herbicides. The PER provides Standard Operating Procedures that are relevant to 

vegetation management and restoration activities at the programmatic level and may 

be incorporated into locally developed ESR plans, as appropriate. 

Comment: The [P]EIS analysis is to be used so that at the NEPA document level, 

“they [BLM] don’t have to do another 30,000 to 60,000 dollar risk assessment”. So 

when it comes time to do the project, BLM plans to do NEPA but apply BMPs [Best 

Management Practices] laid out in the PEIS. Yet, PEIS BMPs are woefully deficient, 

and there is no requirement to conduct NEPA at a level of at least an EA 

[Environmental Assessment] or EIS that will allow full public participation. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-110 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0585-086 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

PHC-005-007 

K. Fite

RMC-0070-004 

California Regional 

Water Quality Control 

Board 

Response: See NEPA Requirements of the Program and Figure 1-1 in Chapter 1 of 

the PEIS. Site-specific NEPA analysis, including public participation, is required for 

all vegetation treatment projects. Site-specific mitigation measures would be 

developed at the project level based on the site-specific analysis, and would be applied 

to the project in addition to the Standard Operating Procedures and requirements 

developed through this PEIS. 

Comment: BLM punts to its Land Use Plans for uses and allocations. Many BLM 

Land Use Plans are based on tremendously outdated information, and allow a broad 

array of very damaging activities − facts that BLM has not analyzed and assessed in 

the PEIS. These include gross over-allocation of AUMs [Animal Unit Months] 

(especially since unreliable and unsustainable cheatgrass and other weed production 

now envelops so many grazing allotments), and lands completely Open to motorized 

uses or plans on paper, but no Travel Plans that allow control of roading. As reduction 

or cessation of livestock use on lands is a passive treatment, it must be addressed in the 

[P]EIS. 

Response: Assessment of the data used to develop approved BLM land use plans, or 

the allocations derived from the public process in development of an approved land 

use plan, is outside of the scope of this project. Passive treatments are discussed in 

Chapter 2 of the PEIS and PER under Prevention of Weeds and Early Detection and 

Rapid Response. The reduction or cessation of livestock grazing is a resource 

allocation decision, not a vegetation treatment proposal. Passive treatments are 

proposed, designed and decided in the same manner as any other treatment method the 

BLM utilizes for vegetation control and must meet land use plan goals and objectives 

in a similar manner. Removing or curtailing an authorized use from public lands does 

not necessarily constitute a passive vegetation treatment. 

Comment: So what we have here is an agency proposing massive new disturbance – 

and going back to Nevada again – having just reviewed the ELRMP [Ely Resource 

Management Plan], what does the [Ely] RMP propose to do, but treat millions of acres 

of pinyon juniper, woody vegetation. They aren’t focusing on the cheatgrass, or the 

extensive crested wheatgrass seedings, which are basically biological deserts out there. 

No, they are planning radically disturbing, through the use of fire, through the use of 

mechanical methods, valuable pinyon juniper forests. 

Response: The BLMs Resource Management Plan (RMP) planning process is the 

appropriate forum to outline future vegetation treatment programs, objectives, and 

treatment methods. The allocations proposed in the Ely Draft RMP are outside the 

scope of this programmatic analysis. 

Comment: These objectives require that no levels of herbicides be detectable in 

waters (including wetlands) of the Lahontan Region at any time. Your [P]EIS should: 

(1) clearly acknowledge these requirements, (2) provide for adequate mitigation 

measures to assure compliance with these objectives, and (3) provide for adequate 

monitoring and reporting to assess compliance with these objectives. 

Response: Actions to meet local herbicide-use requirements and mitigation and 

monitoring measures would be developed at the local field level, as discussed in 

Chapter 1 of the PEIS under NEPA Requirements of the Program. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-111 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0095-010 

New Mexico 

Department of Game 

and Fish 

RMC-0221-047 

Center for Biological 

Diversity 

EMC-0630-011 

Porter, Mark C. 

(Wallowa Resources) 

Comment: We therefore recommend that a Supplemental D[raft] PEIS be developed 

to addresses these issues. The Supplemental may need to develop new alternatives for 

public consideration, but at the least, should propose new best management practices, 

standard operating procedures, and recommended mitigations, standards and 

guidelines based on the findings of the new analyses. 

Response: Council on Environmental Quality regulations at 40 CFR [Code of Federal 

Regulations] 1502.9 provide the standards for issuing a Supplemental EIS. The 

regulation states: Agencies 1) Shall prepare supplements to either drafts or final 

environmental impact statements if: (i) The Agency makes substantial changes in the 

proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns; (ii) There are significant 

new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on 

the proposed action or its impacts. The issues identified in the Draft PEIS have been 

adequately analyzed at the programmatic level. The BLM has not made any 

substantial changes in its proposed action, nor has the analysis or public comment 

identified significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental 

concerns which would compel BLM to publish a supplemental EIS. 

Comment: The D[raft] PER states that 3.5 million acres would be treated primarily 

for hazardous fuels reduction and to control fires in the WUI. This is more than half of 

the total vegetation treatment area identified in the D[raft] PER and D[raft] PEIS of 6 

million acres annually. Because there is no meaningful identification or analysis of the 

impacts of the project on WUI areas, site-specific NEPA analysis of any such projects 

must be undertaken when those site-specific projects are proposed. The BLM cannot 

rely on this D[raft] PEIS or D[raft] PER to truncate future NEPA analysis or to 

categorically exclude any of these actions from subsequent site-specific analysis. 

Response: The section in Chapter 1 of the PEIS under NEPA Requirements of the 

Program clearly states that step-down, site-specific NEPA analysis is required. Local 

level analysis will meet the requirements of NEPA; analysis will be focused on 

whatever issues (such as listed in the comment) are identified locally by the BLM and 

the public. 

Comment: Another area of the [P]EIS that needs clarification is how this document 

will be put into use on the ground. There was not a clear process outlined as to how the 

adopted [P]EIS will be used by the districts and management units to go about on the 

ground work. 

Response: The NEPA Requirements of the Program are given in Chapter 1 and on 

Figure 1-1 of the Draft PEIS. 

Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Interrelationships and Coordination with Agencies 

EMC-0155-004 Comment: Given the potential impact of the proposed programmatic EIS might on 

Kozlowski, James C. National Parks and Monuments in 17 states, I question whether this proposed project 

(National Society for was adequately coordinated with the National Park Service in addition to the other 

Park Resources, federal agencies noted by BLM. In addition, to the National Park Service, I would 

National Recreation hope that BLM would promote coordination among state and local recreation resource 

and Park Association) managers in the states potentially affected by the proposed programmatic EIS. 

Response: The BLM regularly coordinates with local, state, and federal agencies, 

including the National Park Service (see Interrelationships and Coordination with 

Agencies in Chapter 1 of the PEIS), and environmental and conservation 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-112 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0295-002 

Thompson, Julie 

RMC-0205-024 

Oregon Department of 

Agriculture 

EMC-0315-002 

Arizona Game and Fish 

Department 

EMC-0315-004 

Arizona Game and Fish 

Department 

organizations. This coordination occurs at the national and local levels of the BLM. In 

addition, agencies were provided with copies of the Draft PEIS and PER and asked to 

provide comments on the documents. 

Comment: I would like to see the BLM apply some type of pressure/encouragement 

to the county governments in the areas where you are planning to use the herbicides. 

Many counties have a prison population that could be transported to these remote 

areas to do some manual labor. If I had a choice to sit in a cell or get out into the back 

country for a few days, do some camping and see the stars, I'd pull weeds to do it. We 

have other options besides chemicals. Please be a little more creative in accomplishing 

your goals. This is the wilderness we are talking about. 

Response: As discussed under Interrelationships and Coordination with Agencies in 

Chapter 1 of the PEIS, the BLM is actively involved in coordinating with local 

governments and in participating with local Cooperative Weed Management Areas. 

The BLM utilizes numerous partnerships across the public lands to leverage its 

funding and capacity to manage vegetation on the ground. Many BLM field offices 

also utilize volunteers and other types of labor, including low-risk prison populations, 

for BLM non-herbicide vegetation treatment projects. 

Comment: We recommend that BLM establish direct communication with the public 

water system operator or community liaison downstream of the BLM land 

management areas. There are no requirements to develop or implement “drinking 

water protection plans” in Oregon, but the communities that elect to move forward 

voluntarily will request that BLM be involved in the planning and protection of that 

source area. 

Response: Interrelationships and Coordination with Other Agencies is discussed in 

Chapter 1 of the PEIS. Local BLM field offices are encouraged to coordinate with 

local agencies and the public concerning any herbicide project that could affect ground 

or surface drinking or agricultural water sources. The BLM agrees that it should be 

involved in planning drinking water protection plans for local communities. 

Comment: We request that close coordination between the [Arizona Game and Fish] 

Department and BLM occur prior to the implementation of treatments to reduce 

negative impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0144-018 under Proposed Action and 

Purpose and Need, Interrelationships and Coordination with Agencies. 

Comment: The [Arizona Game and Fish] Department supports the idea of vegetation 

treatments designed to improve fish, wildlife, and native plant habitats. We applaud 

the Bureau’s efforts to use additional tools and strategies to address vegetation 

concerns, particularly invasive species issues. We request that the Department be 

involved with treatment planning and implementation level activities. Additionally, we 

request BLM coordinate with the Department regarding potential negative impacts to 

any potentially affected wildlife population (including game species) prior to 

implementation of treatments. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0144-018 under Proposed Action and 

Purpose and Need, Interrelationships and Coordination with Agencies. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-113 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0446-014 

The Nature 

Conservancy 

EMC-0533-021 

Colorado Farm Bureau 

EMC-0584-086 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

Comment: We believe that the PEIS and PER should put greater emphasis on 

coordination with other Federal and State agencies on vegetation management 

treatments and new herbicide proposals to meet the stated intent of building 

collaborative relationships. The BLM coordinates with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS] on potential 

impacts to Federally-listed, proposed and candidate species. The BLM should also 

initiate coordination with USFWS on conserving migratory Birds of Conservation 

Concern, both at the project level and for new herbicide proposals. Department of the 

Interior and BLM policy requires annual coordination with state wildlife agencies on 

management proposals. To be most successful, this coordination should be designed to 

pro-actively meet conservation and recovery goals for all species of concern rather 

than merely avoiding “jeopardy” or minimizing adverse effects to these species. The 

PEIS and PER should require early and pro-active coordination with all agencies 

involved in the management of fish, wildlife and rare plant resources. 

Response: Coordination with other agencies and interested parties is discussed in 

several sections of the PEIS, PER, and Biological Assessment (BA). These sections 

include Chapter 1 (Interrelationships and Coordination with Agencies), Chapter 2 

(Coordination and Education in PEIS, and Coordination in PER), and Chapter 5 

(Consultation and Coordination) in the PEIS; Chapter 1 (Interrelationships and 

Coordination with Agencies) and Chapter 2 (Coordination) of the PER; and Chapter 3 

of the BA (Species Status Species Management Consultation Protocol). Coordination 

with agencies is also discussed extensively in Appendixes B (Human Health Risk 

Assessment), C (Ecological Risk Assessment), E (Protocol for Identifying, Evaluating, 

and Using New Herbicides, and G (Tribal and Agency Consultation). The USFWS, 

NMFS, and USEPA coordinated extensively with the BLM during preparation of the 

risk assessments and in evaluating risks to species of concern. 

Comment: For example, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has 

published for public comment a Draft Action Plan on Noxious Weeds. Like the BLM 

document, the APHIS draft does not mention coordination with BLM or other 

agencies in implementing its action plan. We submit that BLM and APHIS must work 

together on both of these plans if either one is to be effective. We have suggested to 

APHIS that they work with BLM, and we suggest to BLM that they work together 

with APHIS and other agencies. 

Response: See Chapter 1 of the PEIS under Interrelationships and Coordination with 

Agencies. The BLM coordinates with federal agencies that administer laws that 

govern activities on public lands. The BLM and APHIS operate cooperatively through 

a national-level Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The Action Plan from 

APHIS referenced in the comment is The Draft Weed Action Plan developed by 

APHIS for the implementation of the Plant Protection Act. The Action Plan is related 

to APHIS regulatory plans, not specific to interagency cooperation. However, the 

BLM would coordinate with APHIS on implementation of the Plant Protection Act 

and other activities on BLM-managed lands, per the National MOU. 

Comment: BLM and the Forest Service often embark on fire-related/treatment 

projects. The interrelationships of all ongoing or planned activities in this region, 

including across ownership boundaries, must be fully explored. 

Response: See Chapter 1 of the PEIS under Interrelationships and Coordination with 

Agencies. The BLM and Forest Service cooperate extensively on projects involving 

fire management. They were the two primary agency leads on the development of the 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-114 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0144-003 

Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department 

RMC-0233-009 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

RMC-0233-017 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

EMC-0446-010 

The Nature 

Conservancy 

National Fire Plan (USDI and USDA 2001a) and Protecting People and Sustaining 

Resources in Fire Adapted Ecosystems: A Cohesive Strategy (USDA and USDI 

2006b). The BLM also worked closely with the Forest Service during development of 

the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, which covers fire and 

other natural resource management activities on BLM- and Forest Serviceadministered lands in the Pacific Northwest. 

Comment: Several of the activities, as cited in many sections, will have impacts to 

fish and wildlife resources, their habitats, and associated recreational opportunities. 

We recommend that BLM consult with State Fish and Wildlife Agencies prior to, and 

during development, implementation and monitoring of vegetation treatment activities. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0233-017 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Interrelationships and Coordination with Agencies. 

Comment: We applaud BLM’s commitment to the concept in the D[raft] PEIS/PER 

and recommend that they engage in a cooperative effort with the Service, State 

wildlife agencies, and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to develop a consistent, 

seamless monitoring approach for HFRA [Healthy Forests Restoration Act] projects in 

the final PEIS/PER. The State of Utah offers as an example, the Utah Partners for 

Conservation and Development, an organized interagency entity which coordinates 

vegetation restoration projects and can provide the structure and support in which to 

design such a monitoring system. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0081-003 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Coordination and Education. The BLM supports collaborating on an interagency basis 

to develop consistent monitoring approaches for vegetation treatments, including 

HFRA projects. At this time such a monitoring system has not been designed. This 

PEIS recognizes the value and need for monitoring of vegetation treatments. However, 

development of a monitoring approach among all federal and state regulatory and 

wildlife agencies, specifically for HFRA projects, is beyond the scope of this PEIS. 

Comment: We recommend that the BLM ensure that proposed management actions 

in the final PEIS/PER not conflict with either State or local working group activities 

designed to benefit sage-grouse. We encourage BLM to contact each State wildlife 

agency sage-grouse coordinator to facilitate communication and coordination on these 

issues for the final PEIS/PER. 

Response: The BLM coordinates extensively with state fish and wildlife agencies on 

issues related to sage-grouse and other fish and wildlife. BLM representatives often 

are participants in committees developing and overseeing sage-grouse restoration 

plans and activities in the western U.S. 

Comment: Regional coordination/integration of vegetation management practices: 

For vegetation management of this magnitude (24 percent of all BLM-managed public 

land would be treated in the first decade) coordination of treatment goals, priorities 

and areas to be protected should occur above the project and field office levels. Due to 

the scale of treatments in some areas (over 50 percent of all fuels reduction projects 

would occur in one ecoregion) specific regional strategies that include additional 

multi-agency regional analysis, priority setting among adjacent landowners, and 

management guidelines is needed to ensure projects are designed to restore ecological 

function rather than contribute to the continued decline of certain community types, 

particularly sagebrush and other shrub communities. The BLM’s Great Basin 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-115 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0070-007 

California Regional 

Water Quality Control 

Board 

RMC-0081-003 

Arizona Game and Fish 

Department 

RMC-0144-018 

Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department 

Restoration Initiative makes a good start in describing general treatment needs for 

public land within the Great Basin, but the treatment goals need to be more specific for 

particular plant communities and ecological condition, better integrated with 

sagebrush management guidelines, consistent with regional sage-grouse and other 

special status species restoration strategies, and prioritized with other agencies 

conservation and restoration strategies to be effective. 

Response: The implementation recommendations on the types of vegetation methods 

identified in the Great Basin Restoration Initiative and other initiatives for vegetation 

treatments are incorporated in the analysis of the PEIS and PER for the purpose of 

managing vegetation to restore ecological function, reduce fuels, and control and 

manage noxious and invasive weeds. The BLM’s interrelationship and coordination 

with agencies is discussed in Chapter 1 of the PEIS under Interrelationships and 

Coordination with Agencies. At the local level, BLM field offices closely coordinate 

projects with their partners and adjacent landowners, and will incorporate the broad 

level analysis within this PEIS into local land use plans and more specifically into sitespecific level analysis. 

Comment: Your [P]EIS should specify that this office requires ample notification of 

specific weed control projects which utilize pesticides within the Lahontan Region. 

Such notification is necessary for us to be able to assess compliance with State water 

quality standards. Your [P]EIS should also specify that this office will receive copies 

of monitoring results related to water quality within the Lahontan Region. 

Response: See Chapter 1 of the Final PEIS under Interrelationships and Coordination 

with Agencies. The type of coordination described is accomplished at the local field 

office level. The text has been revised to clarify this relationship. Specific notification 

and monitoring requirements for your agency need to be communicated to the field 

office within your jurisdiction. In most cases these relationships are already 

established among the state regulatory and federal agencies. 

Comment: The Department supports the idea of vegetation treatments designed to 

improve fish, wildlife, and native plant habitats. We applaud the Bureau’s efforts to 

use additional tools and strategies to address vegetation concerns, particularly invasive 

species issues. We request that the Department be involved with treatment planning 

and implementation level activities. Additionally, we request BLM coordinate with the 

Department regarding potential negative impacts to any potentially affected wildlife 

population (including game species) prior to implementation of treatments. 

Response: Site-specific analysis is coordinated with the appropriate county, state, and 

federal agencies. It is crucial that the BLM coordinate with local state fish and game 

agencies when developing local site-specific analysis for vegetation treatment projects. 

Comment: Pages 2-31 and 2-32 [of the Draft PEIS] cite that fish and wildlife may be 

harmed or killed using some herbicides. State fish and wildlife agencies are 

responsible for wildlife management and we are concerned that the BLM may not 

adequately consult and coordinate with those agencies in the planning, development, 

execution and post treatment management of the treatments. We believe strong 

partnerships between the BLM and state agencies will alleviate these concerns. 

Response: Management of wildlife on the public lands is a partnership between the 

BLM, which manages the habitats, and the appropriate state wildlife agency, which 

manages the animals. All vegetation treatments will affect some wildlife and/or its 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-116 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

habitat. The BLM is required to seek the involvement of the public in the 

environmental analysis, land use planning, and implementation decision-making 

process to address local, regional, and national interests. The BLM is ultimately 

responsible for land use plan decisions, including vegetation management on public 

lands. Collaborative relationships with stakeholders, including individuals, 

communities, governments, and the state wildlife agency, improves communication, 

provides the BLM with a greater understanding of different perspectives, and helps the 

BLM find solutions to issues and problems. The NEPA process requires the BLM to 

notify the public of a proposed project, and give the public an opportunity to comment 

on the site-specific analysis done for the project. It is critical for the BLM to notify 

potentially affected parties of treatment activities that occur on public lands and 

provide an opportunity to comment on the proposed action, and to take any steps 

needed to mitigate the effects of the action. Treatment actions may be modified in 

response to comments posed by the public. 

RMC-0144-023 Comment: We compliment the BLM on the work, program goals and objectives 

Wyoming Game and addressed in the documents. We strongly recommend the BLM include a requirement 

Fish Department to consult and collaborate with state wildlife agencies in the planning, implementation, 

and monitoring of vegetation treatments based on the potential short and long-term 

effects on fish and wildlife populations and their habitat and associated wildlife 

recreational activities. Strong partnerships could alleviate many of these concerns. 

Response: The BLM agrees. See the discussion in Chapter 1 of the PEIS regarding 

interrelationships and Coordination with Agencies. 

Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Consultation 

EMC-0619-005 Comment: 16 USC [United States Code] § 1536(a)(2) [ESA [Endangered Species 

Bellovary, Christopher Act] § 7(a)(2)] requires that the BLM receive appropriate Biological Opinions from 

the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service before engaging 

in official agency action that may result in harm to threatened and endangered species. 

At this point, I haven’t seen any indication that this has been performed, but clearly 

would need to be done before the BLM can engage in the spraying of these herbicides. 

I strongly suggest that this oversight be remedied. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0214-040 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Special Status Species. It is anticipated that the Services will issue a Biological 

Opinion or written concurrence with the BLMs finding that the proposed action “may 

affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” listed species or critical habitat. 

Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Public Involvement, Scoping, and Issues 

EMC-0585-078 Comment: BLM has failed to evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives, and take a 

Western Watersheds hard look (best done through comparisons of relative impacts under various 

Project alternative), of the large-scale vegetation manipulation and treatment that it proposes. 

Response: As discussed in Chapter 1 of the PEIS under Development of the 

Alternatives, the BLM developed a range of alternatives based on information 

obtained from the public during scoping. In turn, the alternatives analysis was based 

on the number of acres proposed for treatment for each alternative and reflects the 

scale of vegetation treatment proposed for each alternative. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-117 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0057-006 Comment: The D[raft] [P]PEIS fails to consider an alternative that prohibits 

California Wilderness mechanical treatments in areas with wilderness characteristics. Council on 

Coalition Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations require a reasonable range of alternatives to 

be presented and analyzed in the [P]EIS so that issues are “sharply defined” and the 

EIS provides “a clear basis for choice among options...” 40 C.F.R. [Code of Federal 

Regulations] § 1502.14. CEQ regulations and court decisions make clear that the 

discussion of alternatives is “the heart” of the NEPA process. Environmental analyses 

must "[r]igorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives.” 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0057-007 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Development of the Alternatives. 

RMC-0057-007 Comment: Given the extensive concern for WSAs [wilderness study areas] and other 

California Wilderness areas with wilderness characteristics demonstrated during the scoping process, the 

Coalition BLM should have prepared an action alternative that responds to these concerns. This 

violates NEPA’s requirements to develop a full range of alternatives and to explore 

each in detail (40 CFR [Code of Federal Regulations] 1502.14, 1505.1). 

Response: The PEIS programmatically covers all public lands administered by BLM, 

including special areas such as WSAs, wilderness, and areas with wilderness 

characteristics. Concern regarding vegetative treatments in these areas is noted. 

Activities conducted in WSAs are guided by non-impairment and minimum tool 

requirements outlined in the Wilderness Study Area Interim Management Plan (IMP) 

Handbook H-8550-1. Activities in designated wilderness are guided by the Wilderness 

Act, Wilderness management plans, and minimum requirements and tool analysis. 

Activities within areas with wilderness characteristics are guided by local land use 

plans. In all cases, for any proposed project with potential effects to these special 

areas, impacts are assessed through project-specific NEPA analysis and mitigation 

applied where appropriate. Scoping did not result in identification of any issues that 

remain unresolved and need to be addressed through a separate alternative specific to 

wilderness, on a national programmatic basis. 

RMC-0067-007 Comment: BLM should revisit its preferred alternative and select an alternative that 

Wyoming Outdoor relies less on the broadcast use of herbicides and instead focuses on biological means 

Council of control and very selective use of herbicides as the means of reducing catastrophic 

wildfires and invasions of noxious weeds. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0003-005 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Revegetation. 

Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Preview of the Remainder of the PEIS 

EMC-0585-241 Comment: Table 1-1 [of the Draft PEIS] claims livestock grazing is addressed in 2 

Western Watersheds places, 1-1, 2-15 (statement that BLM ‘recommends’ as a SOP [Standard Operating 

Project Procedure] that grazing animals be fed only weed free forage for a minimum of 96 

hours prior to going onto public lands’, and also bundles a mention of ‘poor gazing 

management’ under 1-4, 2-14 (eliminates consideration of no grazing alt.), and 

Chapter 4. 2-15 states [text missing from comment]. 

Response: Livestock grazing and related issues are covered elsewhere in the PEIS, 

especially in Chapter 4, and in the PER. We have included references to these sections 

in Table 1-1 of the Final PEIS. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-118 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Alternatives, Introduction 

RMC-0138-003 Comment: The Pitkin County Weed Advisory Board fully supports alternative B, 

Pitkin County Weed although we feel great caution should be exercised in expanding herbicide use and 

Advisory Board increasing the number of acres to control. We feel other alternatives would hold back 

weed control progress on the 262 million acres the BLM controls. 

Response: Your comment has been noted. 

Alternatives, BLM Programs Responsible for Herbicide Treatments 

EMC-0640-029 Comment: An approach that emphasizes allowing natural factors to control 

Animal Welfare ecosystem processes where and when applicable is entirely consistent with the legal 

Institute framework under which the BLM operates. Specifically, BLM’s multiple use mandate 

only requires the agency to allow for appropriate multiple use of its land. It does not 

mandate that the BLM facilitate such use by manipulating nature or natural processes 

in ways that would adversely affected native species of fauna or flora. 

Response: See Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action in Chapter 1 of the PEIS. 

The BLM is not proposing to facilitate multiple use of the public lands by 

manipulating nature or natural processes in ways that would adversely affect native 

species of fauna or flora. BLM vegetation treatments are designed to meet land use 

plan goals and objectives for vegetation for the overall benefit of native species and 

their habitat. 

PHC-005-006 Comment: As part of the treatments that are going to be conducted under the Healthy 

K. Fite Forests Initiative, fire funds will be used to buy these herbicides that are going to be 

sprayed on public lands, while at the same time, we aren’t addressing the unnecessary 

roading on public lands. We aren’t addressing the run-a-muck now, oil and gas 

exploration, including in Brian’s home state of Nevada, where there are now suddenly 

all these proposals for ramped oil and gas exploration across very fragile sagebrush 

landscapes in sage grouse habitats, pygmy rabbit habitats, etc. 

Response: Herbicide projects would be funded through a variety of BLM natural 

resource programs, not exclusively fire funds. Off-road vehicle use, access, and oil and 

gas leasing issues are addressed in land use plans and are outside the scope of this 

PEIS. 

RMC-0130-002 Comment: What my biggest concern is – is who is to gain? It certainly is not our 

Craig, Diane lands, they have evolved perfectly on their own accord and have their own built in 

abilities to deal with invasive plants (introduced by man and domesticated animals I 

might add); it certainly is not the people who use the lands after all who would choose 

willfully and consciously to walk through a cocktail of poisons, carcinogens, mutagens 

and hormone disrupting chemicals. It certainly would not be the wildlife that would 

have something to gain after all do they have bank accounts to roll that huge sum of 

dollars into as the taxpayers pay for this both on a national and local level. I for one 

am abhorred that the money I work honestly and hard for would be used to 

exterminate so many species on our planet. 

Response: See responses to Comment EMC-0646-174 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Cumulative Effects Analysis and Comment RMC-0049-003 under 

PEIS Environmental Consequences, How the Effects of the Alternatives Were 

Estimated. The BLM manages public lands on behalf of the American public. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-119 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0544-004 Comment: [The following concern should be addressed:] How oil and gas operations 

Public Lands will be managed while vegetation is being re-established 

Advocacy 

Response: The BLM has several oil and natural gas development environmental 

standard operating procedures for noxious and invasive weed prevention and control. 

Refer to BLM Washington Office Instruction Memorandum 2004-194 on 

environmental Best Management Practices policy and the “Operations BMPs” 

identified at: http://www.blm.gov/bmp/Technical_Information.htm. The BLM 

resource specialist evaluates each oil and natural gas drilling and production proposal 

and determines, on a site-specific basis, the most appropriate noxious weed prevention 

and control measures or Best Management Practices for the situation. 

Alternatives, Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management 

EMC-0027-003 Comment: I feel that a much stronger emphasis should be placed on how the Bureau 

McNeel, Hank of Land Management and their cooperators utilize a combination of Integrated Weed 

Management. I realize that you are mainly covering herbicides in this PEIS but if you 

do not stress the balanced approach of an Integrated Weed Management approach 

much of the public still think that all the BLM does is use herbicides. You need to 

have a brief on the comparison of different control techniques and methods from the 

Annual Integrated Weed Management Reports that the Washington Office is supposed 

to receive from all BLM State Offices annually. 

Response: Chapter 2 of the PER discusses the treatment methods and planning that 

would be used by the BLM, including Site Selection and Treatment Priorities. We 

have expanded the discussion in this section, and have included this material in the 

Final PEIS to help the public better understand that the BLM would use fire use and 

manual, mechanical, and biological control treatment methods, in addition to herbicide 

use, and that herbicide use would comprise only about 16% of treatments. Also see 

responses to Comment RMC-0003-005 under PER Vegetation Treatment Programs, 

Policies, and Methods, Revegetation and Comment RMC-0222-059 under PEIS 

Alternatives, Prevention of Weeds and Early Detection and Rapid Response. 

EMC-0145-002 Comment: Integrated vegetation management is now a science in a mature phase that 

Wahl, Mark can obviate much pesticide usage. The toxics in very small quantities are being shown 

by current research to be extremely harmful to wildlife. 

Response: Herbicides would be used on only about 16% of acres treated annually, as 

discussed in the response to Comment RMC-0003-005 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Revegetation. Based on ecological risk 

assessments conducted for the PEIS (see Appendix C of the PEIS), most of the 

proposed treatment scenarios would result in low risk to wildlife, and Standard 

Operating Procedures and mitigation identified in Tables 2-8 and 2-9 of the PEIS 

would help to further reduce these risks. 

EMC-0233-002 Comment: I do not feel this is an effective way to deal with an invasive plant 

Dyber, Kenneth James problem. Before drenching our lands with herbicides, please consider the reasons for 

this invasive plant problem, such as use of off road vehicles, large timber harvests & 

livestock grazing. These practices all encourage invasive weeds on BLM land. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-120 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0286-004 Comment: Each Colorado BLM Field Office should be required to develop and 

Elzinga, Stephen implement an Integrated Weed Management Plan (IWMP) (Local governing bodies in 

(Eagle County Weed Colorado operate under this requirement). Each BLM Field Office should have a 

and Pest Department) staffer, a professional series position, tasked with meeting that unit’s IWMP 

management objectives. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0210-053 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Coordination and Education. 

EMC-0291-002 Comment: I believe that much more attention needs to be given to premanagement 

Maxwell, Bruce assessment of the weed populations in order to make economic and environmentally 

(Montana State sound decisions. Herbicides, or any other form of management should not be allowed 

University) to be used on public lands until there is scientifically sound evidence that populations 

are invasive and represent a significant threat to management goals. Literature that 

makes general statements about the invasiveness of species is not adequate to become 

a rationale for management of these species. There seems to be a general assumption 

that species listed on noxious weed lists are extremely invasive under all conditions 

and will always have a significant impact, regardless of the management objective. 

Plant species are not invasive. Species can have populations that are invasive, but there 

are no cases that, I know of, where all populations of any given weed species are 

invasive. We have accumulated many measurements over the past 10 years that 

convincingly draw into question these assumptions that have become commonplace. I 

am defining invasive as a population that is consistently increasing in density and/or 

spatial extent. The definition of invasive also commonly includes a population that is 

having a significant impact on management objectives 

Response: Noxious weeds are a legal definition promulgated by state law. Not all 

noxious weeds are considered extremely invasive under all conditions. Invasive plants 

exhibit characteristics that tend toward long-term dominance of a vegetation 

community. Please refer to the Glossary of the PEIS and PER for definitions of 

invasive plants and noxious weeds. Invasive species may also include biological 

organisms, including but not limited to, animals, insects, and parasites. 

EMC-0306-005 Comment: In order for the BLM to implement the proposed action it would require a 

Klamath RiverKeeper consistent annual budget at the level required to implement its’ proposed program. 

Program and Klamath Government budget are subject to fluctuations and shortfalls. The effective 

Forest Alliance management of invasive plants can only occur if there is consistent and thorough 

management annually. Without persistent and thorough annual management the 

program can not be successful. 

Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0038-009 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management and Comment RMC-0144-025 

under PEIS Alternatives, Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management. 

EMC-0306-006 Comment: The use of herbicides will eliminate various other non-target plants on the 

Klamath RiverKeeper application sites. Reducing desired native plant population and concentrations will 

Program and Klamath create a condition that increases the potential and likelihood for invasive plants. 

Forest Alliance Furthermore, the ineffective control of invasive plants by using herbicides will result 

in the development of herbicide resistant invasive plants. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0646-191 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management regarding the types of vegetation 

targeted by herbicides. Herbicide resistance is the inherited ability of a plant to survive 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-121 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0306-015 

Klamath River Keeper 

Program and Klamath 

Forest Alliance 

EMC-0306-016 

Klamath River Keeper 

Program and Klamath 

Forest Alliance 

an herbicide application to which the wild-type was susceptible. Resistant plants occur 

naturally within a population and differ slightly in genetic makeup but remain 

reproductively compatible with the wild-type. Herbicide resistant plants are present in 

a population in extremely small numbers. The repeated use of one herbicide allows 

these few plants to survive and reproduce. The number of resistant plants then 

increases in the population until the herbicide no longer effectively controls the weed. 

Herbicide resistance is not the natural tolerance that some species have to an herbicide. 

The appearance of herbicide-resistant weeds is strongly linked to repeated use of the 

same herbicide or herbicides with the same site of action in a monoculture cropping 

system or in non-crop areas. 

See Comment EMC-0267-007 under PEIS Alternatives, Herbicide Modes of Action 

and Treatment Methods for strategies to minimize development of resistant weed 

species. 

Comment: To achieve effectiveness, all BLM Programs/Projects must clearly identify 

the Goals and objectives, including the desired future condition. The desired future 

condition needs to identify what plant community (native or not) is needed at each site. 

A plant community that best meets the goals and objectives needs to be part of the 

desired condition. Identification of the type of ecosystem being managed will help 

provide varying direction. Ecosystem ex: Agricultural, Urban/Suburban, and 

Wildland. All laws, regulations, and policies need to be followed. 

Response: The Draft PEIS addresses the use of herbicides as a tool to treat vegetation. 

Goals, objectives, and desired future conditions are expressed in the controlling local 

land use plan that provides the context for any proposed vegetation treatment, as 

discussed under Scope of Analysis in the Decisions to be Made and Scope of Analysis 

section of Chapter 1 of the PEIS. This PEIS does not make any land use decisions or 

allocations. 

Comment: To achieve effectiveness, all BLM Programs/Projects must develop a 

comprehensive strategy, that identifies all of the integrated elements, including a cost 

benefits analysis and the level of success that is expected. (See SRRC [Salmon River 

Restoration Council] 13 Steps Program at www.srrc.org or in its’ brochures and 

handouts). Proven methods need to be utilized, where appropriate. Strategies need to 

include various assessments and recommendations including: identifying what values 

needs to be protected and restored; what are the risks associated with the noxious 

weeds; opportunities and constraints; short and long term cost of management, and 

timeline of actions to be taken. Action Plans must include tasks such as: preventing the 

spread at all levels; stakeholder education; coordination /communication; completing a 

comprehensive inventory of all prioritized species; developing annual work plans for 

each species; tracking and effectiveness monitoring; and an inclusive program that 

covers all of the vectors and emphasizes early detection, rapid, response, thorough and 

persistent treatment, zero seed prescription, and uses the most appropriate tool. Each 

population needs to visited at least 3 times a year and have at least 2 sets of eyes per 

visit. Many species need to be managed year round. All life stages need to be easily 

identified. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0049-003 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, How the Effects of the Alternatives Were Estimated. Local land use 

and activity plans guide and outline the strategies for local action plans. The frequency 

of visits to monitor plant populations is based on the site-specific analysis and the 

goals and objectives that the project is designed to meet. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-122 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0306-017 

Klamath River Keeper 

Program and Klamath 

Forest Alliance 

EMC-0306-018 

Klamath River Keeper 

Program and Klamath 

Forest Alliance 

EMC-0306-020 

Klamath River Keeper 

Program and Klamath 

Forest Alliance 

EMC-0343-001 

Lockhart, Mary Ann 

EMC-0446-006 

The Nature 

Conservancy 

Comment: To achieve effectiveness, all BLM Programs/Projects must include a 

strategy that includes the management and evaluation of all of the invasive plant 

species present at the 4th

 or 5th Field Watershed scale, which may include more than 

one planning unit and managing agencies jurisdiction. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0306-016 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management. BLM watershed evaluations are 

conducted at the Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) level appropriate to the scale of the 

evaluation. Typically this is at the 4th or 5th Field Watershed scales. 

Comment: To achieve effectiveness, all BLM Programs/Projects can not just manage 

a single species of prioritized invasive species. A full community of invasive species 

needs to be managed simultaneously. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0049-003 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, How the Effects of the Alternatives Were Estimated. The PEIS does 

not propose management of any single prioritized species. The BLM manages across a 

full range of vegetation types. Priorities for management are determined through local 

land use, activity, and project planning. 

Comment: To achieve effectiveness, all BLM Programs/Projects must have a means 

of support that can insure the level of treatment to achieve the desired level of control. 

Approach needs to be consistent with the areas customs and culture, as well as be 

received with acceptance and support by the local community. 

Response: See responses to Comment EMC-0306-016 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management and Comment RMC-0049-003 

under PEIS Environmental Consequences, How the Effects of the Alternatives Were 

Estimated. 

Comment: The plan as described sounds as if you are “throwing out the baby with the 

bath,” This plan suggests wholesale spraying without doing the necessary preliminary 

precise identification of what invasive [species] you will be dealing with and what 

herbicide would be the most effective without being destructive of everything else. 

Response: See Response to Comment EMC-0486-020 under PEIS, Alternatives, 

Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management. Treatments under an IPM 

framework require such identification of the species and the most effect and 

appropriate herbicide. 

Comment: We are concerned that the proposed major expansion of vegetation 

treatments on public land by the BLM discussed in the Draft PEIS and PER is not 

supported by identified ecological goals for each ecoregion, restoration objectives for 

individual plant communities, adequate mandatory guidelines for selecting and 

applying appropriate treatment methods, and appropriate monitoring strategies at 

multiple scales that will measure both accomplishment in meeting restoration 

objectives as well as effects to other resources. We will discuss these concerns in more 

detail for each document in the sections below. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0446-071 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Monitoring. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-123 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0446-013 

The Nature 

Conservancy 

EMC-0446-045 

The Nature 

Conservancy 

EMC-0486-020 

Siskiyou Project 

Comment: Altered landscapes: The PEIS and PER need to acknowledge that there are 

significant areas on public land that are so highly altered that they are not 

economically or practically recoverable. For example, in areas of significant downy 

brome (Bromus tectorum) infestation, inappropriate (prescribed fire) or insufficient 

(plowing or tilling without appropriate native plant restoration techniques) actions in 

these areas may cause increases in downy brome infestation and fire frequency. 

Guidance needs to be provided for areas where specific treatments are not appropriate 

in specific ecosystems, for example, restricting the use of prescribed fire in sagebrush 

plant communities below elevation gradients where downy brome is most likely to 

invade. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0049-003 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, How the Effects of the Alternatives Were Estimated. Parameters for 

the use of specific techniques for vegetation control are developed at the local 

planning level based on site-specific conditions and the identification of highly altered 

landscapes where certain treatment techniques may not be advisable. 

Comment: The PER should include ecologically-based goals for restoration that 

quantify desired outcomes. The PER should describe how the BLM intends to measure 

goals to “sustain the condition of healthy lands, and, where land conditions have 

degraded, to restore desirable vegetation to more health conditions” (PER 4-32). These 

goals, objectives, priorities and strategies should be based on the best available science 

for the specific plant communities scheduled for treatment not on general concepts of 

fire risk and fuels treatment drawn from other habitat types. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0446-050 under PEIS Alternatives, Site 

Selection Methods. 

Comment: Passive restoration needs to take place, stop the logging and reduce the 

grazing cattle among other things. “Prevention and early detection is the cheapest and 

most effective wed control method. Prevention and early detection strategies that 

reduce the need to vegetative treatments for noxious weeds could lead to a reduction in 

the number of acres treated for noxious weeds in the future by reducing or preventing 

their establishment” (DEIS [Draft PEIS], p. 2-16). In addition, “There are several 

drawbacks and limitations to herbicide use ... Weeds may develop a resistance to a 

particular herbicide over time” (DEIS [Draft PEIS], p. 2-14) and therefore chemical 

treatment should only be considered as a very last resort. 

Response: The BLM agrees that prevention and early detection is the cheapest and 

most effective form of weed control. In those instances where weeds have become 

established, a vegetation treatment using one or more methods is employed. The BLM 

follows an integrated approach to vegetation treatment, commonly called integrated 

pest management (IPM) or integrated weed management (IWM), and recognizes this 

approach as the most effective approach to treating vegetation. An underlying 

principle of IPM is to utilize available tools for vegetation treatments in a manner that 

emphasizes the appropriate tool or method(s) for any particular project or 

circumstance. There is no priority order implied in using mechanical, manual, 

biological, fire, or herbicide treatments, or passive treatments. In some cases, a 

combination of methods may be appropriate for a given situation, such as use of 

mechanical methods in combination with fire, or use of a pre-emergent herbicide 

following a prescribed fire or wildland fire to prevent or reduce invasion by downy 

brome. In other cases, a method may not be appropriate for a situation, such as 

herbicide spraying near human habitation, or using prescribed fire within a wildland 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-124 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0496-001 

DeLong, Colleen 

EMC-0496-004 

DeLong, Colleen 

EMC-0499-006 

Knight, John 

urban interface, where the risk of harm or damage to people and structures is likely. In 

some cases a small weed infestation may be effectively eradicated using herbicides 

first, ending the risk of invasive species spread altogether for that area. In each 

situation, a project plan is developed, appropriate risk analysis is undertaken and a 

method is selected through site-specific NEPA analysis. In this manner, the decisionmaker has a full array of tools to choose from to best meet the needs of the situation. 

To mandate use of chemicals as a last resort only does not provide the early detection 

and rapid response flexibility needed to address vegetation problems. 

Comment: Please address the invasive species problems on the lands you manage 

carefully and with a strong land stewardship ethic. Please do not focus only on only 

short term goals of cattle production. Consider the whole picture, including soil and 

water quality, wildlife habitat, and restoring native plant communities, and long-term 

ecosystem health. 

Response: As discussed in Chapter 2 of the PEIS and PER, multiple programs within 

the BLM have an interest in land management and stewardship. The PEIS and PER 

describe the benefits to plants and humans and other animals that use public lands, and 

little effort was spent on vegetation management for cattle production. As noted in 

Chapter 1 of the PEIS under Scope of Analysis, the PEIS does not address vegetation 

treatments exclusively designed to promote livestock forage. If one reviews the topics 

covered in Chapters 3 and 4 of the PEIS and PER, it becomes evident that these 

documents address a diversity of resources. 

Comment: Follow best management practices for timing and dosage for all 

herbicides, and use herbicides only in conjunction with an integrated pest management 

approach that also uses other tools such as mechanical control, controlled burning, and 

carefully screened biological control organisms. Minimize use of any herbicide that is 

a known groundwater contaminant, developmental or reproductive toxin, acutely 

toxic, carcinogen or endocrine disruptor. Take strong steps to avoid harming wildlife, 

by evaluating non-target impacts and taking a realistic look at the dangers of 

combinations of chemicals and of “inactive” ingredients like surfactants. Halt aerial 

spraying. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0003-005 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Revegetation. Best management practices 

and mitigation measures to protect resources, including groundwater and wildlife, 

during herbicide applications are identified in Tables 2-8 and 2-9 of the PEIS. Risks to 

wildlife from combinations of chemicals and inactive ingredients were discussed in 

the ecological risk assessments prepared for each herbicide in support of the PEIS. 

Under Alternative D in the PEIS, aerial spraying would not be allowed on public 

lands. 

Comment: Below is the integrated weed management definition found in Section 

7270.5 of the California Food & Agriculture Code, Division 4, Part 4 Weeds, Article 

1.7 Noxious Weed Management. It reads in whole: For the purposes of this article, 

“integrated weed management plan” means an ecosystem-based control strategy that 

focuses on long-term prevention of weeds through a combination of techniques, such 

as biological controls, judicious use of herbicides, modified land management, and 

cultural practices, and where control practices are selected and applied in a manner 

that minimizes the risks to human health, nontargeted organisms, and the environment. 

This definition would be a good standard to follow regarding the complicated issue of 

invasive species. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-125 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0503-015 

John Day-Snake 

Resource Advisory 

Council 

EMC-0503-016 

John Day-Snake 

Resource Advisory 

Council 

EMC-0505-008 

U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency 

Response: The PER focused on a program of integrated weed management that 

included prevention and use of several control methods (manual and mechanical 

methods, fire use, biological control, and use of herbicides). As the PEIS focused 

specifically on herbicide treatments, it was not clear to many readers of the PEIS that 

herbicide treatments were but a small part of the BLM’s overall vegetation 

management program. A discussion of integrated weed management principles and 

strategies has been included in Chapter 2 of the Final PEIS under Integrating 

Vegetation Treatments. 

Comment: It is far more controversial addressing the use of herbicides to treat 

unwanted vegetation to reduce plant competition and enhance the growth of desired 

species than to control noxious weeds. The use of herbicides for wildland reduction of 

native species is highly controversial and either this use should be removed from the 

document or carefully justified. Using herbicide in this manner directly resulted in the 

lawsuit in Oregon, which completely eliminated the use of herbicides on public lands. 

Why risk the continuance of the injunction? 

Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0049-003 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, How the Effects of the Alternatives Were Estimated and Comment 

EMC-0646-174 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, Cumulative Effects 

Analysis. 

Comment: There should be more emphasis placed on developing weed management 

plans that would outline priority strategies, monitoring and delineate treatment 

recommendations based on the biology of the invasive species. 

Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0205-013 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management and Comment EMC-0446-071 under 

PER Vegetation Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Monitoring. 

Comment: All management options outlined in the PEIS and PER have potential 

advantages and risks, and herbicide use is no exception. Based on significant increases 

of herbicide use described in the PEIS there is the potential for increased impacts to 

surface and ground water, drinking water, protected beneficial uses, and non-targeted 

flora and fauna. With respect to ground water recharge, herbicides which photo- or 

bio-degrade may be problematic if they end up in an abiotic subsurface zone. Other 

effects such as plant reproductive, endocrine and secondary effects are now 

understood as potential problems. With this in mind, we suggest that if a risk analysis 

reveals a potential adverse impact to surface or ground water quality, and particularly 

in recharge areas or source water watersheds, associated to using an herbicidal method 

over non-herbicidal, extra consideration should be given to the better understood 

option, with the least risk potential. In most cases this would be a non-chemical 

approach, as the risks from non-herbicidal management methods are generally better 

understood. 

Response: As discussed in Chapter 2 of the PEIS under Site Selection Priorities, the 

BLM would take actions to minimize the need for vegetation controls, use effective 

non-chemical methods of vegetation control, use herbicides only after considering the 

effectiveness of all potential methods, and prioritize treatments based on their 

effectiveness and their likelihood of having minimal impacts on the environment. The 

purpose of the PEIS and PER is to identify the risks and benefits of using each 

treatment method, in different regions of the country and for different types of land 

management, so that BLM land managers can use the most suitable treatment option. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-126 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0505-016 

U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency 

EMC-0508-003 

Bockness, Scott 

(Montana Weed 

Control Association) 

EMC-0525-055 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0541-014 

Associated Oregon 

Loggers 

Comment: BLM proposes a three-fold increase in the amount of land proposed for 

fuels management. To achieve this endpoint the Final PEIS might address the major 

variables taken into consideration and resources needed to implement this goal, e.g., 

weather, moisture content, winds, other fire/activities, smoke direction, and 

availability of manpower. 

Response: Based on the major variables noted, the commenter suggests that all acres 

will be treated through prescribed burning. Prescribed fire is but one of five treatment 

methods the BLM would use to treat vegetation (see Chapter 2 of the PER for a 

description of the treatment methods). Certainly the number of acres treated and 

treatment method utilized will be dependent on a host of variables, including, to name 

a few, funding availability, prescribed burning windows, and NEPA decisions, as well 

as those mentioned in the comment. All of these factors will be taken into 

consideration as specific projects are conceived and planned. 

Comment: [The Draft] BA [Biological Assessment] at [page] 1-1: “At the time earlier 

EISs were completed, the BLM was proposing to treat only about 16% of the total 

acreage that would be treated under the program that is now being proposed”. This 

exposes the fallacy of the BLM claim that the old EISs covered the effects of the nonherbicide vegetation treatments to be conducted. 

Response: The previous EISs addressed the use and effects of non-herbicide 

treatments in the areas for which the EISs were developed. The use of non-herbicide 

methods in an integrated pest management framework has been affirmed in all past 

EISs, based on impact analysis. This PEIS does not propose any new decisions relative 

to the use of non-herbicide treatments. The determination of acres assessed in this 

PEIS is discussed under Determination of Treatment Acres in Chapter 2 of the PEIS. 

Although the acres identified for analysis exceed estimates of earlier EISs, the actual 

number of acres treated is dependent upon the goals and objectives identified in 

individual land use plans, many of which are still in place since the previous EISs 

were developed. This PEIS does not authorize specific treatments nor increase the rate 

of treatments over current implementation. The impacts relative to non-herbicide 

treatments are estimated to be the same as the impacts identified in previous EISs. 

Comment: BLM’s [P]EIS and PER, by proposing profligate use of non-selective fire, 

chaining or herbicides in pinyon-juniper or western juniper communities will kill 

shrubs, too. Nowhere does BLM provide a protocol for determining the best or most 

appropriate treatment methods to be used, or for avoiding old growth or mature plant 

communities. This is precisely the type of information and analysis that the [P]EIS 

should have provided, but it has failed to do so. 

Response: Additional guidance is provided in Chapter 2 of the Final PEIS/PER under 

Vegetation Treatment Methods, although it is presented at a broad, programmatic 

level. Implementation planning is tied to goals and objectives (i.e., desired outcomes) 

set at the regional/local land use planning level. During implementation planning, 

prioritization will be developed in order to effectively restore ecosystem processes 

specific to the plant communities where the actual implementation will take place. 

Comment: Herbicide use & application warrants different/special consideration 

within “wildland-urban interface zones” and “ownership perimeter zones”, located 

near BLM forest boundaries [1-2 miles]. Such “ownership perimeter zones” would 

address the forest protection values of adjacent non-federal landowners [wildfire, 

pests, invasives, etc], and the impact of lacking BLM management on these 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-127 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0563-003 

Hupp, Kevin L. 

(Lincoln County 

Noxious Weed Control 

Board) 

EMC-0575-004 

Davlantes, Nancy 

EMC-0584-046 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

neighboring non-federal lands. There are significant private timberland holdings in 

Oregon’s alternating BLM sections in the checker-board O&C [Oregon and 

California] ownership. Wildfire and pest hazards on BLM forests are a clear & present 

danger to neighboring non-federal lands. These BLM “perimeter areas” should be 

placed into a category that allows application of a full array of management tools 

including full use of the array herbicides and application methods. 

Response: Chapter 1 of the PER proposes that the BLM use a wide array of 

treatments to reduce wildfire risk and to restore forest and rangeland health. Decisions 

concerning treatment objectives and which type of treatment would best accomplish 

the treatment objective will be made by the local BLM decision-maker based on 

information obtained through local analysis and public involvement. BLM managers 

are directed to work closely with local stakeholders, including adjacent land owners, in 

developing treatment alternatives. 

Comment: I would also add that you need a sufficient number of staff to carryout 

these activities. You currently have an understaffed program here in Washington State. 

One person in the field cannot keep up with the 75,000 acres in Lincoln County let 

alone the acreages in other Counties. You won’t see anything getting accomplished by 

continuing that way of management. 

Response: Staffing for vegetation management activities and multiple use activities is 

based on available appropriated funding. The BLM recognizes the need to provide 

additional staff resources, and to utilize partnerships and contracting to meet its 

vegetation management needs. 

Comment: These public lands need long-term management strategies that will restore 

native ecosystems, not simply attempts to eliminate invasive plant species. The 

Programmatic Environmental Report (PER) that was issued along with the PEIS does 

nothing to remedy these shortcomings; it simply addresses treatments other than 

herbicide spraying that may be used to control invasive plants. 

Response: Elimination of invasive species is unrealistic, and is not a stated goal of the 

PEIS. Long-term management strategies are outlined in local land use and activity 

plans. The PER is not intended to be a strategy or management plan. The PER 

discloses the effects of non-chemical methods on public land resources. 

Comment: BLM can not use “natural fire regimes”, historical ranges of variability 

and other models as a basis for any fire planning. The potential for anything 

resembling a ”natural ”fire regime has been drastically altered by 150 years of 

livestock grazing and other disturbance so that natural fire regimes no longer exist in 

many areas. The imposition of the disturbance that would mimic a natural fire cycle is 

likely only to further degrade values of public lands – soil water, watershed, wildlife 

and important and T&E [threatened and endangered] species habitats. As part of its 

assessment, BLM must first determine the current condition of all the vegetation 

communities in the affected lands. This information must be newly collected as part of 

this process, since most BLM inventories, especially in these lands with ancient [Land 

Use Plans] LUPs, are nearly 25 or more years old. This necessary is critical to 

understanding the risks of any treatment disturbance to these lands. 

Response: This is exactly the process BLM will be using. As discussed in Chapter 2 

of the PEIS under Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management, key resource 

elements such as plant community types, aquatic habitats, sensitive species, and 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-128 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0584-068 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0584-078 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0584-079 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

invasives are inventoried and mapped regionally, district-wide, and locally. This 

inventory and mapping is done in an effort to identify areas of high ecological 

integrity, to ensure suitable habitat exists, to identify areas where land uses are 

incompatible with long-term ecosystem health, and to identify areas that could benefit 

from vegetation treatments. Different scales of inventory and mapping allow managers 

to better understand how proposed projects fit in with vegetative conditions at 

different scales. 

Comment: BLM’s vegetation efforts can not be limited to disturbance-style 

treatments alone. Plant communities which are still healthy should be managed in a 

way to effectively: 1) prevent their conversion to weed-dominated communities; 2) 

prevent loss of biodiversity; 3) prevent changes in their fire frequencies and intensities; 

4) prevent the conversion of shrub lands to woody thickets. BLM’s DEIS [Draft 

PEIS]/PER ignores analysis of a range of prevention-based Alternatives. 

Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0167-007 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management, Comment RMC-0218-005 under 

PEIS Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis, and Comment 

RMC-0218-030 under PEIS Alternatives, Description of the Alternatives. 

Comment: Any habitation interface projects must focus on projects at the actual 

interface with inhabited lands. This is an area of 1/8 mile or less. Any interface 

projects must be tied to private landowners taking strict efforts to control any fire 

danger on their own private lands. Intensive wildland-urban interface treatments 

include thinning, pruning, mowing, roof cleaning, replacement of flammable 

landscape and building materials). These actions should be limited to the interface, and 

the private property, and be use to create 1/8 mile of defensible space. In reality, the 

interface is to be the area where most federal fire funds are being spent. Instead, BLM 

across-the-board is roaming far from any real interfaces in projects being conducted. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0221-046 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management. BLM funding guidance is very clear 

in directing which funds are to be expended in the wildland urban interface (WUI) and 

which funds are to be used to treat areas outside of WUI. Expenditures are monitored 

closely for compliance with established guidance. 

Comment: As part of this EIS, BLM should provide detailed maps of all interfaces, 

and a list and report of all criteria used to determine the existence of an interface. 

Response: There are several ways to determine what is included in wildland urban 

interface (WUI) and what is not. The WUI has been defined in A Collaborative 

Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment 10-

Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan (USDI and USDA 2006a) and 

Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire Adapted Ecosystems: A Cohesive 

Strategy (USDA and USDI 2006b) as “the line, area or zone, where structures and 

other human development meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland or 

vegetative fuel.” The other way a WUI boundary can be determined is through the 

development of a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP). These plans are 

developed by local communities with participation by state and local wildland fire 

agencies. Critical infrastructure such as powerlines, roadways, and critical watersheds 

may be incorporated into a WUI defined as part of a CWPP. CWPPs allow for a 

localized definition of WUI to be developed. Guidance for defining WUI is also 

provided in the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 to be used in the absence of a 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-129 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0585-175 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0590-010 

Western Slope 

Environmental 

Resource Council 

EMC-0590-012 

Western Slope 

Environmental 

Resource Council 

CWPP. The variation in WUI definition across the country allows for local issues to 

drive WUI definition, but makes national mapping of WUI difficult, and is not 

required for a reasoned choice among alternatives regarding herbicide use at this 

national scale. 

Comment: [Page] B-30 [of Appendix B of the PEIS] provides no clear protocol and 

decision making process or framework for BLM to follow in either determining 

treatment method, chemicals to be used, or application methods to be used. A 

“pretreatment survey” does not provide adequate assurance that public safety and the 

health of the environment will be adequately protected. This is particularly the case as 

BLM may be increasingly relying on local weed districts or public lands permittees in 

weed applications. 

Response: Additional guidance on prioritization is provided in Chapter 2 of the Final 

PEIS and PER under Site Selection and Treatment Priorities, although it is still at a 

broad, programmatic level. During implementation planning tied to goals and 

objectives (i.e., desired outcomes) set at the regional/local land use planning level, 

detailed prioritization will be developed in order to effectively restore ecosystem 

processes specific to the plant communities in which the actual implementation will 

take place. 

Public scoping and analysis concerning public and environmental health will take 

place at the local project level. Risk assessments and pre-treatment surveys will 

provide necessary data for the analysis needed to develop projects that provide 

adequate assurances. 

Comment: The PEIS as presented is only one component of what should be a much 

broader approach to the issue of unwanted vegetation on BLM lands. Vegetation 

management needs to take into account the conditions that have led to the vegetation 

problems, and present methods for preventing those problems, as well as methods for 

restoring ecological integrity to sites where vegetation problems exist. The PEIS as it 

is presently configured addresses only the some of the issues associated with shortterm treatments. Prevention and restoration are not addressed. 

Response: The PEIS presents a detailed analysis of the herbicide component of an 

integrated pest management strategy for controlling unwanted vegetation. The PER 

presents additional information on other methods of non-herbicide control. Prevention 

and revegetation are discussed under Vegetation Treatment Standard Operating 

Procedures and Guidelines in Chapter 2 of the PEIS and PER. Integrated pest 

management is a long-term strategy for vegetation control which adapts control 

techniques according to the success of the project and need for additional actions. For 

example, an herbicide may be used to gain initial control of a weed infestation and 

then other treatment methods, such as insects or pathogens, applied to control and 

reduce the infestation over the long term to meet resource objectives as articulated in 

land use plans. 

Comment: Any consideration of options at a site-specific level should be based in 

science, and should also consider whether the approach is a short-term “fix” or part of 

a long-term management plan that is expected to improve habitat and resource 

conditions. It does no good to wipe out an entire area (including non-target species) to 

attempt eradication of an invasive species, and by so doing create conditions that allow 

recolonization by the same or another offensive invasive. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-130 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0590-013 

Western Slope 

Environmental 

Resource Council 

EMC-0590-014 

Western Slope 

Environmental 

Resource Council 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under Proposed Action and 

Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis Also see response to Comment EMC-0590-010 

under PEIS Alternatives, Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management. BLM 

vegetation treatment projects are developed within the context of the long-term goals 

and objectives of land use plans and any applicable activity level management plans 

for the area under consideration. In this context, all vegetation treatments are 

accomplished for long-term management objectives, not a short-term “fix.” For 

example, hazardous fuels reduction activities are conducted for the long-term 

management of fuels and to reintroduce fire into ecosystems where it has been 

previously excluded. Invasive species and noxious weed prevention and control 

activities are conducted for the benefit of restoring long-term ecological function of an 

area. There are no proposals to wipe out entire areas of all vegetation, including nontarget vegetation, in an attempt to eradicate invasive species. Total eradication of 

invasive species is an unrealistic goal and is not a stated goal of this PEIS. Vegetation 

treatment projects are designed with rehabilitation and restoration goals identified in 

land use plans and other activity-level management plans. Treating vegetation in such 

a manner as to create conditions for re-colonization of any invasive species would be 

self-defeating. 

Comment: A no-herbicide alternative is included in the Vegetation Treatment 

proposals as “Alternative C”. While we are very concerned about the impacts of 

herbicides on our ecosystems, and are supportive of the spirit of Alternative C, we 

recognize that there are specific and isolated instances where a controlled judicious 

application may be warranted. In such cases, follow-up on the efficacy of a treatment 

and the ecological effects of that treatment on all affected organisms should be 

performed. Based on the application options presented in the DEIS [Draft PEIS], we 

are requesting that that no applications using aerial deposition methods (from an 

airplane or helicopter) or large-area applications (greater than five contiguous acres) 

using boom/broadcast methods be allowed at any time. In those instances where 

Alternative C is not feasible and all other non-chemical options have been explored, 

we allow that spot applications delivered by boat, horse or human application vehicles 

may permitted. We request that the outcomes of such spot applications be monitored 

and analyzed for at least three years to assess the impacts on diversity of native 

species, attainment of ecologically effective densities by interactive species, and 

resilience of sensitive species and any impacted organisms. 

Response: Please see response to Comment RMC-0049-003 under PEIS 

Environmental Consequences, How the Effects of the Alternatives Were Estimated. 

Monitoring requirements for any particular vegetation treatment project are 

determined through local project planning and NEPA analysis and will follow 

established monitoring procedures appropriate to the site-specific conditions and 

circumstances. 

Comment: We are also concerned regarding the management context in which 

vegetation treatment decisions are made. As is emphasized in the Restore Native 

Ecosystems Alliance Alternative (Draft PEIS, Volume 2, Appendix H), we request 

that there be written into the DEIS [Draft PEIS] an explicit incorporation of an 

emphasis on diversity of native species, attainment of ecologically effective densities 

by interactive species, and resilience of sensitive species and any impacted organisms 

as an overall management goal in managing vegetation for fire suppression or invasive 

species control. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-131 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0623-008 

Defenders of Wildlife 

EMC-0623-010 

Defenders of Wildlife 

EMC-0646-187 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

Response: Management goals and objectives are properly determined in land use 

plans and subsequent activity level management plans for a particular resource or 

program. Setting overall vegetation management goals is outside the scope of this 

analysis. See Scope of Analysis in Chapter 1 of the PEIS. The PEIS examines the use 

of herbicides, in particular four herbicides not previously approved for use, in the 

context of vegetation treatments proposed to meet the management goals stated in the 

guiding land use plans. 

Comment: Best Practices for Pesticide Application and Other Control Methods. The 

BLM should establish a goal of using the minimum effective dosage, and develop 

protocols related to application methods and timing to reach this goal. The BLM 

should also utilize alternatives to pesticides wherever feasible. 

Response: Under the Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management section of 

Chapter 2 of the PEIS, the vegetation treatment priorities are identified, with the 

overriding goal being to “treat vegetation on lands only where necessary, and to 

prioritize treatment methods based on their effectiveness and likelihood to have 

minimal impacts on the environment.” Table 2-8 of the PEIS points out how the goals 

identified will be addressed, which include using the proper amount of chemical 

needed to complete the task. Also see response to Comment EMC-0641-018 under 

PEIS Alternatives, Site Selection Methods. 

Comment: Wildlife Recovery. The BLM should use this planning process as an 

opportunity for the recovery of the full range of native species and ecosystems across 

these western states. Species such as the sage grouse, white-tailed prairie dog, blackfooted ferret, Columbia spotted frog, Washington ground squirrel, and desert 

yellowhead are threatened, at least in part, because of damaging land management 

practices. To this end, this analysis should consider how the full range of land use 

impacts has led to the decline of such species and ecosystems. The analysis should 

consider, for example, the impacts of livestock grazing, motorized vehicle use, 

recreation, energy exploration and development, logging, fire suppression, and mining. 

Response: An important objective of the BLM vegetation treatment program is to 

restore ecosystem health on degraded lands for the benefit of all species and 

ecosystems, as discussed in Chapter 1 of the PEIS under Purpose and Need for the 

Proposed Action. Also see Comment RMC-0126-002 under Proposed Action and 

Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis 

Comment: Integrated Weed Management (IWM) is a subset of integrated pest 

management (IPM), and frequently referred to by the BLM in regards to invasive 

weed management plans. The California Department of Pesticide Regulation calls 

IPM a widely accepted approach to pest management that results in effective 

suppression of pest populations while minimizing human health and environmental 

hazards. Yet the BLM is disregarding public health, instead proposing actions focused 

on killing as much unwanted vegetation as quickly as possible, while incorrectly 

claiming it uses IPM to deal with unwanted vegetation. 

Response: The PEIS does not propose to kill as much unwanted vegetation as quickly 

as possible. Public health and human health risks are extensively evaluated in the 

PEIS, including Human Health Risk Assessments. BLM agrees with the CDPR views 

on IPM and IWM. Chapter 2 of the PER addresses how the various management 

options will be utilized under Vegetation Treatment Methods, pointing out that, “in an 

integrated weed management program, each management option is considered, 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-132 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0646-189 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

EMC-0646-191 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

EMC-0646-198 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

recognizing that no one management option is a stand alone option and that each has 

its own strengths and weaknesses.” As defined in the Departmental Manual 517, 

“Integrated Pest Management is a sustainable approach to managing pests by 

combining biological, cultural, physical, and chemical tools in a way that minimizes 

economic, health, and environmental risks.” (7 U.S.C. 136r-1). Also see response to 

Comment EMC-0641-018 under PEIS Alternatives, Site Selection Methods. 

Comment: CATs [Californians for Alternatives to Toxics] is concerned that the BLM 

has failed to discuss and disclose established weed treatment threshold levels for this 

project. The BLM needs to establish that current treatments are failing to control weed 

infestations at pre-established threshold levels before considering the use of toxic 

chemicals. CATs also expects the BLM to quantify any weed increases above 

threshold levels. How much are populations increasing? How big were infestations 

when treatments began and how big are they now? Where are the monitoring results to 

determine whether past treatments have been effective or if new treatments are 

needed? 

Response: See responses to Comment EMC-0646-174 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Cumulative Effects Analysis; Comment EMC-0646-182 under PEIS 

Environmental Consequences, Vegetation; and Comment RMC-0126-002 under 

Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis 

Comment: The key to any IPM [integrated pest management] strategy is to know the 

ecology, biology, and life cycle of the invasive species. “Integrated pest management 

is a proven approach to managing pest problems, including invasive nonnative plants. 

Integrated pest management is based on a sound understanding of the ecology and 

biology of a pest and its environment” (Andrascik et al. 1996). This is something the 

BLM must do and include within NEPA documentation prior to evaluating control 

plans. The BLM has failed to even identify the primary species targeted for herbicide 

spraying. How the species reproduces, spreads, and colonizes are all essential 

information. Some species are know for being prolific seed producers and maintaining 

extensive seed banks, while other reproduce vegetatively and can clone themselves. 

Response: The BLM has expanded upon the information on vegetation treatment 

guidelines, including the use of an IPM strategy, in Chapter 2 of the Final PEIS under 

Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management. Much of this information was 

provided in the PER, where all treatment methods are discussed that would be used as 

part of an IPM strategy. As part of the strategy, the BLM would evaluate the ecology 

of the invasive species before selecting a treatment method and application strategy. 

The BLM has revised Table 2-3 in the Final PEIS to show the primary species targeted 

for each herbicide. 

Comment: Other management methods recommended by experts and ignored by the 

EA [PEIS] for evaluation and analysis are tilling, mowing, grazing, and prescribed 

burning. Mowing, a cost effective late season tool, is also a popular treatment method 

(DiTomaso 2001). Properly timed mowing (or weed whacking) can limit YST [yellow 

starthistle] ability to produce seeds, provide excellent control, and reduce seed banks 

and populations. The BLM should at the least be considering an integrated method 

alternative that combines mowing, grazing and hand pulling with revegetation efforts. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0003-005 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Revegetation. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-133 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0646-225 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

EMC-0646-231 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

EMC-0647-004 

Alaska Community 

Action on Toxics 

Comment: Although the proposed actions are rehabilitative and preventative in 

nature, plans for consistent long-term maintenance need to be implemented for 

proactive management. The proposed actions intend to return the BLM lands to prehistorical natural conditions. But without changes in future management, the existing 

conditions will likely return with more severity. Specifically, the Forest should include 

consistent prescribed burning as an element of their typical management practices. We 

hope that the BLM evaluate and incorporate a maintenance strategy, founded on 

prescribed burning, into the proposed action plan. The restoration of a site to prehistorically natural conditions is unlikely to be achieved with the omission of a 

reoccurring fire regime. We fear that negligence of future maintenance could lead to 

circumstances where the BLM incorrectly feels that chemical treatment of vegetation 

would be the only viable solution. We are opposed to any land management actions 

that will likely lead to future vegetation management strategies dependent upon 

herbicides. 

Response: The BLM agrees that maintenance of restored landscapes is an important 

component of ensuring the long-term success, viability, and resilience of plant 

communities. Maintenance of vegetation treatments is one of the assumptions used in 

the cumulative impacts analysis of the PEIS. Some areas may not be appropriate for 

maintenance through prescribed fire in every case. Local Fire Management Plans 

(FMPs) identify areas where prescribed fire and fire use for resource benefit are 

appropriate or not allowable. Also see response to Comment RMC-0049-003 under 

PEIS Environmental Consequences, How the Effects of the Alternatives Were 

Estimated. 

The Vegetation section in Chapter 3 of the PEIS and PER provides a discussion on fire 

ecology by major plant community type. It includes discussions on altered fire regimes 

and causes of noxious weed and other invasive species expansion. As discussed under 

Prevention and Early Detection in Chapter 2 of the PER, the BLM acknowledges that 

weeds colonize highly disturbed ground as well as degraded plant communities or 

even intact communities. This section reiterates that the BLM is required to develop a 

noxious weed risk assessment when an action may introduce or spread noxious weeds, 

that modification of actions must take place to reduce likelihood of infestations when 

the risk is determined to be moderate or high, and that control measures must be 

implemented if weeds do infest the site. This direction, as well as direction for 

monitoring post-treatment, is part of BLM policy in BLM Manual 9011, which is 

focused on changing the current trends of increasing exotics. 

Comment: The goal of a control program could be to eradicate completely a plant 

everywhere, it could be to eradicate it only in a specific area, or it could be to reduce 

its population to a level that does not significantly displace native flora and fauna 

(Dahlsten et al. 1989). The Draft PEIS does not make this analysis. Furthermore, it 

does not provide an adequate system for making decisions for each site. How can 

BLM staff prepare NEPA documents in the future when they have no decision making 

guidance in the programmatic EIS? 

Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0205-013 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management and Comment EMC-0446-071 under 

PER Vegetation Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Monitoring. 

Comment: The BLM must implement vegetation management strategies with the 

following guidelines: 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-134 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

PHC-006-004 

H. McNeel 

RMC-0006-031 

Central Sierra 

Environmental 

Resource Center 

RMC-0038-009 

Albany County Weed 

and Pest Control 

District 

• Least disruptive of natural controls. 

• Least hazardous to human health. 

• Minimize negative impacts to non-target organisms, including other 

plants, insects, aquatic invertebrates, fish, and wildlife. 

• Least damaging to ecological systems, including water quality, nutrient 

cycling, soil microbes, mycorhyziae, plant-animal interdependencies. 

• Most likely to produce long-term solutions in vegetation control 

requirements. 

•

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0505-008 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management. 

Comment: One of the other things I would like to see is a greater emphasis on your 

integrated weed management, how the culmination of the integrated weed 

management practices would strengthen, and I think it would help a great deal when it 

goes to the final for the people to accept it. 

Response: See responses to Comments EMC-0646-187 and EMC-0486-020 under 

PEIS Alternatives, Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management. 

Comment: The selected programmatic alternative should require that prior to 

herbicide treatments, a specific, feasible plan be in place to prevent re-introduction of 

the same species or introduction of other invasive exotic species into the project area. 

This could be as simple as excluding all anthropogenic vectors for invasive exotic 

species (people, vehicles, OHVs [off-highway vehicles], livestock, etc.) from treated 

sites until stable native plant and animal communities are re-established. It should also 

include containment of other known exotic invasive plant populations in the area. 

Response: BLM Handbook H-9015.8, Integrated Pest Management, requires the 

BLM to develop a risk assessment when it is determined that an action may introduce 

or spread noxious weeds or when known weed habitat exists. It is also required to 

determine the potential for spread or introduction of noxious weed species and to 

prescribe follow-up monitoring and project actions necessary to reduce or prevent the 

spread of noxious weeds having moderate to high risk for establishment. The primary 

focus of a risk assessment is on each ground-disturbing or site-altering project 

authorized, funded, or conducted on BLM-administered lands. This requirement exists 

for all vegetation treatment methods, including herbicide use, and must occur prior to 

project approval. Exclusion of activities or resource uses from a particular area under 

treatment or rehabilitation is determined during risk assessment development and is in 

some cases mandatory by policy, such as in the case of post-fire rehabilitation where 

grazing by livestock and/or wild horses may be excluded for up to two growing 

seasons or longer to ensure establishment of desirable vegetation. Other types of 

closures and their duration are determined by the authorized officer and based on risk 

to resources. 

Comment: The proposal is triple the number of acres that will be treated – but if there 

is no funding to do so, how will that be accomplished? Funding for noxious weed 

treatments in Albany County is from a 2004 budget that has hit a balance of $-120.91 

for 2006. If other counties or areas are funded in the same manner, it is not possible to 

triple the amount of acres treated without increasing the funding on these projects. The 

appropriate funding should be present before proposing to increase treatments; 

otherwise this proposal has no legitimacy and is an unattainable goal. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-135 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0042-087 

Asher, Jerry 

RMC-0057-013 

California Wilderness 

Coalition 

RMC-0080-006 

Idaho State Department 

of Agriculture 

Response: Funding for vegetative treatments and their monitoring, whether for 

hazardous fuels treatments, post fire-rehabilitation, or invasive species management, is 

derived through a number of BLM resource programs, including, but not limited to, 

Wildland and Prescribed Fire, Fuels Management and Reduction, and Emergency 

Stabilization and Rehabilitation, as well as other sources outside the federal 

government, including partnerships with counties and agencies, competitive and noncompetitive grants, stewardship contracting, and other conservation programs focused 

on vegetation management. These outside funds are in addition to programmed or 

emergency funds authorized by Congress. Increased program work can also be 

accomplished in a variety of ways, such as community and volunteer programs, not 

necessarily dependant on direct funding increases from Congress. 

Comment: “Currently, the funding and labor resources available to combat weeds 

dictate a containment strategy.” (para 6 pg. 2-2 [of the Draft PEIS]). How will the 

reader know what containment means? I can't find that word defined in the [P]EIS. 

Explain what containment means. And, more importantly, please explain what 

elements of Integrated Weed Management don’t get accomplished with the current 

funding/labor resources. Surely there is a way to word the sentences consistent with 

[P]EIS document guidelines, while still getting the message across about what won’t 

be accomplished. 

Response: As stated in the sentence following the above-mentioned sentence, BLM 

actions will be targeted at preventing the spread of weeds into the most vulnerable 

areas. 

Comment: The D[raft] PEIS states “Vegetation treatment methods are selected based 

on several parameters, which may include...” (2-9). Instead of suggesting what might 

be used as a guide to select treatment methods, the D[raft] PEIS should lay out specific 

criteria to guide management decisions. These criteria should include consideration of 

an area’s wilderness values and proximity to existing communities. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0205-013 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management. Such planning considers special 

values in the project areas as well as community concerns. 

Comment: ISDA [Idaho State Department of Agriculture] is also aware of decreasing 

budgets that the BLM has had to deal with over the past several years, particularly for 

weed management. BLM field offices, at least in Idaho, have had to increasingly rely 

on cooperative ventures (i.e. CWMAs [Cooperative Weed Management Areas]) and 

grant money to supplement weed treatment budgets and meet target acres. This raises 

the questions, is the proposed amount of acres to be treated under Alternative B [in the 

PEIS] fiscally feasible? Will money have to be diverted from other important 

programs in order to effectively treat targeted acres? ISDA believes that these are valid 

questions that must be addressed in the PEIS. 

Response: See responses to Comments RMC-0038-009 and RMC-0144-02 under 

PEIS Alternatives, Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management. The BLM 

assumes that future vegetation treatments will be based on agency priorities and 

available funding. The availability or amount of future funding cannot be predicted 

with certainty in the PEIS. Reprogramming of funds from one resource program to 

another can occur at the national level under extenuating circumstances with the 

approval of Congress. However, the BLM typically does not reprogram appropriated 

funds at the national level from other resource programs for on-the-ground activities 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-136 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0091-008 

Uintah County 

RMC-0110-007 

Cassia County Public 

Lands Committee 

RMC-0144-004 

Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department 

RMC-0144-025 

Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department 

such as vegetation treatments at the field office level. 

Comment: Uintah County wants clear direction provided to field managers when the 

preferred alternative is implemented. Proper management should be the first option 

considered for habitat restoration, followed by biological, mechanical, then chemical, 

in that order. Chemical treatment should not be used as a quick fix for habitats. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0049-003 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, How the Effects of the Alternatives Were Estimated. 

Comment: A couple of additions should be incorporated into the final EIS. The first is 

to increase the response to a determined need. In Appendix D [of the Draft PEIS], the 

process to secure a new herbicide is 2+ years. There needs to be in place an expedited 

procedure to approve an herbicide for use. The second addition would be to place a 

greater emphasis on the development of sustainable fuel breaks. This would help to 

return wildfires to historical size, protect property, critical habitat areas, and newly 

rehabilitated sites. 

Response: See Response to Comment EMC-0566-008 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Prevention of Weeds and Early Detection and Rapid Response. The process described 

in Appendix E of the of the Final PEIS is an expedited process. The BLM agrees that 

sustainable fuel breaks are a useful tool in managing wildfire. Fuel breaks for 

protection of property are proposed based on the need for wildfire defense, as 

identified by the local field office in collaboration with local communities. 

Reintroduction of fire into the ecosystem and effective progress towards moving Fire 

Regime Condition Class (FRCC) 3 landscapes to FRCC 2 and 1 landscapes. 

Comment: Many of the treatments are within Wildfire Urban Interface (WUI). We 

recommend more treatments following appropriate consultation on areas away from 

WUI areas, as they could be more beneficial to a wider array of fish and wildlife 

species. 

Response: As discussed in the PER in Chapter 1 under Determination of Treatment 

Acreages, about 30% of acres treated by the Wildland Fire Management Program are 

for WUI-related treatments. During preparation of the PEIS, field offices were asked 

to identify lands proposed for treatment and treatment purpose (e.g., hazardous fuels 

reduction, WUI treatment, wildlife habitat improvement). Only 2% of treatments were 

identified to occur in the WUI, although it is highly likely that treatments identified for 

hazardous fuels reduction and other treatment purposes would also occur in the WUI. 

Comment: The BLM should include a more thorough analysis and discussion of 

passive management actions and post-treatment management practices to reduce the 

need for future re-entry treatments, reduce operational costs and effects. Given the 

estimates of invasive species and noxious weed spreading at a rate of 2,300 acres per 

day on BLM managed lands, which amounts to 839,000 acres per year, and that 

downy brome alone infests over 56 million acres, is the dominate vegetation on 11.4 

million acres and is growing at 14% per year, that equates to approximately 784,000 

acres per year. We recommend the BLM consider additional funding and personnel to 

address program goals and objectives especially in areas away from WUI sites and in 

state fish and wildlife priority areas. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0144-009 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management. BLM budget expenditures are 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-137 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0160-003 

Natural Habitat 

RMC-0167-007 

Soda Mountain 

Wilderness Council 

guided by Administrative and Congressional direction and priorities. The BLM 

proactively pursues outside grant and funding sources, matching funds, and 

cooperative management agreements to increase its capability in terms of funding and 

personnel to address increased work loads to meet program goals and objectives on all 

public lands. 

Comment: The wide variety of herbicides, many of which will likely be highly toxic 

to amphibians, fish, insects, birds and on and on are not appropriate for a healthy 

respect for biodiversity and healthy landscapes. Biocontrols are also a concern without 

real testing and monitoring. 

Response: As noted in Chapter 4 of the PEIS, herbicides do pose risks to plants and 

animals and can cause short-term loss of biodiversity. However, the spread of weeds 

and other invasive vegetation can also harm wildlife and their habitat and reduce 

biodiversity. In many situations, herbicides are the only or best treatment method 

available to the BLM. A discussion of the testing and monitoring protocols for 

biocontrols is found in Chapter 2 of the PER under Vegetation Treatment Methods, 

Biological Control. 

Comment: By opting to analyze only the types of herbicides that can be used on 

public lands, the BLM has illegally narrowed the purpose and need of the DEIS [Draft 

PEIS] in an attempt to limit the consideration of reasonable alternatives, such as 

management of the vectors and passive treatment of invasive weeds. 

Response: The BLM properly scoped the project and considered all reasonable 

alternatives relative to the proposed action. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

Regulations at 40 CFR [Code of Federal Regulations] 1501.7 (3) require the agency to 

identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which 

have been covered by prior environmental review, narrowing the discussion of these 

issues in the statement to a brief presentation of why they will not have a significant 

effect on the human environment or providing a reference to their coverage elsewhere. 

In this case, the issues associated with other management approaches have been 

previously identified and analyzed in the four EISs pre-dating this PEIS, each of which 

has affirmed an integrated pest management (IPM) approach. In addition, the PER 

accompanying this PEIS details and discusses other vegetation treatment options and 

their potential environmental effects. At the land use plan level, each of approximately 

162 field office RMPs and their associated EISs have also outlined alternative 

management approaches for sustaining ecological health in a multiple use context. 

See responses to Comments RMC-0167-002 and Comment RMC-0126-002 under 

PEIS Alternatives, Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management regarding vectors 

and passive management. BLM management of vectors and passive treatment of 

invasive species are actions that are common to all alternatives and do not require a 

separate alternative. The BLM has ongoing programs under existing management that 

address prevention and vector management, including but not limited to such actions 

as pre-inventory, risk assessment, quarantine, use of weed-free forage, use of weedfree seed, stipulations to land use authorizations such as rights-of-way grants, 

recreational restrictions, and vehicle and equipment washing. Other programs, such as 

oil and gas, livestock grazing, mineral materials, and forestry, have applied 

stipulations, terms and conditions, and statutory requirements to prevent undue and 

unnecessary degradation of public lands. In addition, the BLM has ongoing early 

detection and control programs for invasive species where they are found. In order to 

ensure effective control, an IPM approach is used which includes the use of herbicides. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-138 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0167-013 

Soda Mountain 

Wilderness Council 

RMC-0173-002 

Delles, Susan 

RMC-0173-003 

Delles, Susan 

RMC-0173-010 

Delles, Susan 

Proactive treatment of vegetation occurs on less than 3% of all public lands. Passive 

management, in some cases framed as a no project alternative, is considered as an 

option in all vegetation treatment proposals. 

Comment: It is the hope of SMWC [Soda Mountain Wilderness Council] that the 

BLM take success stories, such as progress toward recovery on the former Box-O, into 

account when determining the extent to which passive treatments (such as resting from 

livestock grazing and decommissioning of roads) should be emphasized as an 

alternative treatment method. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0167-008 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Decisions to be Made and Scope of Analysis. The BLM relies on many sources for 

information pertaining to potential vegetation treatments. Under an integrated pest 

management approach, success stories of previous and current projects are considered 

one of the best guides for implementing projects of a similar nature. Management 

actions such as resting from livestock or road decommissioning are accomplished 

within the constraints of the guiding land use plan and within the terms and conditions 

of authorizing permits. Rehabilitation actions often include a component to remove 

grazing and/or limit vehicular access for a limited period of time while vegetation 

reestablishes. 

Comment: The PEIS does not adequately address the causes of noxious Weed 

invasion and spread. The focus of the document is too narrow. The main causes of 

invasive species proliferation are: 1. Roadbuilding; 2. Logging; 3. Livestock Grazing; 

[and] 4. Off Road Vehicle use. These actions have been excluded for consideration in 

the PEIS but are major factors affecting the conservation and restoration of native 

vegetation, fish and wildlife habitat. Fuels/fire management, soil stabilization, and 

general watershed function were also left out of the picture. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding causes of noxious weed 

infestations. See the Scope of Analysis in Chapter 1 of the PEIS. Also see Relationship 

among Land Use, Land Use Planning, Land Health Standards, Ecosystem 

Functionality, and Vegetation Treatments in Chapter 1 of the PER for the relationship 

of this document to ecosystem functionality. 

Comment: The PEIS focuses on treating the symptoms of the problem of invasive 

species rather than the causes that I have mentioned above. The use of toxic chemicals 

to eliminate invasive/noxious species will compound the problem rather than alleviate 

it by contaminating soils, water and air. 

Response: Herbicides have been demonstrated to be effective in the control of 

vegetation. See the risk modeling contained in Appendixes B and C of the PEIS for a 

discussion of the potential for contamination. Also see the discussion under Air 

Quality, Soil Resources, and Water Quality and Quantity in Chapter 4 of the PEIS for 

further discussion of the potential for contamination of these resources. 

Comment: Forest practices have evolved since those days. No longer are hardwoods 

(a major target for historical spray use) on public lands considered a weed. Many are 

retained on the landscape after logging operations. Although further ecological 

progress remains to be made in current forest management, the reduced herbicide use 

has eliminated a very important negative impact on our forests and streams. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-139 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0191-005 

Ertz, Brian 

RMC-0191-017 

Ertz, Brian 

RMC-0199-003 

McKay, Tim (The 

Northcoast 

Environmental Center) 

Response: Herbicides remain an important tool in the management of woody species 

on lands that are managed for sustained yield of commercial timber and in situations 

where natural tree regeneration is exacerbated by the effects of uncharacteristically 

severe wildfire. Current information on forest development recognizes the important 

contributions of early seral stages to overall forest development, including nitrogen 

fixation, soil protection, and wildlife habitat. Under the proposed program of work 

outlined in the PEIS and PER, herbicides would be used primarily to control nonnative species, such as downy brome and tamarask, and invasive native species that 

have invaded native shrublands and grasslands due to the exclusion of fire, such as 

juniper. 

Comment: The RNEA [Restore Native Ecosystems Alternative ] is a comprehensive 

programmatic approach that represents the best hope for curtailing the negative 

implications of invasive weeds while mitigating the destructive impacts that the 

Preferred Alternative inevitably entails. I hope for consideration that addresses the 

mitigation of causes for invasive weeds and that minimizes the anthropogenic harms 

associated with the herbicide and soil disturbing “treatments”. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-004 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Alternative E - No Use of Sulfonylurea and other Acetolactate Synthase-inhibiting 

Active Ingredients regarding analysis of the Restore Native Ecosystem alternative. 

Comment: I ask that before administration of the Preferred Alternative takes place, 

real science is conducted/considered and that the questions raised here and submitted 

by other public interested parties be fully and genuinely considered. I hope the agency 

gives a better-faith consideration for these comments than they did the RNEA [Restore 

Native Ecosystems Alternative]. I would hope that the agency is able to consider the 

adverse effects that current management practices are having on invasive weeds 

proliferation and rather than just treat the symptoms of such mismanagement I hope 

that the causes are addressed and mitigated. 

Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0191-015 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Decisions to be Made and Scope of Analysis; Comment RMC-0126-004 under PEIS 

Alternatives, Alternative E - No Use of Sulfonylurea and other Acetolactate Synthaseinhibiting Active Ingredients; and Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed 

Action and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis In the PEIS the BLM has used 

standard accepted scientific models and quantitative risk assessment techniques 

approved by USEPA. Science related to ecosystem function is less quantitative and 

subject to more uncertainty. See Chapter 6, References, for a listing of the scientific 

literature used in the development of the PEIS. 

Comment: I urge the BLM to consider using passive treatments as a means of 

preventing weed invasion and resting areas of public land where weed growth is 

fostered by overgrazing and rampant off-road vehicles. Furthermore, the BLM should 

analyze the Restore Native Ecosystems Alternative [RNEA] in the DEIS [Draft 

PEIS]/PER, a citizens’ alternative submitted to the BLM that addresses both the 

causes and the effects of weed invasion and undesirable vegetation on public lands. 

Response: See Response to Comments RMC-0144-009 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management and Comment RMC-0167-013 

under PEIS Alternatives, Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management regarding 

passive management, and response to Comment RMC-0126-004 under PEIS 

Alternatives, Alternative E - No Use of Sulfonylurea and other Acetolactate SynthaseBLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-140 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0200-007 

Lindsay, Dianne 

RMC-0204-015 

Wroncy, Jan (Gaia 

Vision/Canaries Who 

Sing) 

RMC-0205-013 

Oregon Department of 

Agriculture 

inhibiting Active Ingredients regarding the RNEA. 

Comment: The PEIS/PER fails to take a leadership role in managing unwanted 

vegetation in this 21st century of increasing global pollution and impending 

environmental crisis. Non chemical treatment should be obvious at this point, and 

agencies need to set examples for private landowners who look to you for the most 

informed methods. 

Response: See responses to Comment EMC-0295-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Interrelationships and Coordination with Agencies and 

Comment RMC-0049-003 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, How the Effects 

of the Alternatives Were Estimated. The BLM utilizes an integrated pest management 

approach to treating vegetation, which includes chemical and non-chemical treatment 

methods. See Chapter 1 of the PEIS, Interrelationships and Coordination with 

Agencies, for a description of the interrelationships among the BLM and agencies and 

the public, including private landowners. 

Comment: To overgraze public lands in the name of private profit is an insult, but 

then to justify the use of toxic chemicals and fire to “correct” the poor condition of the 

land caused by overgrazing is outright assault on the owners of the land (the public) 

and on the environment itself as well. Therefore the omission of the alternative which 

would have examined the causes of the problem in the first place was a grave flaw of 

the Draft [P]EIS for sure. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-004 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Alternative E - No Use of Sulfonylurea and other Acetolactate Synthase-inhibiting 

Active Ingredients. 

Comment: Explicit decision making recommendations are needed to guide local 

decision making between herbicide use and non-chemical controls. On lands were 

herbicide use is authorized under the PEIS, the plan needs to clearly describe the 

decision making process and risk considerations. 

Response: The Prevention of Weeds and Early Detection and Rapid Response section 

of Chapter 2 of the PEIS and PER reiterates that the BLM is required to develop a 

noxious weed risk assessment when an action may introduce or spread noxious weeds, 

that modification of actions must take place to reduce the likelihood of infestations 

when the risk is determined to be moderate or high, and that control measures to be 

implemented must be identified if weeds do infest the site. This direction is required 

under BLM Manual 9015 (Integrated Weed Management); direction on determining 

treatment method is also found in BLM policy in BLM Manual 9011 (Chemical Pest 

Control). These policies, as well as integrated weed management methods (which 

includes prevention techniques), are reiterated during the intensive certification 

training for BLM employees involved in weed management. Additional guidance is 

provided in Chapter 2 of the PEIS/PER, although it is presented at a broad, 

programmatic level. Implementation planning is tied to goals and objectives (i.e., 

desired outcomes) set at the regional/local land use planning level. During 

implementation planning, prioritization will be developed in order to effectively 

restore ecosystem processes specific to the plant communities where the actual 

implementation will take place. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-141 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0205-015 

Oregon Department of 

Agriculture 

Comment: Expanding risk management decision making process to carefully evaluate 

the least harmful control method for local conditions will help ensure that herbicides 

are used only in specific conditions where other methods are not feasible. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0049-003 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, How the Effects of the Alternatives Were Estimated. 

RMC-0208-003 Comment: As discussed in more detail below, the Oak Foundation has several 

California Oak 

Foundation 

concerns about the sufficiency of the environmental documents prepared for this 

program. To summarize, the Draft PEIS fails to adequately describe the program in 

sufficient detail to allow meaningful public comment. For example, the extent to 

which the BLM may apply herbicides to BLM managed lands that contain oak 

woodlands or are adjacent to non-BLM managed lands that contain oak woodlands is 

unknowable from the data provided. 

Response: The PEIS is a programmatic document broadly assessing the impacts of 

herbicide use on public lands resources. The unit of analysis is the ecoregion, as 

described in Chapter 3 of the PEIS and PER. Each ecoregion contains an assemblage 

of plant types, which are generally discussed under each heading. California, for the 

most part, falls within the Mediterranean ecoregion; the vegetation assemblages 

common to this ecoregion, including oak woodlands, are described under Vegetation 

in the PEIS. The broad scale of this analysis precludes a detailed discussion of any 

one particular vegetation type within an ecoregion, although examples are used where 

appropriate. The sizes of potential treatments were estimated from a variety of 

sources, as described under Determination of Treatment Acreages in Chapter 1 of the 

PER; this information has also been added to Chapter 2 of the Final PEIS. The PEIS 

does not analyze any specific vegetation treatment projects. Individual projects will 

have site-specific NEPA analysis conducted at such time as there is a proposal to 

analyze and a location has been determined. See NEPA Requirements of the Program 

and Figure 1-1 in Chapter 1 of the PEIS for a description of the step-down NEPA 

process for project analysis. 

RMC-0208-019 

California Oak 

Foundation 

Comment: The Draft PEIS fails to describe the program in sufficient detail to allow 

meaningful public comment. For example, the extent to which the BLM may apply 

herbicides to BLM managed lands that contain oak woodlands or are adjacent to nonBLM managed lands that contain oak woodlands is unknowable from the data 

provided. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0208-003 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management. 

RMC-0214-019 

Natural Resources 

Defense Council and 

National Wildlife 

Federation 

Comment: BLM must go back and analyze all strategies, impacts, and activities that 

either contribute to or diminish the problem associated with the spread of noxious 

weeds on BLM lands. The very nature of a PEIS requires that the BLM take a ‘hard 

look’ at all of the activities that occur on BLM land. Grazing, mining, cross-country 

travel, vegetative treatments, and herbicide treatments all have been shown to be 

contributing factors to the spread of noxious weeds. It is not BLM’s right to 

conveniently ignore these facts. Nor can it ignore legitimate alternatives other than 

chemical based herbicides to combat the spread of noxious and invasive species. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis The PEIS examines and analyzes the effects 

of using herbicides on all vegetation and resources on public lands in the west and 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-142 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0214-037 

Natural Resources 

Defense Council and 

National Wildlife 

Federation 

RMC-0217-020 

Sierra Club Utah 

Chapter 

Alaska, and its context is broader than just addressing weed spread. The PER also 

examines the effects of using other non-herbicide techniques on vegetation and 

resources. The BLM has previously examined the causes and contributing factors of 

weed spread and documented them in its invasive species strategy and Partners 

Against Weeds - An Action Plan for the BLM (USDI BLM 1996). Alternatives 

Considered but Not Further Analyzed are discussed in Chapter 2 of the PEIS. The 

programmatic decisions made in the PEIS are relative to adopting—or not adopting— 

certain herbicides for use on public lands, as well as developing a protocol to 

determine how future herbicides may be assessed using current scientific standards, 

with public involvement, ensuring technical and scientific accuracy in the data leading 

to a decision by the agency. 

Comment: BLM Disregards its Statutory Mandate to Use Integrated Pest 

Management. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) 

requires that: “Federal agencies shall use Integrated Pest Management techniques in 

carrying out pest management activities and shall promote Integrated Pest 

Management through procurement and regulatory policies, and other activities.” 7 

U.S.C. [United States Code] § 136r-1. The term “pest” is defined in FIFRA to include 

weeds and invasive species. 7 USC §§ 136(t) (“The term ‘pest’ means any . . . weed”) 

& 136(cc) (“The term ‘weed’ means any plant which grows where not wanted.”). 

BLM therefore must promote IPM in its regulatory policies generally, and is obligated 

to use Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in carrying out all weed eradication in 

particular. The proposed D[raft] PEIS disregards this statutory obligation by failing to 

include IPM as a basic limit on chemical herbicide use in all of the alternatives. 

Response: As discussed in Chapter 2 of the PER, under Vegetation Treatment 

Methods, the BLM uses an integrated program to treat vegetation. The PER states that 

the program is for the management of weeds, but should read that it is for the 

management of vegetation; this has been corrected in the Final PER. Because much of 

the information on vegetation management and integrated vegetation management in 

the PER is very relevant to the PEIS, this information has also been included in the 

Final PEIS. 

Comment: Essentially the BLM needs to make a scientific analysis of the situation 

and base treatments on that analysis. By so narrowly defining the purpose and need at 

this draft stage the BLM is precluding a realistic and scientifically valid evaluation of 

various treatment protocols available. It may be that it is not the intention of the BLM 

to make such an analysis. If this is the case the BLM should clearly state that it does 

not plan to take a hard look at the problem of weeds, invasive and exotic plants, the 

relationship of permitted activities to the problem and the most effective means of 

remedying the problem. 

Response: See Chapter 2 of the PER and PEIS for a description of BLM vegetation 

treatment project design processes and considerations. Prior to any treatment, the 

BLM considers the best available science in the design of the project and bases its 

treatment proposals on land use plan goals and objectives, standards and guides for 

rangeland health, and integrated pest management methodologies. Vegetation 

treatment projects are evaluated under NEPA at the time they are proposed, and 

suitable alternative treatment protocols are assessed, as appropriate for the situation. 

The Purpose and Need are stated in Chapter 1 of the PEIS. It is neither the purpose nor 

the intent of this PEIS to conduct a programmatic analysis of the “problem of weeds 

and their relationship of permitted activities.” This PEIS is being developed to 

address additions of chemical herbicides to the tools available to the BLM to reduce 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-143 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0217-031 

Sierra Club Utah 

Chapter 

RMC-0218-043 

Blue Mountains 

Biodiversity Project, 

League of Wilderness 

Defenders 

RMC-0221-032 

Center for Biological 

Diversity 

hazardous fuels to prevent future catastrophic fires and to improve wildlife habitat and 

forest and ecological condition through the control of unwanted vegetation including, 

but not limited to, noxious weeds and invasive plant species. 

Comment: In particular any treatment needs to identify the means by which it will 

deal with the retained seed bank of exotic and weedy species. 

Response: It is true that some exotic seed can remain viable for multiple years. Seed 

viability has been a part of ongoing research that has helped to provide direction on 

which treatments are most appropriate for certain species. Successful control requires 

various amounts of continued treatments in various combinations, depending on the 

species, which is the basis of integrated weed management. For one species, a preemergent herbicide may be needed, and for another species one treatment of emergent 

herbicide, followed by mechanical or manual treatments, would be more successful. 

Whatever appropriate treatment is used, the amount of viable seed will be reduced. 

BLM Manual 9015 provides guidance on integrated weed management. 

Comment: The BLM still barges forward with a proposed action that not only plans 

to greatly increase the use of herbicides, including herbicides known to be highly toxic 

and new ones with inadequate testing and/or very high potency, but also to use them 

for rather frivolous unnecessary purposes: “–some treatments could be designed to 

reduce the size or density of stands of trees or shrubs....Herbicides could also be used 

to suppress or thin shrubs in favor of herbaceous vegetation.” (PEIS p. 4-61) 

Response: The registration of herbicides is the responsibility of the USEPA, which 

requires the registrant to provide the data necessary for the preparation of human 

health and ecological risk assessments, including information on the “inert” or “other” 

ingredients. Breakdown pathways and the composition of the formulation carrier are 

presented as part of the overall registration package the registrant must provide to the 

USEPA. In addition, the BLM conducted its own risk assessments, or used risk 

assessments prepared by the Forest Service, to evaluate risks associated with the use of 

herbicides under BLM application rates and field conditions. Overall, herbicides 

proposed for use by the BLM would have no or low toxicity under most application 

and receptor scenarios. Herbicides are never used frivolously by the agency. 

Herbicides are utilized in various ways, according to their label and intended purpose, 

including selectively targeting certain vegetation types to promote growth of desirable 

species to meet management objectives. 

Comment: The D[raft] PEIS only addresses mechanical and chemical methods for 

reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfire, but does not offer guidance in the proactive 

prevention of fires and the long-term recovery of burned lands. Allowing livestock 

grazing to continue in recently burned areas compromises the ability of post-fire areas 

to recover; post-fire livestock grazing can delay recovery of burned areas, and should 

not be permitted in burned areas until vegetation recovery has occurred (Beschta et al. 

2004). Monitoring in post-fire areas should determine whether livestock will adversely 

impact recovery of vegetation and soil resources, since some vegetation communities 

may not reach their compositional peak until the second or third year (Guo 2001). 

Response: The analysis of vegetation treatment projects in the PEIS is primarily 

concerned with treatments designed to modify existing plant communities. The 

wildland fire management program does promote vegetation treatment projects that 

would reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire. As discussed in Chapter 2 of the PER 

under Planning and Management at the National Level, “although all treatment 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-144 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0221-046 

Center for Biological 

Diversity 

RMC-0222-019 

Salvo, Mark 

(Sagebrush Sea 

Campaign), Cox, 

Caroline (Northwest 

Coalition for 

Alternatives to 

Pesticides), and 

O’Brien, Mary 

methods would be used, prescribed fire and mechanical treatments would account for 

most fuels reduction in the continental U.S., and wildland fires for resource use would 

account for most fuels reduction in Alaska.” The PEIS team agrees with commentor’s 

statements about the potential impacts of grazing too soon after a burn. The BLM has 

used two growing seasons of rest as the basic standard, which has been adequate in 

many cases. However, depending on the specific situation (plant community present 

before the burn, precipitation available following the burn, etc.), a shorter or longer 

period of rest may be appropriate, as determined by monitoring. Revegetation is 

discussed under Revegetation in Chapter 2 of the PEIS and PER. 

Comment: The D[raft] PER uses the term wildlife urban interface (“WUI”) to refer 

specifically to the areas where open lands meet urban development, especially houses. 

This generally considered an area within 20 to 60 meters of houses where a defensible 

zone can be created. Fences, powerlines, trails, roads, and properties without buildings 

do not constitute WUI areas (Nowicki, 2001). The BLM has never prepared a 

comprehensive study of how many acres of WUI there are on BLM lands, how many 

of these acres are forested, and how many of these acres need to be treated for invasive 

species. 

Response: There are several ways to determine what is included in WUI and what is 

not. WUI has been defined in A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire 

Risks to Communities and the Environment 10-year Comprehensive Strategy 

Implementation Plan (USDI and USDA 2002) and Protecting People and Natural 

Resources, A Cohesive Fuels Treatment Strategy (USDI and USDA 2006) as “the line, 

area, or zone where structures and other human development meet or intermingle with 

undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuel.” The other way a WUI boundary can be 

determined is through the development of a Community Wildfire Protection Plan 

(CWPP). These plans are developed by local communities, with participation by state 

and local wildland fire agencies. Critical infrastructure such as powerlines, roadways, 

or critical watersheds may be incorporated into a WUI defined as part of a CWPP. 

CWPPs allow for a localized definition of WUI to be developed. Guidance for 

defining WUI is also provided in the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 to be 

used in the absence of a CWPP. The variation in WUI definition across the country 

allows for local issues to drive WUI definition, but makes national mapping of WUI 

difficult. 

An updated section on Wildland Fire Management is included in Chapter 2 of the 

Final PEIS and PER will discuss CWPPs and WUI in more detail. 

Comment: Altered landscapes: The PEIS and PER need to acknowledge that there are 

significant areas on public land that are so highly altered that they are not 

economically or practically recoverable. For example, in areas of significant downy 

brome (Bromus tectorum) infestation, inappropriate (prescribed fire) or insufficient 

(plowing or tilling without appropriate native plant restoration techniques) actions in 

these areas may cause increases in downy brome infestation and fire frequency. 

Guidance needs to be provided for areas where specific treatments are not appropriate 

in specific ecosystems, for example, restricting the use of prescribed fire in sagebrush 

plant communities below elevation gradients where downy brome is most likely to 

invade. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0049-003 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, How the Effects of the Alternatives Were Estimated. Parameters for 

the use of specific techniques for vegetation control are developed at the local 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-145 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

planning level based on site-specific conditions and the identification of highly altered 

landscapes where certain treatment techniques may not be advisable. 

Alternatives, Site Selection Priorities 

EMC-0175-003 Comment: This brings me to my second point, which is, why in heavens would we 

Simonson, Annette risk contamination of our water sources, fish-bearing streams, sensitive species habitat 

or even human health to embark on a program that will only require repeated toxic 

applications? 

Response: As discussed in Chapter 2 of the PEIS and PER, BLM vegetation 

treatments are designed to provide conditions that discourage future weed infestations, 

primarily through revegetation and preventing the causes that have led to weed 

infestations in the past. It is the intent of the BLM to restore conditions on a site such 

that treatments on the site would no longer be needed. 

EMC-0505-015 Comment: Chapter 2, page 2-8, fourth paragraph: The PDEIS [Draft PER] states that 

U.S. Environmental “The following vegetation treatment priorities identified in the EIS Vegetation 

Protection Agency Treatment on BLM Lands in the Thirteen Western States (USDI BLM 1991a) still 

apply today (italics added) is not consistent with the Vegetation treatment methods 

section on the right side of the page. The USDI BLM 1991(a) reference identifies a 

specific preference for non-chemical controls without regard to environmental impact 

or suitability besides effectiveness. The Vegetation treatment methods section states 

“all control methods should be available for use, allowing the BLM to select the one 

method, or the combination of methods, that optimizes vegetation control with respect 

to environmental concerns. With this in mind, we recommend removing the three 

words “still apply today” and add that the current focus of IVM [integrated vegetation 

management] is to use the option(s) that represent the “method, or combination of 

methods, that optimize vegetation control with respect to environmental concerns, 

effectiveness, and cost of control,” similar to the language in 2-8, Vegetation 

Treatment Methods. One example is shown in a study supporting the IPM approach, 

looking at species diversity under various Rights of Way Management methods, 

commonly referred to as the Bramble and Burns studies (Bramble, WC., WR. Byrnes, 

RJ. Hutnik, and S.A. Liscinsky. 199 1. Prediction of cover type on rights-of-way after 

maintenance treatments. J. Arboric. 17:38-43.) 

Response: As noted in the section on Site Selection and Treatment Priorities in the 

Final PEIS, treatment methods were prioritized “based on their effectiveness and 

likelihood to have minimal impacts on the environment.” Thus, the statement referring 

to the use of herbicides has been modified to state that risks to the environment are 

considered in addition to their effectiveness. 

EMC-0585-100 Comment: Maps presented at public sessions on the DEIS [Draft PEIS] show just 

Western Watersheds how far from population centers nearly all of Nevada and much of Wyoming, Idaho 

Project and Oregon BLM land really is. Yet, the same materials claim that many of the 

treatments will occur in urban interfaces. We believe that BLM may be misrepresenting areas in UIs and/or in need of treatment to protect human habitation, in 

order to be able to maximize funding to conduct the large-scale wild land alteration 

this EIS would enable. The data and scientific basis for such maps and claims must be 

provided to the public. 

Response: Much of the public lands that the BLM manages are indeed far from the 

wildland urban interface (WUI). Any vegetation management projects undertaken 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-146 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

outside of the WUI would not consider WUI protection as a purpose and need for the 

project. Other resource management objectives would predominate. Only those BLM 

managed public lands identified in Community Wildfire Protection Plans or defined 

using the Healthy Forests Restoration Act as being WUI would consider WUI 

protection as a need for a specific project. Also see response to Comment RMC-0221-

046 under PEIS Alternatives, Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management. 

Alternatives, Non-herbicide Treatment Methods 

EMC-0233-005 Comment: What about alternatives to these harmful chemicals, such as importation of 

Dyber, Kenneth James other forms of life, be it plant, or insect, to maintain a natural balance in the 

ecosystem? 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0003-005 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Revegetation. 

EMC-0375-004 Comment: Please consider using other methods of weed eradication, such as 

Johnson, Lisa mechanical removal, biological controls and even, as a last resort, targeted use of 

herbicides, rather than inundating the west with herbicides. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0003-005 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Revegetation. 

EMC-0446-050 Comment: This PER section ([Draft] PER [page] 2-8) describes general parameters 

The Nature that may be considered in selecting a treatment method but does not include any 

Conservancy requirements or guidelines to be used by field offices. Vegetation methods should be 

based upon ecologically-based goals for restoration that include desired outcomes for 

the specific plant communities scheduled for treatment not on general concepts of fire 

risk and reduction of fuel loads that have been drawn from other habitat types. 

Vegetation treatments should use the best available science in prioritization and 

planning (PER Chapter 2). LANDFIRE will provide quantitative reference conditions 

that synthesize the best available science on fire and vegetation dynamics for all 

potential vegetation types across the U.S. and can be used to help set goals and assess 

alternative strategies for achieving goals. 

Response: Ecologically-based goals for restoration are established at the local land 

use planning level and are framed as desired outcomes for specific plant communities 

or fire regime condition classes. Goals are based on restoration assessment processes 

such as the Fire Regime Condition Class or land use health assessment processes (see 

Chapter 3 of the PER under Vegetation Condition and Fire Regimes and Chapter 1 of 

the PER under Relationships among Land Use, Land Use Planning, Land Health 

Standards, Ecosystem Functionality, and Vegetation Treatments). Implementation 

plans tiered to the land use plans establish strategies and treatment methods to 

effectively restore ecosystems specific to the plant communities in which the actual 

implementation will take place. Use of best available science is required under federal 

fire policy. LANDFIRE is being developed and will be used by BLM for the purposes 

presented in this comment. 

The BLM is currently developing guidance for integrating vegetation management 

programs that will be implemented through the BLM’s directives systems, including 

manuals and handbooks. This direction will ensure additional consistency in 

assessment processes, best management practices, and treatment effectiveness 

monitoring. Additional discussion on prioritization of treatments is included under 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-147 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0496-002 

DeLong, Colleen 

EMC-0505-014 

U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency 

EMC-0623-002 

Defenders of Wildlife 

EMC-0641-018 

Idaho Conservation 

League 

Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management in Chapter 2 of the PEIS. 

Comment: Please do not use herbicides as your primary solution to the problem of 

[invasive] species. Herbicides can be part of a responsible plan, but should not be the 

whole plan. Over reliance on herbicides indiscriminately poses threats to wildlife, 

ecosystems and water systems rural residents depend on. Please use a broader and 

safer array of tools to deal with invasive weeds. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0003-005 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Revegetation. 

Comment: Section 2-8 [of the PER], Vegetation Treatment Methods, refers to 

“integrated weed management”, and states that “...no one management option is a 

stand alone option and that each has its own strengths and weaknesses.” EPA suggests 

changing the statement to address “integrated vegetation management” rather than 

“integrated weed management” because the practices are not limited to weed control, 

but extend into wildfire fuels management, endangered species management, etc. 

Response: The wording of this section has been changed to reflect integrated 

vegetation management rather than weed management. 

Comment: While weeds are a famously intractable problem, strategies do exist for 

controlling existing infestations and for preventing weeds from spreading to new 

areas. Land managers can use mechanical removal, controlled burning, biological 

control, and herbicides to control invasives, and can prevent new infestations with 

monitoring and early detection, and by curtailing land use practices that spread weeds. 

Innovative approaches combine multiple methodologies for prevention, control and 

restoration are needed to remove weeds, improve wildlife habitats, and prevent 

infestation of lands that are currently weed-free. However, the approach outlined in the 

PEIS depends almost entirely on herbicide use, to the exclusion of other prevention, 

control, and restoration efforts. Defenders [of Wildlife] predicts that this focus on 

herbicide use to the exclusion of other methods will fail to curtail weed invasions in 

the West, while potentially exposing people and wildlife to unnecessary levels of 

herbicides. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0076-002 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Herbicide Modes of Action and Treatment Methods. 

Comment: Because of the serious ecological damage caused by noxious weeds, we 

support the judicious use of herbicides when careful analysis demonstrates its 

appropriateness on a site-specific basis. However, the environmental costs of herbicide 

use must always be carefully weighed against the benefits in light of alternative 

methods of noxious weed control and prevention. The burden rests on the BLM to 

demonstrate, via analyses of the characteristics of specific herbicides as well as site 

conditions and weather patterns, that proposed herbicide application treatments will 

not adversely impact non-target species or overall ecosystem integrity. Non-herbicide 

treatments and prevention techniques should be utilized in situations where herbicide 

application may result in unintended harm. 

Response: As discussed in Chapter 2 of the PEIS and PER under Vegetation 

Treatment Methods, application of herbicides is but one method proposed by the BLM 

for treatment of vegetation. Other methods include manual, mechanical, and biological 

control methods, and use of prescribed fire. Only about 16% of acres would be treated 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-148 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0049-005 

Wilson, Robert E. 

(University of Nevada 

Cooperative Extension) 

RMC-0049-008 

Wilson, Robert E. 

(University of Nevada 

Cooperative Extension) 

RMC-0069-015 

Desert Survivors 

EMC-0075-002 

Pearce, Mary 

using herbicides; the remaining acres would be treated using other methods. Nonherbicide treatment methods are considered first when planning a vegetation treatment 

program, and herbicide use is only considered if it is effective and safe, as discussed in 

Chapter 2 of the PEIS under Site Selection Priorities. The effectiveness and safety of 

herbicides are discussed in Chapter 4 and in Appendixes B and C of the PEIS. 

Comment: The last point that needs to be better emphasized is to use all the tools 

available. While herbicides are a focus of one of these draft publications, the draft 

publication on Vegetation Treatments should have emphasized much more thoroughly 

how the various tools work together to achieve the goal of making native plant 

communities much more resilient and better able to resist domination by invasive plant 

species. Where we do not have complete knowledge, the document should reflect that 

and allow for incorporation of new knowledge as it becomes available. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0049-008 under PEIS Alternatives, Site 

Selection Methods. The Final PER identifies and provides additional information on 

the other various vegetation methods available to the BLM. Also see the text in 

Chapter 2 of the PER under Standard Operating Procedures and Guidelines, which 

describes how integrated pest management is used to ensure that all the tools work 

together to achieve resource management goals. 

Comment: It is important that the agency be allowed as much flexibility as possible 

when newer tools become available. Where they are most appropriate, new tools −

including new herbicides − should be used where science indicates that it is 

appropriate in the battle to combat invasive weed species domination. 

Response: The BLM agrees the agency needs flexibility to use new tools, including 

new herbicides, and to use them appropriately as best science would indicate. 

However, the BLM also has a responsibility to ensure public involvement in its 

decision-making, as well as a responsibility to ensure that the tools used on public 

lands do not result in unforeseen or unintended consequences. 

Comment: In all cases, there are other means that can be used to manage public lands 

in a responsible manner. Spraying herbicides is a kind of “final solution” management 

tool that seems to solve one problem but ends up creating more. “Fly a plane over and 

the work is done!” But at what cost? These chemicals must not be used on public 

lands. 

Response: Although addressed separately in the PEIS, chemical treatments are just 

one method employed by the BLM to control vegetation. Other methods, which are 

discussed in the PER, include fire, mechanical treatments, manual treatments, and 

biological control. As stated in Chapter 2 of the PER under Vegetation Treatment 

Methods, no single management option is regarded as a stand-alone option for 

successful vegetation treatments. When developing treatment programs, the BLM 

considers all available management options, and then selects the method or 

combination of methods that optimizes vegetation control with respect to 

environmental concerns, effectiveness, and cost of the treatment. 

Comment: It would be better to use animals that graze on weeds and other 

mechanical ways of using weeds to make fertilizers and soil conditioners. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0003-005 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Revegetation. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-149 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0080-002 

Winfree, Robin 

Comment: This is not an effective way to deal with invasive plant problems. Use a 

little more people-power to control and prevent the spread of invasive plants, and you 

will win the gratitude of citizens everywhere. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0003-005 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Revegetation. 

EMC-0181-007 

Artley, Richard 

Comment: For noxious weeds use hand digging. A small gas powered auger will help 

to dig down deep enough to get all the roots. The superior characteristic to hand 

digging is that all non-target vegetation survives. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0003-005 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Revegetation. 

EMC-0239-003 

Kimmel, Reida 

Comment: Herbicides should not be the preferred control method for an agency 

charged with the protection of the public lands and their species. Manual control is 

effective on many invasives like Scotch broom. The use of burning as in fuel reduction 

projects, and other heat related techniques for killing plants are effective. Controlled 

intensive grazing by sheep or goats has proved to be very effective in combating 

certain weeds, and gives a boost to local economies. If the BLM practices a policy of 

integrated pest management, using herbicides only as a last resort, the lands it manages 

will be far healthier for the discretionary use of poisons. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0003-005 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Revegetation. 

EMC-0239-005 

Kimmel, Reida 

Comment: We hear often that chemicals are the only choice because they are the most 

cost-effective. With the increase in the price of fuel and petrochemical products this 

may not be the case very much longer. Even more importantly, as I see it, the 

herbicides are not that effective. Timber companies in my neighborhood spray 

repeatedly, three or four times in establishing a new crop of trees. Their lands here 

Western Oregon, in spite of the sprays, are a sea of broom, thistle, and blackberry. If 

herbicides don’t even work very well, in spite of repeated applications, against these 

common invasives, how can they hope to deal with leafy spurge? The BLM needs to 

establish a firm policy of control which decreases, not increases, the use of herbicides, 

while relying more and more on conventional and innovative approaches to clearing 

our public lands of unwanted and harmful species. 

Response: Within Chapter 2 of the PER, under the heading “Site Selection and 

Treatment Priorities,” the priorities for vegetation treatments are identified. As stated 

in the BLM’s action plan, Partners Against Weeds - An Action Plan for the BLM 

(USDI BLM 1996), “... an IWM (Integrated Weed Management) approach, where all 

weed management practices are considered for use, is the best approach where 

noxious weeds have infested an area.” In Manual Section 9015, the BLM’s policy 

regarding Integrated Weed Management is spelled out; pointing out that the BLM is 

“vitally interested in an integrated pest management approach.” Only through the 

integration of all available management options can the BLM hope to address the issue 

of invasive weed species. The use of livestock as a weed management tool for leafy 

spurge has proven extremely effective, along with the introduction of USDA-APHISPPQ [U.S. Department of Agriculture-Animal and Plant Health Inspection ServicePlant Protection and Quarantine]-approved biological control agents. Research 

supported by the BLM has demonstrated the effective use of competitive grasses in the 

management of creeping perennials, which along with the other management options 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-150 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0242-002 

Boettcher, Robert 

EMC-0252-003 

Levanti, Deanna 

EMC-0253-004 

Keeran, Georgia 

EMC-0257-007 

Lockridge, Ross 

for leafy spurge have proven to be cost-effective when used in an integrated approach. 

Also see responses to Comment EMC-0174-003 under PEIS Proposed Action and 

Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis and Comments EMC-0203-007 and EMC-0646-

182 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, Vegetation. 

Comment: I have been a member of a county weed board for over 20 years and we 

have had great success in controlling weeds with an integrated management approach. 

There are several ways to do this such as insects, hand pulling, hoeing, burning 

anything to keep the plants from going to seed. The problem with tripling your use of 

herbicides is where does this run off to as there is far to much pollution to mainly our 

water supply already. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0003-005 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Revegetation. 

Comment: Herbicide use should always be a last resort. Through controlling wildfires 

is no simple task, the government must make use of various resources and methods. 

Primarily, the wildfire ecosystem must be understood. Any solution must fit into the 

natural cycles of that ecosystem. Rather than try to downright destroy the wildfire 

ecosystem, we should try to induce naturally occurring controls. Knowledge about 

those methods comes from studying and observing the ecosystem, as generations of 

Native Americans have done. We must tap in to any existing knowledge about control 

methods, asking for Native American participation and that of any who possess such 

knowledge. Some methods include cyclical burning of underbrush by man and reestablishing a natural balance in the ecosystem to assure nature’s own control methods 

are in place--for example, the presence of small animals that eat underbrush, or the 

growth of trees that block light and hence control underbrush growth. 

Response: See responses to Comment EMC-0585-157 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Mitigation and Comment RMC-0003-005 under PER Vegetation Treatment Programs, 

Policies, and Methods, Revegetation. 

Comment: There are better ways to control non-desirable plants: Use of beneficial 

insects; control spraying of herbicides that eradicate specific plant types and do not 

eradicate beneficial plants. Please consider seriously the indiscriminate spraying. In 

attempting to resolve one problem you may well be creating additional problems. The 

balances that existed before the “weeds” were introduced must be 

reestablished/preserved. 

Response: See responses to Comments RMC-0003-005 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Revegetation and RMC-0214-029 under 

PEIS Alternatives, Prevention of Weeds and Early Detection and Rapid Response. 

Comment: I would like to see a real commitment within the BLM that does not pit the 

chemical industries against healthier nontoxic agricultural solutions. Often there are 

other alternatives that can be committed to that are clearly safer than the use of 

herbicides, like mechanical removal of vegetation, the use of goats as follow-up, or the 

No-Action alternatives. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0049-003 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, How the Effects of the Alternatives Were Estimated. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-151 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0275-003 

Vardaman, Emilie 

Comment: Fourth, there are better, cheaper, easier ways to dispose of weeds: goats. 

They have been used for several years under contract from the state and federal 

governments to eat weeds. This is an affordable, non toxic option that should be used. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0003-005 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Revegetation. 

EMC-0350-003 

Morris, Nancy 

Comment: I find it very frustrating that the BLM continues to cater more to the 

pesticide industry as a way to resolve invasive problems than looking at real solutions 

that would not cause harm to people, air, water, and wildlife. Non-toxic solutions do 

exist if we put energy into this type of preventive research. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0049-003 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, How the Effects of the Alternatives Were Estimated. 

EMC-0505-006 

U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency 

Comment: However, herbicides are only one strategy that may find value as the most 

environmentally sound approach to addressing these crises. Consequently, to assess 

and choose the best scenario requires that herbicides be compared to other 

management options such as fire, beneficial insects resulting in biological control, 

manual and mechanical methods such as weed pulling, mowing, etc. For this reason, 

we encourage the BLM to develop alternatives that include all management options so 

that the comparison is clear, and so that the decision-making process is spelled out in 

some detail. 

Response: See Chapter 4 of the PEIS, Environmental Consequences. Alternative C, 

No Use of Herbicides, provides the baseline comparison of non-chemical methods 

relative to herbicide use. 

EMC-0533-015 

Colorado Farm Bureau 

Comment: In fact, we suggest that livestock grazing should be more prominently 

considered in the final [P]EIS as an integral tool for reducing fuel loads and managing 

harmful invasive and noxious weeds on BLM lands. Cattle, sheep and goats provide 

an ecologically safe and effective way to manage vegetation. 

Response: The PEIS does consider the use of domestic grazing animals as a viable 

option for limiting the growth and reproduction of undesirable vegetation. In many 

situations grazing can be effectively used along with other methods to help control the 

targeted vegetation. Use of grazing animals requires that the grazing season be 

prescribed specifically to control undesirable vegetation without impacting other 

resources present. Although this method can be effective, it would not work in every 

situation and must be considered along with other options for each site-specific 

situation. 

EMC-0533-016 

Colorado Farm Bureau 

Comment: Using livestock grazing as a way to reduce fuel loads and harmful noxious 

weeds might also provide an economical and efficient solution to the issue of what to 

do with livestock when allotments are being restored or treated. Using livestock in this 

beneficial way could provide a “win-win” situation for both ranchers and for the 

environment. This option should be better developed in the final PEIS. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0533-015 under PEIS Alternatives, Site 

Selection Methods. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-152 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0552-003 

McDougall, Claire, and 

Paul Jones 

Comment: I think it would be more progressive for the Bureau of Land Management 

to look at some alternative methods. Any invasive weed can be pulled or chopped 

down before the seeds drop. On our subdivision we have proven this to be effective. 

Bringing in predatory insects has also been effective. Why this love-affair with the 

chemical? Why this obsession with eradicating weeds over and above concern for our 

children’s health and the health of the smaller animals in our eco-system? 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0003-005 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Revegetation. 

EMC-0562-012 

The Lands Council 

Comment: The Lands Council would like to see integrated manual and cultural 

treatments considered as a preferred alternative. Hand pulling, hoeing, and other 

manual removal methods are most effective for smaller infestations. They are an 

“important tool in steep or uneven terrain” and “typically cause minimal 

environmental impact”. DiTomaso (2001). The following excerpt was taken from the 

Integrated Vegetation Management’s Technical Bulletin, Bio-Integral Resource 

Center, Berkeley, Drlik et al (1998). 

“The Bradley method is an approach that was developed by the Bradley sisters in 

Sydney, Australia. It combines the strategies of containment and reduction and can be 

used most successfully in natural areas where weed stands are close to or intermingled 

with native vegetation. This approach uses carefully planned hand weeding to tip the 

ecological balance in favor of the native vegetation, which is then allowed to 

regenerate and fill the area where the weeds have been removed. The weeding is 

always done outward from the edge of the best stands of natives. The Bradley’s 

recommend choosing an area you can visit easily and often, where the native 

vegetation meets a mixture of natives and weeds not worse than 1 weed to 2 natives. 

Using this method, the two Bradley sisters (both over fifty) cleared a 40-acre 

woodland reserve so successfully that the area needed only slight attention once or 

twice a year (mainly in vulnerable spots such as roadsides and creek banks) to be 

maintained weed-free. To do this they expended only a minimum amount of time: an 

average of 45 minutes per day between the two of them. This low-cost, low-impact 

approach enables restoration to occur with minimal labor or equipment.” 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0486-020 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management regarding the integrated pest 

management (IPM) approach used in designing BLM vegetation treatment projects. 

Manual and cultural methods are included within the range of options for vegetation 

treatments. The IPM approach represents existing policy and is subsumed under 

Continue Present Herbicide Use (No Action Alternative) and the Expand Herbicide 

Use and Allow for Use of New Herbicides in 17 Western States (Preferred 

Alternative). 

EMC-0562-013 

The Lands Council 

Comment: Other management methods recommended by experts and ignored as a 

preferred alternative are tilling, mowing, and grazing. For instance mowing, a cost 

effective late season tool, is a popular treatment method. See DiTomaso (2001). 

Properly timed mowing (or weed whacking) can provide excellent control, and reduce 

seed banks and populations. The BLM should be favoring an integrated method 

alternative that combines mowing, grazing, and hand pulling with revegetation efforts. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0486-020 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management. The BLM utilizes an integrated 

weed management (IWM) approach, which includes the methods described. Analysis 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-153 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0646-195 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

EMC-0646-199 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

EMC-0646-201 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

EMC-0646-202 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

and discussion of these methods is provided in the PEIS and PER. Each method is 

identified in the discussion under Vegetation Treatment Methods in Chapter 2 of the 

PER, including mechanical methods, manual methods (hand pulling), and biological 

control methods (grazing), and use of prescribed fire and herbicides. 

Comment: There is an abundance of literature regarding the control and management 

of yellow starthistle (YST). The BLM has failed to disclose this information and has 

thus skewed the evaluation of feasible alternatives. California governmental sources 

often rely on the expertise of Dr. Joseph DiTomaso of the University of California, 

Davis, in regards to YST management and control. DiTomaso states in UC Davis’s 

Weed Research and Information web site that viable treatment options include 

grazing, mowing, manual removal, perennial grass reseeding, burning, and biological 

control. Yet the BLM has failed to evaluate most of these methods. With a myriad of 

low-impact effective and commonly used treatment options available, why is the BLM 

so focused on spraying? Hand pulling, hoeing, and other manual removal methods are 

most effective for smaller infestations. They are an “important tool in steep or uneven 

terrain” and “typically cause minimal environmental impact” (DiTomaso 2001). 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0003-005 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Revegetation. 

Comment: Grazing has been shown to be effective controlling young yellow 

starthistle plants (DiTomaso 2001). If integrated with mowing, burning, bio-controls, 

or even as a treatment for re-growth after hand pulling, grazing could be efficiently 

and effectively utilized for controlling yellow starthistle. Yet the BLM has failed to 

mention or even consider grazing within the pages of the EA [PEIS]. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0003-005 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Revegetation. 

Comment: Burning is recommended for use in the first, second, and third years of 

long-term management strategies ([Ditomaso] 2001). Is the BLM planning to wage 

war on weeds for the long term? Why were these feasible options [ burning and 

grazing] not included as potential alternatives or part of an integrated management 

strategy? The current EA [PEIS] is unacceptable and in violation of NEPA due to its 

failure to include analysis of long term, viable IPM [integrated pest management] 

options such as these. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0003-005 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Revegetation. 

Comment: The EA [PEIS] fails to consider the option of using bio-control agents on 

yellow starthistle even though the literature shows that it has proven effective. Six 

different insects have become established in California for controlling Yellow 

starthistle. Two in particular, the false peacock fly (Chaetorellia succinea) and the 

hairy weevil (Eustenopus villosus), have been shown to have significant impact on 

seed production (DiTomaso 2001). DiTomaso (2001) also states that several plant 

pathogens have shown promise as bio-control tools, and in particular the naturallyoccurring and host-specific Ascophyta spp. DiTomaso states that bio-control is 

recommended to be part of any integrated management strategy and that they provide 

the possibility of long-term and sustainable management (2001). Isn’t that the ideal 

goal of noxious weed management? Bio-controls should at least be mentioned and 

evaluated? 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-154 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0646-218 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

FXC-0074-006 

Copper Country 

Alliance 

RMC-0210-041 

MCS Task Force of 

New Mexico 

EMC-0646-203 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0003-005 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Revegetation. 

Comment: Conversely, grazing could be considered as a tool for weed suppression 

and vegetation management. Such a technique is usually most successful when used in 

combination with other weed control techniques and employed over several seasons 

with cautious and restrictive rotational grazing practices (CDFA Encycloweedia 

website, Pitcher 1986, WA Noxious Weed Control Board). However, as previously 

mentioned, the use of grazers in weed management is a delicate tool that must be 

applied with great responsibility and commitment, not without careful planning, full 

analysis and monitored implementation. There is no hint of this level of awareness in 

the FEIS [Draft PEIS]. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0003-005 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Revegetation. 

Comment: Because of their documented harmful effects (many of which your PEIS 

summarizes) on fish, wildlife and other organisms, herbicide use should never, 

anywhere, be the first option considered. BLM should always look at all other options 

first. BLM should evaluate which method has the least potential for harm to: 

• Human health 

• Farm animals and crops 

• Subsistence resources 

• Commercial fisheries 

• Non-target species 

• The natural ecosystem 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0238-007 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Wildlife Resources. 

Comment: The management of existing weeds should rely primarily on non-chemical 

methods, using herbicides only as a last resort, if at all. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0003-005 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Revegetation. 

Comment: DiTomaso mentions problems with using herbicides as part of an 

integrated, long-term management strategy for YST [yellow starthistle]. DiTomaso 

reports that herbicides are not effective in the early years of a long-term strategy and 

do not provide control of seeds germinating after treatment. Yet this is exactly what 

the BLM is proposing. Is the BLM looking for a long-term solution to invasive plants 

or a short-term fix? Why has the BLM failed to disclose this information within the 

EA [PEIS]? While glyphosate is reported by DiTomaso to be effective on YST 

seedlings, so are hand pulling and other methods, which have lower adverse impact 

potential. The BLM has failed to objectively discuss the potential problems and 

disadvantages of their herbicide solution, again failing to comply with NEPA 

requirements and thus the EA is unacceptable. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0003-005 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Revegetation. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-155 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0040(1)-003 

Resource Concepts, 

Inc. 

RMC-0217-022 

Sierra Club Utah 

Chapter 

FXC-0071-003 

Campbell, Bruce 

FXC-0071-005 

Campbell, Bruce 

Comment: Pg. 2-10 [of the Draft PER], the mechanical treatment section failed to 

mention the use of the Hydro-ax or other chopper/shredders that are part of the 

mowing tool suite. 

Response: The PER discusses mechanical treatment tools by type, rather than by 

specific tool or brand of tool. The Hydroax would fall under the general discussion of 

mowing tools (Chapter 2, Mechanical Treatment subheading). This paragraph in the 

PER also mentions equipment that is used to cut and chip vegetation. 

Comment: It is not clear from the discussion whether mechanical treatments are 

effective. After decades of using mechanical treatments the BLM should have some 

record of treated areas, the results of treatment and the effectiveness of treatment in 

reducing noxious weeds and undesirable invasive plants and restoring the potential 

natural community of plants to an area. 

Response: Effectiveness of mechanical treatments is generally discussed in the 

Vegetation section of Chapter 4 of the PER under Adverse Effects of Treatments, 

Effects of Mechanical Treatments. Site-specific data on treatment effectiveness for 

mechanical treatments reside at individual field offices and are taken into account 

when planning vegetation treatment projects. In general, all treatment methods 

discussed in the PEIS and PER, including mechanical treatments, are considered by 

the BLM to be effective, within their physical limitations, under appropriate 

circumstances and conditions. 

Comment: I was appalled to see “manual (hand tools, hand-pulling, hand spraying)” 

on page 2 of 8 in an answer to a question in the Frequently Asked Questions paper at 

www.blm.gov/nhp/spotlight/VegEIS/faqs.htm about different types of vegetation 

management proposed under BLM’s plan. 

Response: In the context of the PEIS and PER, manual treatments include only those 

non-herbicide treatments done by hand and without mechanical equipment. Some 

herbicide treatments could be done manually using hand sprayers, backpack 

applicator, wick, etc., but in the PEIS and PER are still considered herbicide 

treatments. 

Comment: In how many alternatives can “manual” vegetation treatment include the 

use of herbicides sprayed by hand – and would that increase the likely quantity of 

“treated” acres beyond 932,000 a year? (I note that page 4-133 says that “5% of public 

lands” would be treated manually.) Not only should the documents differentiate 

between BLM lands and Forest Service lands when I believe they mean 5% of BLM 

lands, but also does this 5% figure include “hand spraying” which is considered one of 

the manual approaches according to the answers in the Frequently Asked Questions 

section? 

Response: Manual treatments, as discussed in the PER in Chapter 2 under Manual 

Treatment, do not involve the use of herbicides. Herbicides could be applied manually, 

such as with wick applicators or by spot spraying, but any acres treated using 

herbicides, regardless of the application method, are included in the acreage for 

herbicides. The term “public lands,” as defined in the first paragraph of Chapter 1 of 

the PEIS and PER, refers only to the nearly 261 million acres of BLM-administered 

lands in the 17 states evaluated in the PEIS and PER. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-156 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0174-002 Comment: We have seen a great decline of various weeds prevalent in Ferry due to 

Concerned Friends of the use of biological control agents, namely insects that attack these non-native weeds. 

Ferry County The use of weevils has drastically reduced the acres infested with knap weed and 

various thistles. A beetle has proven effective against St. Johns Wort. The BLM needs 

to investigate the use of these biological agents where and when ever possible to avoid 

the use of poisonous chemicals. 

Response: The BLM reviewed (Chapter 2) and evaluated (Chapter 4) non-herbicide 

treatment methods in the PER, including the use of biological control agents. Based on 

treatment estimates from BLM field offices, approximately 8% of all acres treated 

would be treated using biological control agents. 

FXC-0059-013 Comment: I also must demand that biocontrols – which I understand to be exotic 

Evans, Gail organisms – not be unleashed in the wild. Not enough controlled testing has been done 

to ensure that these organisms will not have negative impacts on native plants. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0446-062 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Biological Control. 

Alternatives, Determination of Treatment Acreages 

EMC-0405-010 Comment: Regarding Nevada, for example, there is no information on relevant 

Hoover, Victoria N. acreage in Nevada being considered for treatments, information either for BLM land 

managers themselves or for the public. Nevada is a significant part of the 

Intermountain West, with more BLM public lands than any other state. Its vast 

sagebrush habitats would especially be subject to massive experiments of treatments 

that have never been tried and shown to work properly anywhere. Chainings have 

already done significant damage to natural ecosystems in Nevada (as well as Utah) 

and it is time to slow down on such treatments, not seek to justify their great 

expansion. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0585-051 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Determination of Treatment Acreages. The BLM analyzed treatment effects by state 

for some resources, or by ecoregion or hydrologic region, depending upon the resource 

analyzed. Chapter 4 of the PEIS and PER note how many acres would be treated by 

regional area. An estimated number of acres treated in each state by each treatment 

method was required to conduct the air quality analyses; these figures can be found in 

the air quality reports on the CD that accompanies the Final PEIS. 

EMC-0411-006 Comment: How many acres infestated with invasive / noxious weeds on BLM lands 

Schroyer, Don L. have been treated with EPA approved herbicides, and how many acres have been 

treated by mechanical means? 

Response: Please refer to Table 3-5 in Chapter 3 of the PEIS for an estimate of 

infested acres. Table 3-23 in Chapter 3 of the PEIS provides data pertaining to 

herbicide applications in 2005. Each year, the BLM publishes its Public Lands 

Statistics, which discloses acres of treatments on public lands (Available at: 

http://www.blm.gov/publications/). These data have not been summarized for each 

treatment method in this PEIS due to variability in standards for reporting public land 

statistics over the last 20 years. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-157 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0446-007 

The Nature 

Conservancy 

EMC-0446-036 

The Nature 

Conservancy 

EMC-0446-057 

The Nature 

Conservancy 

Comment: Analysis scale: The Draft PEIS and PER propose an increase in vegetation 

management treatments on public land to 6 million acres per year, yet there is no map 

or description of where these treatment acres might occur other than a large scale map 

of assumed Fire Risk Regime Condition Classes (FRCC) across the entire West and a 

statement that over half of these treatments would occur in the Temperate Desert 

Ecoregion. The two documents defer to local land use plans for specific management 

areas, treatments and mitigation, yet many of BLM’s land use plans are more than 15­

20 years old and do not include updated information on fire regime condition class, 

ecological condition of vegetation to be treated, location of sensitive plant and animal 

species, or current goals for restoration of native plant communities. 

Response: Site-specific information on treatment locations is unavailable and not 

included in the PEIS. See Determination of Treatment Acres in Chapter 2 of the Final 

PEIS for a discussion of how treatment acres were derived for analysis in the PEIS. 

Despite the age of many land use plans, periodic plan maintenance and amendment 

allow plans to remain current until such time as the plans require revision. All BLM 

land use plans have been reviewed for appropriate decisions, goals, and objectives 

relative to fire management and fire regime condition class. In those cases where 

decisions, goals, and objectives required modification to meet current fire management 

policies, all BLM land use plans were directed by the Department of Interior to be 

amended for Fire Management by 2004. 

Comment: The current document does not clearly indicate where the majority of the 

acreage treatments are intended over the next decade. It would assist reviewers in 

analyzing potential effects to identify the acreage projected by individual field office 

and state level programs and the location of the additional 1.4 million acres of 

proposed treatment areas added by the national fire team based on fire regime 

condition class. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0446-057 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Determination of Treatment Acreages. 

Comment: Fuels treatments: BLM field offices developed acreage estimates of 4.6 

million acres of treatments per year based on existing land use and fire plans. An 

additional 1.4 million acres of treatment needs were based on existing FRCC [Fire 

regime condition class] assessments and the stated goal of shifting FRCC 3 conditions 

to FRCC 1. Without maps of all proposed treatment areas it is not possible to 

determine whether there is overlap in these estimates or whether these acres address 

large-scale needs and priorities for maintenance of areas in existing FRCC 1. There is 

insufficient information on how the additional 1.4 million acres of treatment were 

determined by national staff. Additional information should be provided on the 

location and extent of all proposed treatment areas, their management objectives, and 

proposed methods of treatment in order to be able to assess potential cumulative 

effects from multiple treatments in adjacent areas or similar ecosystems. 

Response: The PER in Chapter 1 under Determination of Treatment Acreages states 

that the 1.4 million acres were determined through the review of the fire regime 

condition classes on BLM-administered lands, and that these acres were beyond the 

4.6 million acres of proposed treatments by field offices. Acres of treatments were 

broadly estimated from a variety of sources, including land use and fire plans. The 

paragraph further explains that treatments on the 1.4 million acres would be on 

vegetation exhibiting FRCC3 characteristics. Maintenance of FRCC 1 category lands 

is an important component of ensuring long-term viability of healthy forests and 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-158 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0525-113 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0553-006 

Callihan, Robert H. 

EMC-0584-013 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

shrublands. Maintenance projects were included in the acreage estimates provided by 

the BLM field offices (i.e. within the 4.6 million acreage calculation). A further 

breakdown is provided, showing an estimated 3.5 million acres would be treated for 

hazardous fuels reduction and to control wildfires in the wildland urban interface, an 

estimated 1 million acres would be treated to restore ecosystem health (which includes 

invasive plant control), and an estimated 1.5 million acres would receive burned area 

stabilization and rehabilitation. Finally, this section states clearly that the 6 million 

annual acres is an estimate. This estimate and the estimated breakdown of treatments 

will fluctuate annually as prior year treatments are assessed for maintenance treatment 

needs and new fuels estimates evolve due to such perturbations as extensive beetle 

kill, drought or blow down. 

Because the PEIS and PER do not propose any vegetation treatments, maps of the 

locations of potential treatments are not included, either in the source documents or in 

the estimates provided by the field offices. The specific location, extent, management 

objectives, and proposed methods of treatments would be described in the site-specific 

NEPA or planning document at the time the project was proposed. It is beyond the 

capability of the PEIS and PER to provide this information, since specific locations 

may not be known at this time. 

Comment: As the acreage estimates for treatments proposed under the EIS are based 

on BLM District/Field Office estimates – with no apparent scientific methodology 

applied for developing these estimates, BLM’s great over-exaggerations about 

treatment needs in the past must be used as the lens through which the public views 

claims of treatment need in the [P]EIS/PER. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0585-051 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Determination of Treatment Acreages. 

Comment: This draft suggests a possible disparity between the extent of the problem 

and the extent of the proposed treatments. It states that 35 million acres are dominated 

by invasive species (p. ES-1 [of the Draft PEIS]), and 6 million acres are proposed for 

annual treatment (p. ES-2, 1-6 [of the Draft PEIS]), but not whether or how the 

proposal is to treat in some way the entirety of the infested acreage. The draft 

describes the problem and focuses on analyzing and comparing the treatments, and 

discusses “programs, policies and methods” but stops short of explaining how the 

BLM will actually handle the 35-million-acre problem. The final draft or decision 

should address this deficiency. 

Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0221-008 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Determination of Treatment Acreages, and Comment RMC-0126-002 under Proposed 

Action and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. The PEIS does not propose to treat 

the entirety of the estimated 35 million acres of public lands infested with invasive 

species. The PEIS outlines the tools and techniques required to conduct vegetation 

treatments. 

Comment: BLM, simultaneously with the Weed [P]EIS/PER is developing other EISs 

– such as the Upper Snake River District Fire, Fuels and Related Vegetation 

Management Plan Amendment. We attended that [P]EIS Scoping meeting held in 

Boise, and just like the Weed [P]EIS, BLM had no sound basis for estimates of acres 

proposed to be treated in the information that was provided to the public. We were told 

that BLM asked land managers in each field office to come up with estimates. 

However, there was no protocol followed as a basis for these estimates, and it appears 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-159 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0585-004 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-017 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

no scientific methodology was followed. Our review of the USRD [USDI] Draft 

[P]EIS confirms that a systematic method to assess treatment “need” has not been 

used. Thus, not only does the Programmatic Weed [P]EIS/PER not rely on, or provide, 

current ecological information necessary to make science-based decisions on public 

lands, neither do the lower level EISs that will tier to it. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0585-053 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Determination of Treatment Acreages. The BLM is not developing a “Weed” PEIS. 

This PEIS addresses the approval of specific herbicides for use in vegetation 

treatments primarily directed at reducing hazardous fuels, restoring fire-damaged 

lands, and improving ecosystem health (see Chapter 1 of the PEIS under Purpose and 

Need). Treatment of invasive and noxious weed species is one subset of the efforts that 

are required to meet this purpose. The PEIS and PER were not designed to question 

how field offices determined the need for vegetation treatments in local planning 

efforts. Determination of acreages for treatment in local land use planning efforts is 

accomplished at the field office level and supported by existing and current monitoring 

data, hazardous fuels assessments, and other criteria, as determined by the field office, 

and is outside of the scope of this PEIS. 

Comment: How can a reader differentiate between treatments, and acres to be treated, 

for wildlife habitat vs. hazardous fuels vs. livestock forage treatments? It is 

impossible. Typical BLM EAs [Environmental Assessments])/activity plans and more 

site specific documents covering treatments and other activity plans often claim that a 

treatment project or herbicide use is conducted to both benefit or increase forage 

production and wildlife habitat improvement. Often, agency EAs, will claim both 

these and many other things would be benefits. Nowhere is any protocol or 

decisionmaking framework applied to determine precisely what actions will or will not 

be covered by the [P]EIS. One Field Office of BLM could arbitrarily claim a particular 

action claimed to benefit wildlife and livestock forage was covered by the [P]EIS, 

while a neighboring office with a similar project could claim it was not. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0585-051 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Determination of Treatment Acreages. The adverse and positive effects of herbicide 

treatments at the programmatic level are discussed in the PEIS, while the adverse and 

beneficial effects of all treatment methods are discussed in the PER. If an action 

involves the use of herbicides, it is covered under the PEIS. It is quite possible that 

different field offices could come to different conclusions for a treatment, as site 

conditions, vegetation treated, and resources affected could differ between sites. For 

example, an herbicide could have different risks based on soil type and rainfall, as 

discussed in the ecological risk assessments. Benefits could vary in relation to 

application method, time of application, or other factors. Thus, the costs and benefits 

of project-specific treatments are best determined at the field office level. 

Comment: (How has BLM defined “dominant”?). where are these lands? Are they the 

same lands targeted by the Field offices, or are they somewhere else? How has BLM 

management of human disturbances (grazing, roading, mining, Oil/Gas) caused this 

condition? 

Response: As defined in Webster’s Dictionary, dominant means commanding, 

controlling, or prevailing over all others, or the influence or control over ecological 

communities. Both definitions would apply to dominant vegetation. Although these 

lands could be anywhere, and for the PEIS include lands identified by field offices, 

Map 3-10 in the PEIS, which shows fire condition classes on public lands, is helpful in 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-160 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0585-038 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-051 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-052 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-053 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

identifying degraded lands. Those lands identified as Condition Class 3 have the 

greatest likelihood of having invasive vegetation or an abundance of hazardous fuels. 

Also see response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action and 

Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis 

Comment: BLM provides no evidence of a systematic analysis or study methodology 

employed to develop the basis for it massive “treatment”, including herbicide 

treatment, and state-by-state breakdown of proposed treatments in the DEIS [Draft 

PEIS] or PER. How, exactly, did BLM decide it needed to treat huge acreages in 

Nevada? How could it have decided this with incomplete, or no data at all on acreages 

on infestation (see PER Table 3.5, for example)? 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0585-051 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Determination of Treatment Acreages. The acreage estimates in Table 3-5 were 

incomplete; they have been corrected in the Final PEIS and PER. 

Comment: Why are the specific details of this process [determination of acres to be 

treated] and specific responses not provided as an appendix in the [P]EIS? This is what 

is driving the massive increase in treatments and increased herbicide use. 

Response: As noted on page 1-6 of the PER, field offices were queried as to the 

location of treatments, types of treatments, and vegetation proposed to be treated 

during the next 10 years. This information was used to assess impacts to vegetation on 

public lands. However, this information was based on “best estimates” at the time of 

the assessment, and may change over time in response to changing land conditions, 

funding, Congressional directives, and other factors. Thus, specific responses were not 

included in the PEIS and PER because they are subject to revision and some field 

offices did not provide detailed locations of projects (e.g., some projects were 

identified to Township). The exact locations of projects would be identified during 

NEPA analysis conducted at the local level. Analysis of proposed treatments at the 

broader level (e.g., ecoregion, state) was appropriate to identify factors driving the 

increase in treatments and herbicide use for the PEIS and PER and to predict responses 

of vegetation types likely to be treated. 

Comment: BLM has provided no evidence that consistency, or consistent 

methodology, was applied in determination of any parameter or treatment type, 

acreage, etc. that were used by the Field Offices. The [Draft] [P]EIS, PER, etc. fail to 

provide any information on the baseline data, studies and analysis that was used by 

each BLM office in coming up with treatment acreages. Such information is essential 

to understanding the foundation of the [P]EIS, PER and associated documents, and 

must be fully revealed to the public in a Supplemental EIS. 

Response: See Determination of Treatment Acres in the Scope of Report section of 

Chapter 1 of the PER for a discussion on how treatment acres were determined for use 

in the PEIS and PER. Data supporting the need for any specific vegetation treatment is 

available from the local field office proposing the treatment. See response to Comment 

RMC-0095-010 under PEIS Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, NEPA 

Requirements of the Program regarding the need to issue a Supplemental EIS. 

Comment: If any assessment of the need and land conditions related to treatments that 

are underlying/driving this [P]EIS process have been derived from a scientific 

methodology, this must be provided to the public. Were specific land areas identified 

by BLM Field Offices? If so, where is the map of these areas? It is essential to 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-161 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0585-232 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-235 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0606-007 

Johnson, Kathy 

understand just where the FOs identified treatment acres to determine the validity of 

the claims of the [P]EIS that many of the treatments would be conducted in the 

Wildland Urban Interface, and to determine the degree of impact to ACECs [Areas of 

Critical Environmental Concern], WSAs [Wilderness Study Areas], T&E [threatened 

and endangered species] habitats, etc. 

Response: See Determination of Treatment Acres in the Scope of Report section of 

Chapter 1 of the PER for a discussion on how treatment acres were determined for use 

in the PEIS and PER. The field offices were requested to document which vegetation 

types potential treatment(s) would be applied to. General locations, in terms of plant 

communities, were identified rather than site-specific locations, as many site-specific 

locations are not known at this time. These data, which represent projections made by 

the BLM, are summarized by plant community and ecoregion in the PEIS and PER. 

Impacts to Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, Wilderness Study Areas, and 

threatened and endangered species habitat are assessed on a site-specific basis through 

NEPA analysis of a specific proposal to treat vegetation. 

Comment: The BA [Biological Assessment] evaluated the likely impacts to TES 

[threatened, endangered, and sensitive] species, yet nowhere does it evaluate the 

impacts of acres projected to be treated to the species inhabiting the land areas that 

will suffer the brunt of the treatments. As the [P]EIS is based on specific information 

from FOs [field offices] concerning treatment acreages in particular geographic areas, 

such information should be readily available, and the impacts of these treatments 

adequately assessed. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0585-051 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Determination of Treatment Acreages. 

Comment: Such analysis must be conducted in relation to the lands where treatment 

is proposed under the [P]EIS. PER at 1-6 states that the field offices provided 

information on lands to be treated as part of this [P]EIS and methods to be used. Thus, 

BLM has a very good idea of which lands are to be treated, and where they are 

located. Instead of spending many pages rambling about Alaska, or a rare butterfly 

inhabiting a very small area, small where NO treatments were really envisioned to 

occur, BLM should have assessed the impacts of Veg Treatments on the lands – and 

the particular TES [threatened, endangered, and sensitive] species inhabiting the lands 

where treatments are likely to occur. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0585-051 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Determination of Treatment Acreages. The focus of Chapter 4 of the PEIS is on those 

lands where treatments would occur and impacts are likely to be greatest. The BLM 

did provide discussions of likely affects to special status species under the Fish, 

Wildlife Resources, and Vegetation subsections of Chapter 4. In addition, information 

on the effects of all treatment methods on special status species is given in Chapter 4 

of the PER, and in more detail in the Biological Assessment. 

Comment: 6 million acres? 5.1 million acres? 932,000 acres? How many acres are 

you ultimately going to be dumping on? And what happens if your spray gets on my 

private property? 

Response: As discussed in Chapter 2 of the PEIS, herbicide treatments would occur 

on 0 to 932,000 acres, depending upon which alternative is selected in the Record of 

Decision. Herbicide treatments would occur on an estimated 932,000 acres under the 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-162 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0008-003 

Globus, Maria W. 

RMC-0106-006 

Public Employees for 

Environmental 

Responsibility 

RMC-0106-010 

Public Employees for 

Environmental 

Responsibility 

Preferred Alternative. In addition to these treatments, the BLM would use fire, and 

mechanical, manual, and biological control methods on an additional 5,068,000 acres. 

Thus, the total number of acres treated using all methods would be 6 million acres, and 

16% of these acres would be treated using herbicides. Also see response to Comment 

RMC-0042-067 under PEIS Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Purpose and 

Need for the Proposed Action. 

Comment: Is my area being considered for aerial spraying of herbicide? 

Response: Please contact your local BLM field office to determine if the BLM is 

planning to aerial spray in your area. 

Comment: The D[raft] PEIS is an open-ended proposal to treat approximately 

932,000 acres of public lands annually in 17 western states with 18 herbicides of 

unspecified formulation. The D[raft] PEIS does not state whether the same 932,000 

acres will be treated each year or for how many years. It further does not indicate 

whether the same areas will be treated with the same or different herbicides in 

different or in the same years. It does not reveal the frequency of treatment within a 

single year. This leaves the public with no idea of how much land will actually be 

treated, or what kind of herbicide loads will be applied. 

Response: The method for determining the number of acres treated annually, and how 

acres would be counted if they were treated more than once, is discussed in Chapter 1 

of the PER under Determination of Treatment Acreages, and in Chapter 2 of the PEIS 

under Alternative A – Continue Present Herbicide Use (No Action Alternative). Also 

see response to Comment RMC-0208-003 under PEIS Alternatives, Vegetation 

Treatment Planning and Management. 

Comment: The Abstract of the DPEIS [Draft PEIS] states that together herbicidal and 

nonherbicidal treatments will be used on approximately 6 million acres in 17 western 

states. Thus, nonherbicidal methods are to be used on at least ~5 million acres. But, no 

indication is given on whether the two approaches may be used on the same lands, in 

the same or different years, for how many years, what combinations of herbicidal and 

nonherbicidal treatments are to be used, or the frequency of applications. A vague 

reference is made to impacts of non-herbicidal techniques over a period of 10 years (p. 

4-45 [of Draft PEIS]), but no firm commitment is made to a complete review at that 

time. Moreover, the 1991 EIS for 13 western states seemed to indicate a 10 year 

period of treatments, but the same program has continued to present. The prospect that 

combined methods of treatment will be needed, and changes in herbicides used to 

avoid development of resistance are only briefly mentioned on p. 4-45 [of Draft PEIS], 

although development of herbicide resistance is of great importance. 

Response: The methods applied to any particular area or project proposed for 

treatment, and how often treatments may occur for that project, are evaluated on a 

case-by-case basis at the project-specific level. The integration of herbicidal and nonherbicidal treatment methods under an integrated weed management framework is 

discussed under Vegetation Treatment Methods in Chapter 2 of the PER. This 

discussion outlines that some areas may receive one or more treatments in 

combination, such as prescribed burning followed by an herbicide application, and 

some areas may be treated using one or more treatment methods over several years. 

The PER discloses the general effects of treatments on resources and vegetation in the 

absence of a specific time frame. The discussion of likely impacts to natural resources 

from proposed treatments over the next 10 years is in error, and has been corrected in 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-163 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0208-021 

California Oak 

Foundation 

RMC-0208-025 

California Oak 

Foundation 

RMC-0214-020 

Natural Resources 

Defense Council and 

National Wildlife 

Federation 

the PEIS under Impacts Common to All Treatments in the Vegetation section of 

Chapter 4 of the PEIS. 

The 1991 EIS Record of Decision states that the effective time frame for the 1991 

FEIS is considered 10 to 15 years, which means that the decision time frame is 

applicable through 2001 to 2006. Recognizing this constraint, the BLM initiated this 

PEIS in 2001 to provide continuity in the programmatic NEPA analysis beyond 2006, 

unless new program requirements, new research data, or management policy changes 

dictate the need for a new PEIS or a supplement. 

The paragraph discussing herbicide resistance summarizes the factors that may affect 

treatment success. Resistance to herbicides may be addressed through other nonherbicidal treatment methods to attain long-term control; the PEIS does not imply that 

more or different herbicides will need to be used to address species resistance to 

herbicides. 

Comment: The Draft PEIS fails to identify, however, which of its lands will be 

subject to herbicide treatments. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0585-051 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Determination of Treatment Acreages. 

Comment: By failing to plainly identify and describe the lands on which the BLM 

proposes to apply herbicide active ingredients, the Draft PEIS fails to quantify the 

scope of the BLM’s vegetation management program. The result is a Legally 

inadequate environmental document. (See 40 CFR [Code of Federal Regulations] § 

1505.15 (“The environmental impact statement shall succinctly describe the 

environment of the area(s) to be affected or created by the alternatives under 

consideration”]; Animal Def. Council v. Hodel (9th Cir. 1988) 840 F.2d 1432, 1439 

[“Where the information in the initial ElS was so incomplete or misleading that the 

decisionmaker and the public could not make an informed comparison of the 

alternatives, revision of an EIS may be necessary to provide ‘a reasonable, good and 

objective presentation of the subjects required by NEPA.’ ”' ].) 

Response: The lands to which herbicides may be applied are identified on Map 1-1 of 

the PEIS and PER. These lands are further described in Chapter 3 of the Draft PEIS 

and PER. The scope of the BLM’s vegetation treatment program is described in 

Chapter 2 of the PEIS and PER. Also see response to Comment RMC-0208-003 under 

PEIS Alternatives, Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management. 

Comment: The D[raft] PEIS Obfuscates the Number of Acres to be Treated. The 

D[raft] PElS states that traditional vegetative treatments along with an expansion of 

herbicidal treatments will be used upon approximately 6 million acres. But the D[raft] 

PEIS does not indicate whether these approaches are to be used on the same lands, 

during the same periods of time, for how many years, the rate of recurrence of 

treatments on the lands, and what combinations of treatments will be applied. The 

D[raft] PEIS’ lack of specificity is in direct contrast to the requirements of NEPA. 

BLM needs to provide accurate and unambiguous numbers on the acres to be treated 

and provide the context of when, how long, and in what combinations these treatments 

will take place. Without this information, BLM’s “analysis” of environmental impacts 

is little more than wishful thinking. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-164 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0218-031 

Blue Mountains 

Biodiversity Project, 

League of Wilderness 

Defenders 

RMC-0221-008 

Center for Biological 

Diversity 

Response: A discussion of how acres were counted for use in the analyses is discussed 

in Chapter 2 of the PEIS under Determination of Treatment Acreages. Also see 

response to Comment EMC-0585-051 under PEIS Alternatives, Determination of 

Treatment Acreages. 

Comment: Potential for Site-Specific Analysis at the Programmatic Stage – 

According to the DEIS [Draft PEIS], “–the BLM also reviewed information that was 

provided by local field offices in 2002 for development of this PEIS. This information 

included the location, treatment method, application method, vegetation class, and size 

for the treatment in acres for treatments proposed during the next 10 to 15 years.”( 

DEIS [Draft PEIS] (AKA PEIS), p.4-42) Obviously then, enough site-specific 

information was provided to give a much clearer picture of ecological and human 

health impacts that could result if the proposed herbicide applications took place – if 

only this information had been disclosed to the public and decision makers as regionspecific sections or appendixes to the PEIS. Even if only representative sample 

applications had been described for different states, portraying the range of typical 

situations, ecotypes, species, proximity to human habitation or use, etc. that would be 

affected and a scenario for each herbicide proposed for use in that state, that would 

have been much more informative and helpful to decision-making than the complete 

lack of such site-specific available detail in the PEIS & appendixes. 

Response: The statement is found under Impacts Assessment Methodology in the 

Vegetation section of the PEIS and is a summary of the impact assessment 

methodology used for the ecological risk assessments. The complete description of 

how treatment acres were determined is found under Determination of Treatment 

Acreages in Chapter 1 of the Final PER and Chapter 2 of the Final PEIS and is the 

source for the summary statement referenced. The results from the 2002 data 

gathering are not sufficient to provide site-specific data for several reasons. Potential 

projects were estimated in non-specific locations of general vegetation types, framed 

as the ecoregions assessed in this PEIS. In many cases, multiple treatments were 

identified for a particular type of project. Treatments could occur on the same acres 

several times during 1 year, or over several years. The BLM also reviewed the Fire 

Regime Condition Class (FRCC) maps that were available and estimated the acreage 

potentially needed to move FRCC 3 class areas toward FRCC 2 and 1 classes. 

Estimates were also included on average numbers of acres covered by Emergency 

Stabilization and Rehabilitation projects following catastrophic fire. The non-specific 

nature of the data provided are useful in determining overall acreage estimates for the 

purposes of a programmatic analysis. The PEIS relies on representative sample 

applications in its analysis of impacts to vegetation and wildlife by ecoregions. Air 

quality analysis and modeling were accomplished using soil types for six 

representative locations across the West. Typical vegetation treatment methods are 

discussed in Chapter 2 of the PER under Vegetation Treatment Methods. 

Comment: Unfortunately, before initiating the proposed project the BLM failed to 

undertake any systematic needs analysis to determine actual demand for the proposed 

action. Rather the BLM simply relied on information provided from each state about 

how many acres of public lands are “infested” and need to be treated. The information 

had no uniform context, nor was there adequate consideration of alternative solutions 

besides herbicide spraying. 

Response: The proposed action was based on the need to reduce the risk of 

catastrophic wildfires by reducing hazardous fuels, restoring fire-damaged lands, and 

improving ecosystem health. See Chapter 1 of the PEIS, Purpose and Need. The 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-165 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0221-022 

Center for Biological 

Diversity 

RMC-0221-051 

Center for Biological 

Diversity 

RMC-0228-003 

Metropolitan Water 

District of Southern 

California 

policy direction and context for this need is described in Chapter 1 under Introduction 

and Documents that Influence the Scope of the PEIS. The BLM relied on a variety of 

information sources in determining the potential acres to be treated, including Fire 

Regime Condition Class estimates, resource enhancement projects proposed by field 

offices to meet land use plan objectives, ongoing and potential Emergency 

Stabilization and Rehabilitation projects based on past fire history, as well as projects 

oriented toward addressing noxious weed and invasive species control. The number of 

acres that potentially could be treated does not necessarily correlate with the number 

of acres “infested.” Treatment of all acres containing noxious weeds or invasive 

species would greatly exceed the estimates outlined in this PEIS. Vegetation 

treatments would utilize all accepted non-herbicide and herbicide methods of 

treatments in an integrated pest management context. The PEIS does not propose that 

all vegetation treatments be accomplished with herbicides alone. 

Comment: The D[raft] PEIS fails to adequately describe the lands on where the BLM 

proposes to undertake aerial spraying of herbicides. Under NEPA, the BLM is 

required to describe the program and its projected impacts on the environment. 42 

U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). The project description must be readily understood by the 

interested public. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.8; Oregon Environmental Council v. Kunzman, 

817 F.2d 484, 493 (9th

 Cir. 1987). By failing to clearly identify and describe the lands 

on which it proposes to apply herbicides, the D[raft] PEIS fails to provide the public 

and decision makers with a clear understanding of the scope of the proposed project. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0585-051 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Determination of Treatment Acreages. The BLM has provided an estimate of the 

number of acres to be treated aerially, and discussed the types of impacts that could 

result from aerial treatments, in the PEIS. The proposed program is to treat about 

932,000 acres of public lands using herbicides. Information on specific projects would 

be made available to the public during NEPA analysis at the local field level. 

Comment: Because this D[raft] PEIS is wholly inadequate, the BLM may not 

lawfully rely on it in approving site-specific actions. For the BLM to proceed with 

site-specific projects based solely on this D[raft] PEIS or D[raft] PER that fail to 

identify and analyze even the most basic environmental impacts of the project would 

undermine both the letter and spirit of NEPA and undermine public participation and 

oversight in the management of our public lands. 

Response: The BLM does not agree that the Draft PEIS is inadequate. The BLM did 

not intend to rely on the Draft PEIS for approval of site-specific actions, as no sitespecific projects are proposed in this analysis. The PEIS will be used to support future 

BLM state and field office decisions through tiering to this analysis, which will 

support site-specific vegetation treatment decisions based upon individual NEPA 

analysis. 

Comment: The Draft PEIS and attached maps do not provide specific locations for 

the application of herbicides. Without this information, Metropolitan [Water District 

of Southern California] cannot determine potential impacts to its or CDWR’s 

[California Department of Water Resources’] facilities. Therefore, our comments at 

this time will be of a general nature and will focus on the areas in the lower Colorado 

River Hydrologic region, which would affect the Colorado River. 

Response: The PEIS is a programmatic document assessing the effects of herbicide 

use on public lands resources, and does not contain site-specific locations for any 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-166 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

potential herbicide treatments. Specific projects involving herbicide use would be 

proposed at the local field office level and would undergo separate and site-specific 

NEPA analysis once the locations were determined. 

RMC-0228-006 Comment: The Preferred Alternative (B) and the other alternatives (excluding C), 

Metropolitan Water include herbicide application to aquatic and terrestrial areas for vegetation 

District of Southern management. The aquatic herbicide application includes wetlands and riparian areas. 

California The Draft PEIS does not specify the location, inclusion, or proximity of these areas to 

the Colorado River. Metropolitan is concerned about herbicide application directly to 

aquatic areas that are hydrologically connected to the Colorado River. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0228-003 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Determination of Treatment Acreages. General impacts of herbicides to water quality 

are discussed under Water Resources and Quality in Chapter 4 of the PEIS. 

Alternatives, Herbicide Active Ingredients Evaluated under the Proposed Alternatives 

EMC-0032-002 Comment: As an invasive plant management professional, I would have to say that 

Montana Weed Control while the need to perpetually review, scrutinize, and monitor the herbicides which are 

Association approved for use on the BLM administered lands is very important; I believe that the 

technical reviews done to satisfy the environmental safety standards for product use 

labeling by the EPA, should be used to lessen some unnecessary review 

responsibilities on BLM resource managers. It seems possible that by building 

stronger cooperative efforts between the BLM, EPA, and the product manufacturers, 

many of the environmental concerns could be addressed during the product labeling 

approval process. The manufacturers of these products dedicate vast amounts of 

energy and money to ensure that the products they are providing will meet the societal 

scrutiny, and limit any potential environmental liability that exists related to product 

usage. Improved collaboration between these entities would seem to be a logical 

consideration. Detailed analysis of both the inert and active ingredients contained in 

the proposed products early on in the review process, by external specialists may also 

provide a platform for improved modeling techniques. The development of 

standardized risk assessment tools for the purpose of meeting the NEPA requirements 

should be created in such a fashion that it could be adopted by all governmental 

agencies. This should reduce the existing duplication by the various federal agencies 

with environmental responsibilities. 

The economic dynamics associated with developing these environmental policies 

alone, should dictate that by leveraging corporate funding to assist in the review 

process, would allow for reduction or redirection of taxpayer-based funding to support 

program implementation of the much-needed land improvements. The increasing 

demands being placed upon public land resources to provide diversified opportunities 

to the general public, necessitate elevating the levels of stewardship being applied to 

mitigate the negative impacts of these activities. The costs associated with meeting 

these responsibilities are also increasing, and therefore; the pursuit of ecologically 

sound, cost effective management programs is a must. 

Response: The registration of herbicides is the responsibility of the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), which requires the registrant to provide 

the data necessary for the preparation of human health and ecological risk assessments 

associated with the herbicide. Under NEPA, 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. Appendix E of the PEIS identifies the process the BLM will 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-167 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0040-003 

Malheur County Soil 

and Water 

Conservation District 

EMC-0129-001 

Miller, Tracy 

follow when evaluating the need to add herbicides to its list of already approved 

chemicals, including the process for assessing hazards and risks according to the 

NEPA guidance. This process includes the analysis of risks to humans and the 

environment from the use of herbicides on BLM-administered lands. As part of this 

analysis, the BLM considers application rates, potential human and ecological 

receptors (e.g., general public, workers, wildlife), and exposure scenarios (e.g., 

ingestion, exposure to skin) that would be expected for herbicide applications on 

BLM-administered lands. The BLM can better predict risks to humans and the 

environment by using this analysis than by using only USEPA registration data. 

Although there are additional costs associated with the BLM analysis, protection to 

human and environmental health is likely to be greater as well. 

Comment: The private ground treatment [of Class A weeds in Malheur County] has 

been showing good results, but the lack of treatment on BLM ground that neighbors 

the treated areas result in continued spread of the weeds. A MOU [Memorandum of 

Understanding] between Vale BLM and MC SWCD [the Malheur County Soil and 

Water Conservation District] has been in place since April of 2002 for treating BLM 

land, but the injunction that was imposed on BLM that limits what class of chemicals 

that can be used has taken away the ability of our cooperative efforts from being 

successful on both private and public ground. MC SWCD would like to encourage the 

removal of the injunction that is handicapping the control of these invasive species. 

New chemicals like Plateau, Tordon and Telar are the best treatment of these weeds 

and are unavailable to use as a tool on BLM land due to the injunction. 

Response: The BLM is still bound by a court-ordered injunction preventing it from 

using all but a number of herbicides. The BLM intends that the analysis contained 

within this PEIS will resolve many of the issues that led to the Oregon court injunction 

preventing the BLM from using modern, safe, and more effective herbicides on public 

lands in Oregon. 

Comment: I am requesting that the agency review its use of pesticides to use the least 

toxic, vinegar based products such as BurnOutII that have been proven (and I have 

tested) to eliminate weeds without toxic consequences to flora and fauna. 

Response: BurnOut II®, a non-selective herbicide, it is not an USEPA registered 

product, and therefore has not gone through the same, necessary screening and testing 

as those that are USEPA registered. Though considered a “Minimal Risk Pesticide” 

that is exempt from USEPA registration, the label indicates that this herbicide is 

“Corrosive, causes irreversible eye damage . . .” According to USEPA’s Office of 

Pesticide Programs’ Label Review Manual, the statement “Corrosive. Causes 

irreversible eye damage. . .” should be indicated by the toxic signal word “Danger.” 

However, the label for BurnOut II® only contains signal word “Caution,” which might 

result in inappropriate handling the herbicide. The application of BurnOut II® would 

result in a non-selective treatment, potentially harming both undesirable and desirable 

vegetation, and minimizing the chance for desirable vegetation to gain a competitive 

advantage. In contrast, use of a selective herbicide to eliminate the undesirable 

vegetation would not exhibit a significant negative impact on desirable plants. 

Appendix E of the PEIS identifies the process the BLM would follow when evaluating 

new herbicides proposed for use, including an assessment of human health and 

ecological risks and compliance with NEPA. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-168 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0161-005 

EMC-0271-004 

Richards, Vivien 

Takemori, Claire 

Comment: Several of the herbicides proposed do even not have products currently 

registered for use by the California by the Department of Pesticide Regulation. As a 

California resident and user of public lands I worry about the irreparable damage these 

chemicals will do to the natural surroundings and public lands I enjoy, as well as the 

health hazards these chemicals pose to my family. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0018-003 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Herbicide Active Ingredients Evaluated under the Proposed Alternatives. 

EMC-0218-004 

Dewey, Steven A. 

(Utah State University) 

Comment: It seems utterly foolish to me that the BLM or any other federal land 

management agency would take upon themselves the role of overseeing or secondguessing the EPA. And yet, that is exactly what BLM is doing by creating its own list 

of herbicides that excludes site-approved products already deemed safe and effective 

by EPA. It is my opinion that all herbicides meeting EPA registration requirements for 

range and/or wildland sites should be automatically approved for use on BLM lands. 

Alternative B [in the PEIS] allows use of four additional active ingredients (imazapic, 

diquat, diflufenzopyr, and fluridone) beyond the currently approved fourteen. But why 

stop there? Why deny your agency’s land managers the use of newer products (such as 

aminopyralid) that may be even more effective and safe? If the BLM’s goals for 

vegetation management are to decrease invasive and noxious weeds, to decrease the 

risk of wildfire, and to improve habitat for endangered species, then I’m convinced 

that arbitrarily limiting or completely eliminating any safe and effective herbicide 

option (product or application method) for vegetation management is a recipe for 

eventual failure. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0032-002 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Herbicide Active Ingredients Evaluated under the Proposed Alternatives. 

EMC-0238-005 

California Partners in 

Flight 

Comment: CalPIF [California Partners in Flight] is concerned that several of the 

active ingredients under Alternative B carry potentially moderate or high exposure risk 

to biota. Those active ingredients for which we are concerned include Bromacil, 

Diquat, Diuron, Fluridone, and Tebuthiuron. We recommend that in the final planning 

document it be stated that the risk of exposure to fish and wildlife will be considered 

when deciding what active ingredient(s) to use, and that all efforts will be made to 

select active ingredient(s) that pose the lowest risk of impacting fish and/or wildlife. 

Only when it can be shown that chemicals with lower risk are unlikely to be effective 

should chemicals with a higher risk of injury to fish and wildlife be chosen. 

Response: See responses to Comment EMC-0585-157 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Mitigation and Comment RMC-0115-002 under PEIS Alternatives, Monitoring. 

EMC-0246-002 

Abe, Jane 

Comment: I would also be interested to know what influence the chemical companies 

have in these proposed actions. 

Response: See Chapter 2 of the PEIS under Herbicide Active Ingredients Evaluated 

under the Proposed Alternatives. Chemical manufacturing companies were invited to 

participate in the public process and asked to submit nominations for active 

ingredients for the BLM to consider in the PEIS. Once the nominations were 

submitted, from both the BLM field offices and industry, the BLM vetted the 

information and proposals based on need at the field office level. The BLM is 

responsible for the proposed action analyzed in the PEIS. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-169 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0317-002 

Malmberg, Tony 

EMC-0338-008 

Dow AgroSciences 

Comment: With herbicides, usually broad leafed plants are killed and it moves the 

plant community backwards to a less diverse and less complex community. It will 

even create more bare ground in a lot of cases. Our idea is to stress the weeds we don’t 

want and favor the plants we do want. We can usually do this with planning the time 

of grazing to stress those plants without sacrificing the health of the plant community 

or using poison. 

Response: In addressing the management of broadleaf species and the need to 

maintain a diverse plant community, Pokorny et. al. 2005 (Pokorny, M.L., R.L. 

Sheley, C.A. Zabinski, R.E. Engel, T.J. Svejcar, and J.J. Borkowski. 2005. Plant 

Functional Group Diversity as a Mechanism for Invasive Resistance. Restoration 

Ecology 13:448-459) summarized their research by making the following statement: 

“Grasslands high in functional group diversity, particularly the forb functional groups, 

are important for resisting invasion by nonindigenous forbs.” The authors continue by 

stating, “Diversity can be maintained or restored during management practices. For 

example, intermediate levels of disturbance, proposed to maintain high levels of 

diversity, can be obtained by regulating grazing and burning time and intensity. 

Diversity can also be maintained through careful planning of herbicide applications.” 

Several of the herbicides proposed for use by the BLM are selective (2,4-D, 

chlorsulfuron, clopyralid, dicamba, imazapyr, metsulfuron-methyl, picloram, 

tebuthiuron, diflufenzopyr + dicamba, and imazapic; see Table 2-3 of the PEIS). 

Selectivity (the toxicity of a chemical to some species more than others) can be based 

on several factors, including, but not limited to, timing and rate of application. Some 

selective herbicides are toxic to broadleaf species but practically non-toxic to grass 

species. This type of selectivity allows for the desirable grass species to tolerate the 

application of the herbicide at a rate that is effective for the management of the 

targeted broadleaf species. Not all broadleaf species are affected at the same rate of 

application; thus, selectivity can be achieved by selecting the proper use rate of the 

herbicide. The use of an herbicide does not create a bare ground situation unless the 

herbicide is registered for bare ground applications and is used in a site that requires 

total vegetation management. 

Chapter 1 of the Programmatic EIS outlines the tiering process, from the broad, 

comprehensive national-level programmatic study, which this document is, to sitespecific analysis which will be done at the local level. The site-specific analysis will 

address the issues of eliminating competitive vegetation through the use of a herbicide 

for the management of a specific weed species. The commentor’s issues will be 

addressed when a site-specific Environmental Assessment (EA) is prepared and a 

Pesticide Use Proposal is developed. These documents will take into account the 

biology and ecology of the targeted species and how they relate to the most efficacious 

use of the proposed herbicide and the least amount of impact on the site of application. 

Comment: Comments on general information on clopyralid, picloram, and 

tebuthiuron: We understand that for efficiency and expediency it was useful to use 

information from previous assessments for herbicides already approved. However, it 

appears that the risk assessments were completed by different methods, different 

entities (SERA [Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc.] for the USDA 

Forest Service assessments and ENSR for the BLM), at different times, and using 

different maximum use rates. It is not reasonable to compare results using these two 

approaches unless the data and methodologies are comparable for BLM use sites. For 

example if a maximum use rate of 10 lb a.i./A triclopyr were used this would far 

exceed the maximum use rate of 2 lb a.i./A on grazed lands (except for IPT [individual 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-170 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0357-002 

Maizes, Beth 

(Hawthorne Health and 

Nutrition Institute) 

EMC-0374-001 

Hardy, John O. 

EMC-0446-029 

The Nature 

Conservancy 

plant treatments] treatments - see discussion below under the triclopyr section). Rates 

of triclopyr and picloram are higher for brush control than for herbaceous weed control 

most often used on rangeland. 

Response: A discussion of herbicides evaluated using BLM and Forest Service 

methodologies is given in Chapter 2 of the PEIS under Herbicide Active Ingredients 

Evaluated under the Proposed Alternatives. A comparison of the two methodologies is 

given under Impacts Assessment Methodology in the Vegetation section of Chapter 4 

of the PEIS. In general, the exposure assessment and risk characterization process 

were similar for the BLM and Forest Service methodologies. The BLM used risk 

assessment spreadsheets developed by the Forest Service to conduct its analysis of 

Forest Service-evaluated herbicides. As part of the analysis, the BLM entered 

application rates into the spreadsheets that would apply to treatments on BLMadministered lands to ensure that the assessment of risks would reflect these 

application rates. The rate used for triclopyr is the maximum rate for non-cropland 

applications, and is greater than the rate for rangeland/pasture applications. We used 

the higher application rate to provide a more conservative assessment of risks. 

Comment: I would like to see the Manufacturers MSDA Sheet [MSDS] on the 

herbicides you are considering. 

Response: The manufacturer’s Material Safety Data Sheets can be found at 

http://www.cdms.net/. Also see response to Comment EMC-0505-017 under PEIS 

Alternatives, Herbicide Active Ingredients Evaluated under the Proposed Alternatives. 

Comment: Why wasn’t Sulfosulfuron considered in the treatments? Sulfosulfuron has 

a road side label and is effective in controlling cheat grass without causing damage to 

desirable bunch grass vegetation. Since most wild fires are started along roadsides by 

vehicles that pull over on top of flammable material, it seems that Sulfosulfuron would 

be a good option to look into. 

Response: The process for selecting herbicide active ingredients evaluated in the PEIS 

is provided in Chapter 2 of the PEIS under Herbicide Active Ingredients Evaluated 

under the Proposed Alternatives. Sulfosulfuron did not meet one or more of the criteria 

for selection of new active ingredients given in that section. 

Comment: Diflufenzopyr is not a new herbicide. It has been used in the past mainly 

for weed control in soy and corn crops. A new label now allows its use in non-crop 

areas. Under the Preferred Alternative, BLM projects its use on only two percent of all 

acres treated. There is no justification given in the PEIS for the use of this herbicide 

other than a mention of Overdrive being effective on oak and several other species, 

with no reference cited ([Draft] PEIS [page] 4-63). We question the need to include 

this herbicide, since equivalent control can be achieved with other herbicides on the 

Preferred Alternative list. There is one published paper (Lym and Deibert 2005) that 

discusses the effectiveness of diflufenzopyr+dicamba in non-crop areas on Cirsium 

arvense (Canada thistle) and Euphorbia esula (leafy spurge), but this treatment was 

not more effective than other available herbicides after one year of treatment. Since no 

other documented studies on the use of this herbicide in non-crop areas are cited, we 

recommend removing this formulation from the BLM-approved use list. 

Response: On March 3, 1999, the EPA announced approval of applications to

conditionally register the following products:

EPA Registration Number – 7969-157: Diflufenzopyr – Technical Herbicide – Acid

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-171 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0446-030 

The Nature 

Conservancy 

EMC-0505-010 

U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency 

formulation.

EPA Registration Number – 7969-151: Diflufenzopyr – Sodium Salt (93%)

EPA Registration Number – 7969-150: Distinct® = Diflufenzopyr – Sodium Salt

(21.4%) and Dicamba – Sodium Salt (55%)

Of the three products, only the diflufenzopyr + dicamba has received full registration 

and was originally registered for use in field corn and non-crop areas, being sold under 

the trade name Distinct®. As the registration process proceeded, diflufenzopyr + 

dicamba expanded its label to include application onto pasture, hay, and rangeland 

situations. These, along with the noncropland sites were placed under the trade name 

Overdrive® (which has the same EPA Registration Number as Distinct®) in 2004, with 

the cropland applications remaining under the trade name Distinct®, along with what 

are identified as fallow and fence line areas, therefore, the common name of the 

herbicide Overdrive® is diflufenzopyr + dicamba. When diflufenzopyr is applied with 

dicamba, it focuses dicamba’s translocation to the meristematic sinks, where it delivers 

effective weed control at reduced rates of dicamba, and across a wider range of weed 

species, which is the strength of this herbicide. 

Diflufenzopyr was identified for use by field offices, as discussed in Chapter 2 of the 

PEIS under Herbicide Active Ingredients Evaluated under the Proposed Alternatives. 

Although it is not widely used, it is effective against certain target plants that must be 

controlled by BLM personnel. Because its use is not extensive, the BLM believes that 

the benefits from use of diflufenzopyr outweigh its potential risks with its safe 

application. 

Comment: [Diuron] has been marketed in the U.S. for decades and has been used 

mostly in agricultural situations in the past. It is still used on some croplands, but is 

typically not used in non-crop (natural/wildland) areas. Diuron is moderately to highly 

persistent in soils, its mobility depends on soil type, and it has been found in 

groundwater sources in California. Given that the Preferred Alternative projects use of 

this herbicide at less than one percent of all treatments, we question the need to include 

it. There are other herbicides that can provide the same or better level of weed control 

than diuron with fewer environmental effects. 

Response: As stated in Chapter 2 of the PEIS under Herbicide Modes of Action and 

Treatment Methods, diuron is a non-selective herbicide which is registered for use 

where there needs to be bare ground, in sites associated with oil and gas, rights-ofway, and recreational and cultural resources. Impacts to resources from the use of 

diuron are addressed in Chapter 4 of the PEIS. Although not widely used, it is an 

important herbicide for maintaining bare ground at oil and gas, paleontological, 

cultural, and other sites where the presence of invasive vegetation would create a risk 

to that site. Because its use is not extensive, the BLM believes that the benefits 

outweigh its potential risks with its safe application. 

Comment: The PEIS discusses the changes that may occur in the future and how 

these would be handled. EPA supports the use of adaptive management and offers the 

following suggestion for your consideration. At the close of this process there will be 

an approved list of herbicide active ingredients. Concurrently, there is a an ongoing 

effort to develop less toxic, more selective and less persistent herbicides that offer 

significant reductions in risks found with older active ingredients and formulations. 

However, these newer, less toxic herbicides will not be on that list and will be 

unavailable to BLM until reviewed and approved. Accordingly, we suggest that the 

BLM might consider developing a protocol that would permit the use of newer, less 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-172 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0505-017 

U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency 

EMC-0541-018 

Associated Oregon 

Loggers 

EMC-0562-010 

The Lands Council 

toxic herbicides as they are developed and approved by EPA. 

Response: The BLM has a process to adopt newer, less toxic herbicides, as outlined in 

the Final PEIS in Appendix E (Protocol for Identifying, Evaluating, and Using New 

Herbicides), and in Chapter 2 under Herbicide Active Ingredients Evaluated under the 

Proposed Alternatives. 

Comment: EPA suggests that BLM consider adding a representative label for each of 

the approved herbicide active ingredients and a reference to EPA’s website for 

pesticide registration and ready access to complete fact sheets on all registered 

products. http://cfpub.epa.gov/oppref/rereg/status.cfm?show=rereg. 

Response: The BLM has included a link to a website that provides representative 

labels for each approved herbicide active ingredient, and has listed the link to the 

EPA’s website for pesticide registration and ready access to complete fact sheets on all 

registered products. This information is found in Chapter 2 of the PEIS under 

Herbicide Active Ingredients Evaluated under the Proposed Alternatives. 

Comment: Disparage the prescriptive obstacles of previous herbicide decisions, 

which hobbled action. Previous herbicide policies that dictated overly-specific 

silvicultural applications must be avoided. Limiting management options by edicts, 

such as herbicide bans, is nonsensical. This BLM revision needs to clearly explain that 

herbicide use for regeneration, and prompt young forest establishment must be an 

integral practice supported by the plan revision. 

Response: Herbicides remain an important tool in the management of woody species 

on lands that are managed for sustained yield of commercial timber and in situations 

where natural tree regeneration is exacerbated by the effects of uncharacteristically 

severe wildfire. In 1984, the Forest Service and BLM were enjoined from the use of 

herbicides in Oregon by the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon (Civil No. 

82-6273-B). The BLM returned to court in 1987 and received a partial dissolve of the 

injunction that allowed the use of herbicides containing dicamba, glyphosate, 

picloram, and 2,4-D to control and eradicate noxious weeds on BLM lands in Oregon 

(Civil No. 83-6272-BU). However, this injunction is outside the scope of this 

document and will need to be addressed at the next scale of analysis for regional or 

statewide programs in Oregon. Five program alternatives were developed and 

evaluated in this PEIS. Alternative actions were developed to address the concerns 

raised during scoping. It is the public’s desire to see alternatives that have less 

emphasis on the use of herbicides (see Chapter 1, Development of the Alternatives). 

Alternatives were also developed to ensure that BLM complied with federal, tribal, 

state, and local regulations. 

Comment: The Lands Council is adamantly opposed to the use of Roundup. While 

the manufacturer Monsanto (the BLM’s source for Roundup toxicological and safety 

information) touts Roundup as relatively safe and nontoxic, glyphosate (the active 

ingredient in Roundup) and its formulations can cause serious health repercussions, 

most commonly respiratory or contact symptoms. A Swedish study has linked 

glyphosate exposure to the lymphatic cancer non-Hodgkins lymphoma. See Hardell & 

Eriksson (1999). Glyphosate is nitrosated “very readily” to the contaminant Nnitrosoglyphosate, a member of a chemical family of which approximately 75% are 

know carcinogens. See Sittig (1980); Young and Khan (1978); Lijinsky (1974). While 

the EPA thus far considers this contaminant to be “not toxicologically significant”, 

consideration of its carcinogenic potential has thus far relied exclusively on the results 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-173 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0562-011 

The Lands Council 

EMC-0563-002 

Hupp, Kevin L. 

(Lincoln County 

Noxious Weed Control 

Board) 

EMC-0566-008 

Western Society of 

Weed Science 

of unpublished studies conducted by Monsanto, hardly an unbiased source. See Rubin 

(1996); EPA (1993). 

Response: In the 1999 Hardell paper the authors do not show that glyphosate causes 

Non-Hodgkins lymphoma (NHL), nor was the sample size sufficient to report a 

significant association. Recent work by DeRoos et al. (A.J. DeRoos, A. Blair, J.A. 

Rusiecki, J. A. Hopping, M. Svec, M. Dosemeci, D.P. Sandler, and M.C. Alavanja. 

2005. Cancer Incidence among Glyphosate-exposed Pesticide Applicators in the 

Agricultural Health Study. Environmental Health Perspectives 113: 49-54), with larger 

sample size and better epidemiologic techniques failed to show any link with NHL, all 

cancers, or cancers by target organ, except for a “suggested” association with multiple 

myeloma (although the sample size was small). Neither the USEPA nor the consensus 

of the scientific community conclude that glyphosate is carcinogenic. There is 

literature that suggests N-nitrosglyphosate maybe a transformation product but there is 

no evidence that this compound causes cancer. 

Comment: The BLM has neglected to consider the use of non-toxic organic 

herbicides and other weed control methods utilized by organic farming practices. For 

example, St. Gabriel Laboratories produces an organic herbicide called Burn Out®. It 

is advertised to work faster than Roundup® and by meeting NOP [National Organic 

Program] Organic Farming Requirements is less likely to have adverse impacts to the 

environment or human health. 

Response: The process for selecting herbicide active ingredients evaluated in the PEIS 

is provided in Chapter 2 of the PEIS under Herbicide Active Ingredients Evaluated 

under the Proposed Alternatives. Also see response to Comment EMC-0129-001 

regarding the use of BurnOut II®. 

Comment: You should look into a new product that has just recently been approved. 

“Milestone” by Dow agro sciences has just been approved for use under a “Caution” 

label. It has a lot of versatility and would aid you in controlling some infestations that 

are in sensitive areas. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0566-008 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Prevention of Weeds and Early Detection and Rapid Response. Should the Protocol 

for Identifying, Evaluating, and Using New Herbicides (Appendix E of the PEIS) be 

approved through a Record of Decision, the BLM will review any requests from the 

field offices for new herbicide products to assess. The BLM will determine, based on 

the protocol, the most appropriate products to evaluate and enter them into the queue 

for funding. 

Comment: The WSWS [Western Society of Weed Science] also supports the 

developed Appendix D [in the PEIS], “Protocol for Identifying, Evaluating and Using 

New Herbicides” to facilitate evaluation and addition of new chemicals as they 

become available in the future. However, the process outlined for approval of a new 

herbicide or for a new use of an existing herbicide is lengthy. A more rapid response to 

use of new herbicides may actually assist with eradication efforts if an invasive plant is 

found in a non-infested area. Waiting two to three years for use of a herbicide that has 

been registered by the U.S. EPA would appear to be inconsistent with the mandate set 

forth in the 1999 Executive Order 13112, which is to prevent the introduction of 

invasive species, provide for their control, and minimize their economic, ecological, 

and human health impacts. As you are aware, the executive order required the 

formation of an Invasive Species Council comprised of a number of federal agencies, 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-174 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0584-058 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

including BLM, which was tasked to complete a National Invasive Species 

Management Plan. On page 6 of the Plan the Council is tasked to lead, “... 

development, testing, transfer, and training concerning use of environmentally 

compatible pesticides and herbicides in controlling invasive species.” On page 36 

“The Council will review and propose revisions of policies and procedures (i.e., 

advance approval for quarantine actions, pesticide applications, and other specific 

control techniques, and interagency agreements that address jurisdictional and budget 

issues).” New herbicides provide opportunities for a rapid response to new infestations 

of invasive plants when they are relatively small in size. Failure to use US EPA 

approved herbicides early in the invasion cycle will likely lead to use of larger 

amounts of herbicides to control the invasive plants once their population has 

expanded. Rapid response is effective in eradicating invasive plants before they 

spread. We encourage the BLM to consider a way to respond more rapidly to the use 

of new EPA registered herbicides. 

Response: The BLM disagrees that implementing a protocol for evaluating new 

herbicides would be inconsistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 13112. The BLM does 

not rely on the results of studies on new herbicide formulations to move forward and 

implement the EO with existing tools. The proposed protocol allows the BLM to 

provide a public process for evaluation of herbicides that are being considered for use 

on public lands. The BLM has attempted to integrate the herbicide evaluation process 

into is budget cycle to ensure that appropriated funds are available to conduct studies 

for new herbicides, as well as updated studies on existing herbicides, by placing them 

on a regular schedule for reevaluation. Without consideration of identified dedicated 

funding, approval of new herbicides and reevaluation of currently approved herbicides 

may be delayed beyond the predicted time frame because of studies that are 

incomplete due to lack of identified funds. The time frame proposed reasonably 

accommodates the time needed to obtain funding, conduct the literature searches and 

toxicological assessments, and comply with NEPA in order to approve the product for 

use. The protocol also provides a standard methodology for analysis where none 

currently exists within the agency. The last approval of herbicides occurred in 1992, in 

association with studies dating to 1988. This length of time is unacceptable to the 

agency and our partners. The proposed process will provide the public and partner 

agencies a higher level of certainty about how the BLM manages herbicide use. In 

addition, the process allows better coordination among manufacturers, agencies, and 

product users to assess the best products on the market to accomplish specific 

objectives. The BLM agrees that early detection and rapid response (EDRR) is 

important to effectively manage invasive species, and the BLM proactively uses 

USEPA-approved herbicides, approved for use on public lands, early in the invasion 

cycle. 

Comment: For several years prior to the Oust drift onto ag. crops disaster, the 

corporation that manufactured Oust aggressively marketed its use at weed seminars 

attended by federal agencies. We are quite suspicious of the role of chemical 

corporations in pushing the use of herbicides, and are alarmed that this harmful 

chemical is now being proposed by BLM for use. 

Response: Chemical companies do promote the use of herbicides they manufacture. 

Oust® (sulfometuron methyl) is effective at preventing emergence of cheatgrass, which 

covers millions of acres in the western U.S and displaces native vegetation. The 

prudent use of Oust may be an acceptable risk when comparing the benefits to the 

rangeland ecosystem to the risks to human and ecological health. Based on the human 

health and ecological risk assessment conducted by the BLM, risks to human and 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-175 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0585-057 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-146 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-189 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-194 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

ecological health is none to low for use of Oust® (see discussion on sulfometuron 

methyl under each resource section in Chapter 4 of the PEIS). 

Comment: Determine which active herbicide ingredients are available for use on 

public lands. This is reckless. BLM cannot limit itself to just the “active” ingredients, 

as carriers, breakdown products, etc. may have serious environmental effects. 

Response: The BLM focused its analysis of human health and ecological risk on 

herbicide active ingredients, as most of the published, agency, and registration 

information on risks associated with the use of an herbicide focuses on the active 

ingredient. However, the BLM did look at other herbicide formulation components in 

Appendix C of the PEIS under Degradates, Inert Ingredients, Adjuvants, and Tank 

Mixtures in the Uncertainty Analysis section. In addition, the BLM conducted 

additional analysis of degradates and the potential for herbicides to act as endocrine 

disruptors for the Final PEIS; see Appendix D. 

Comment: [The] [P]EIS ignores a broad range of current science in claiming that it 

did not need to conduct new assessments for the PEIS on already used chemicals other 

than Oust, and “it was determined that the remaining 19 herbicides did not require 

further analysis for human health risks”. BLM then states that it needed new analyses 

for non-target species assessments. BLM did not conduct “new” analyses (ERAs 

[ecological risk assessments]) for 9 chemicals, but used old and incomplete Forest 

Service info (“interactive” spread sheets that were supposed to determine exposure 

concentrations under various scenarios). 

Response: The BLM conducted human health risk assessments for 6 herbicides, 

including Oust® (sulfometuron methyl). A literature search was done by the BLM in 

the late 1990s to determine if new information on human health risks from the 

remaining 19 herbicides justified a new analysis for these herbicides as part of the 

PEIS. Based on this review, the earlier BLM human health risk assessments were 

appropriate for use, except in a few circumstances. These circumstances, and their 

associated risk to humans, were discussed in Appendix B of the PEIS, under 

Evaluation of Currently-available Herbicide Active Ingredients. The BLM used nine 

risk assessments prepared by the Forest Service to determine risks to plants and 

animals. The methodology used by the Forest Service to assess risks was similar to 

that used by the BLM. These assessments are generally only a few years old and are 

complete. 

Comment: BLM fails to present information on use of combinations of chemicals, or 

multiple chemicals used in the same area to control multiple species of weeds or to kill 

the same weeds. 

Response: During 2005, the BLM applied herbicides on approximately 156,770 acres 

of BLM-administered lands. A combination of herbicides in a tank mix was applied to 

38,102 acres, or 24% of all acres treated. Tank mixes were used to kill one or more 

species of weeds. 

Comment: We are alarmed at the BLMs proposal to allow use of Diquat, given that 

the BLM’s own Risk Characterization results show that Diquat exceeds EPA’s level of 

concern for occupational receptors under the majority of terrestrial scenarios ([page] 

B-69 [of Appendix B of the Draft PEIS]). BLM does not claim to now use Diquat on 

lands, but land contamination is very likely, and this opens the door for future use on 

land. Contamination of riparian vegetation and soils, and impacts to aquatic biota, are 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-176 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0585-195 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0590-022 

Western Slope 

Environmental 

Resource Council 

EMC-0590-023 

Western Slope 

Environmental 

Resource Council 

likely from its use in aquatic systems. 

Response: Risks to humans from the use of diquat at typical application rates are none 

for 10 of 17 worker scenarios, low for 5 of 17 scenarios, and moderate for 2 of 17 

scenarios (see Table B-10 in Appendix B of the PEIS). Mitigating measures will 

reduce risks to acceptable levels, as discussed in Chapter 2 of the PEIS under 

Mitigation. 

Comment: We also are alarmed that BLM proposes to use fluridone, despite 

accidental risks exceeding EPA’s level of concern for occupational receptors. 

Response: No risk was projected in any of the many fluridone exposure worker or 

general public scenarios, except for the accidental spill, in which the risk could be low 

if the typical application rate was used. No risk was projected in any of the many 

fluridone exposure worker or general public scenarios that considered routine use and 

the typical application rate. The assumptions made in the accidental scenarios are very 

conservative. 

Comment: The growing of grapes, including organic grapes for wine, is a growing 

agricultural pursuit in our area. Damage to grape vineyards and other crops by 2,4-D 

has been reported since the herbicide was first introduced in 1947 (23). We are 

especially concerned about the proposed use of sulfometuron methyl, one of a group 

of sulfonylurea (SU) compounds that are excessively persistent in the environment and 

cannot be detected at low levels in environmental samples (28), presenting potential 

long-term dangers to any human, animal or plant receptors. Sulfometuron methyl 

sprayed by the BLM in Idaho in 2001 to control non-native grasses and noxious weeds 

on public rangeland is alleged in a lawsuit to have damaged over 100,000 acres in 11 

counties and resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars lost in farm revenue (29). 

Local tests and expert discussion leads us to question the proposed use of imazapic 

(trade name Plateau), since it can kill species that should be encouraged; as well as of 

tebuthiuron (Spike), since it has led to substantial cheatgrass expansion in certain trials 

(30). 

Response: The labeled use of sulfometuron methyl (Oust®) is for the control of many 

annual and perennial grasses and broadleaf weeds in forestry and non-croplands. A 

24(c) label or Special Local Needs Label was approved for the states of Utah, Idaho 

and Nevada to use the herbicide to control downy brome (Bromus tectorum), cheat 

(Bromus secalinus), and medusa head (Taeniatherum caput-medusae) on firedamaged land, firebreaks, and other non-crop areas owned and administered by 

agencies of the State of Idaho or the federal government such as the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Interior including the BLM, the Forest 

Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. However, since the 2001 incident in 

Idaho, the 24-C label approving its use for fire-damaged lands has been pulled, and the 

current labeled use of sulfometuron methyl is limited to bare ground applications. The 

PEIS and PER identify the parameters for use and standard operating procedures that 

are designed to reduce the risk of all of the herbicides currently used by the BLM, 

including, but not limited to tebuthiuron, as well as those proposed for use, including 

imazapic. 

Comment: Also indicated in Table 1 are the herbicides that are reported in the most 

recent “US Forest Service Regional Report of Pesticide Use on National Forest 

System Lands” as having been used on our local Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison 

National Forest (GMUG under Notes). An indication that five of the pesticides in 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-177 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0606-002 

Johnson, Kathy 

EMC-0606-004 

Johnson, Kathy 

EMC-0623-016 

Defenders of Wildlife 

Table 1 are on the Pesticide Action Network’s list of “Bad Actor” pesticides is also 

included in the Table (PAN-BA under Notes). The “Bad Actor” list was created to 

identify “most toxic” pesticides. A chemical found on the list is at least one of the 

following: a carcinogen, a reproductive or developmental toxicant, a cholinesterase 

inhibitor, a groundwater contaminant, or a pesticide with high acute toxicity. 

Response: None of the herbicides proposed for use by the BLM is a carcinogen, has 

high acute toxicity, or is a cholinesterase inhibitor. Information on reproductive effects 

was presented in the BLM (included on the CD that accompanies the PEIS or in earlier 

BLM EISs listed in the PEIS) and Forest Service 

(http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/risk.shtml) human health risk assessments. 

Comment: Why do you “need to determine which herbicide active 

ingredients...Hasn’t that already been done by the chemical company’s MSDS 

[Material Safety Data Sheets] sheets that must accompany any and all chemicals? 

Response: The MSDSs provide useful information on the risks to humans and 

terrestrial and aquatic organisms and were used in preparing the human health and 

ecological risk assessments for the PEIS. However, the BLM conducted additional 

analysis to quantify the risks to humans, fish and wildlife, plants, cultural and scenic 

resources, and other resources on public lands, under realistic conditions and based on 

realistic application scenarios. This additional analysis helped the BLM better assess 

risks and to develop appropriate standard operating procedures and mitigation to 

reduce them. 

Comment: You are currently using 14 herbicides and what to use 4 new ones! Why 

do you need so many?? That is ridiculous!! 18 different chemicals, (POISON 

cocktails) to control the forest fires and keep the forests healthy?????? Show me the 

tests that were done on the many different combinations of these 18 chemicals. What 

were the results of even mixing two of them together? What is ‘out there’ that can’t be 

fought with the current already approved chemicals? Alien growth? Please!!!!???? Get 

Real! 

Response: When determining which active ingredients required a risk assessment 

prior to being added on the current approved list, several factors were considered. One 

of these factors was management of undesirable vegetation for which there were a 

limited number or no effective herbicides available under our current program. For 

example, there are very few herbicides available to control invasive aquatic vegetation 

under the current program, and aquatic species are not being effectively controlled. 

The addition of two of the proposed active ingredients will allow for the BLM to be 

more aggressive in stopping the negative impacts associated with this group of species. 

A similar case can be made for the management of invasive winter annual grasses and 

the critical impacts associated with these species on lands administered by the BLM. 

Under the current list of active ingredients, the option available for management of 

these species eliminates all annual vegetation, including desirable species. One of the 

proposed active ingredients, when approved, will selectively eliminate the undesirable 

species. 

Comment: BLM should minimize use of any herbicide that is a known groundwater 

contaminant, developmental or reproductive toxin, acutely toxic, carcinogen or 

endocrine disruptor. Defenders is pleased that the BLM is planning to discontinue use 

of three such chemicals (2,4-DP, atrazine and simazine), and that none of the new 

herbicides currently proposed is such a chemical, but we are disappointed that BLM 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-178 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0630-013 

Porter, Mark C. 

(Wallowa Resources) 

EMC-0643-005 

California Indian 

Basketweavers 

Association 

EMC-0643-078 

California Indian 

Basketweavers 

Association 

has signaled its intent to continue to six chemicals that are such known toxins. 

Response: The BLM would consider the potential for an herbicide to contaminate 

groundwater when evaluating treatment options and application methods. In addition, 

the BLM would use Standard Operating Procedures and mitigation measures 

identified in Chapter 2 of the PEIS to reduce risks to groundwater. As noted in Chapter 

2 of the PEIS under Site Selection Priorities in the Vegetation Treatment Planning and 

Management section, the BLM would consider nonchemical methods of vegetation 

treatment before using herbicides. 

Comment: I commend the [P]EIS team for providing means to adopt new chemicals 

over time. This is critical as herbicides are consistently becoming narrower in 

spectrum and more non-toxic to the environment and to humans. I hope that the 

[P]EIS team is already working to incorporate Milestone Herbicide into this [P]EIS. 

Response: Additional herbicides will be considered for use on public lands following 

approval of a final protocol for herbicide evaluations. Also see response to Comment 

EMC-0566-008 under PEIS Alternatives, Prevention of Weeds and Early Detection 

and Rapid Response. 

Comment: The BLM intends to approve, via this [P]EIS, a tripling of the use of 

herbicides on approximately 932,000 acres annually, on 6 million acres in 17 states. 

Approximately 70% of applications will be 2,4-D, glyphosate, picloram and 

tebuthiuron (p. 4-149 [of the Draft PEIS]). The [P]EIS seeks to show an environmental 

clean bill of health for the use of a total of 14 herbicides. 

Response: The PEIS presents BLM risk assessments for the four new herbicides and 

new ecological risk assessments for five old herbicides, and incorporates recent Forest 

Service risk assessments with updated spreadsheets for the remaining herbicides being 

considered for use by the BLM under the Preferred Alternative and Alternatives D and 

E. As discussed in the PEIS, there are risks associated with the use of herbicides, 

although risks are none to low for most application and exposure scenarios. The PEIS 

does not show an environmental clean bill of health, but discloses the risks to the 

environment and humans from the use of herbicides. 

Comment: Clopyralid (Transline) is emerging as a serious groundwater contaminant 

in California and it is highly persistent in the environment. Oddly, these attributes of 

clopyralid were not addressed substantively in the D[raft [P]EIS. Clopyralid is 

restricted for use in the state of California (2003) and throughout the nation for most 

lawn uses because it has been found to contaminate compost made from lawn 

clippings. Even after the high temperatures generated in the manufacture of compost, 

after 18 months the herbicidal action of the chemical was still active and resulted in 

mortality to vegetable plants in nurseries using the compost that contained clopyralidcontaminated grass clippings (Bezdicek 2001, Vanderoort et al. 1997). If this chemical 

can remain active this long after composting, there is little chance that it will break 

down any more rapidly in nature. This suggests that the chemical may become an 

environmental and health threat due to its unusual pattern of long persistence rates. 

The BLM should prohibit the use of this dangerous chemical on public lands. 

Response: Research has demonstrated that clopyralid, unlike other herbicides that 

generally breakdown in composting, breaks down very slowly during composting. As 

a result of this situation, labels have been changed on those formulations that are 

registered for lawn and turf related applications The BLM would not apply any 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-179 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0646-018 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

EMC-0646-184 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

EMC-0647-006 

Alaska Community 

Action on Toxics 

herbicide active ingredient or formulation unless it meets the state’s registration 

requirements. 

Comment: BLM’s position is that new chemicals and formulations can be used if 

approved internally, without NEPA review (see [PEIS] Appendix D-2). Specifically, 

adoption of new formulations and new active ingredients would depend on pesticide 

registration of the product to stand in for the required analysis. This process cannot 

stand. It is in direct conflict with established law, as was recently cited in Californians 

for Alternatives to Toxics et al v. California Department of Food and Agriculture, __ 

Cal.Rptr.3d __; 2005 WL 3549483; 2006 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1204 in which CATs 

[Californians for Alternatives to Toxics] argument that reliance on the registration 

process and labels of pesticides was not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the 

California Environmental Quality Act. 

Response: The PEIS does not propose to use pesticide registration as a replacement 

for NEPA analysis. The discussion in Appendix E of the Final PEIS under 

Determining the Need for New Herbicides describes the process by which herbicide 

formulations would be vetted and considered for adoption by the agency. The NEPA 

requirements for approval by the agency are described in Appendix E in Figure E-1 

and under NEPA Documentation. Also see response to Comment EMC-0566-008 

under PEIS Alternatives, Prevention of Weeds and Early Detection and Rapid 

Response. 

Comment: The BLM has neglected to consider the use of non-toxic organic 

herbicides and other weed control methods utilized by organic farming practices. For 

example St. Gabriel Laboratories produces an organic herbicide called Burn Out. It is 

advertised to work faster than Roundup (the glyphosate the BLM is proposing to 

liberally apply) and by meeting NOP [National Organic Program] Organic Farming 

Requirements is less likely to have adverse impacts to the environment or human 

health. If the BLM insists on using herbicides, why not use ones that are least likely to 

have adverse environmental impacts? What about hot foam or other non-herbicide 

methods the BLM has used in other projects before? What about mulching/covers and 

solarization? What about organizing volunteer weed pulling days? What about 

flaming or torching? Goats? Bio-control agents? 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0562-011 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Herbicide Active Ingredients Evaluated under the Proposed Alternatives regarding the 

use of BurnOut II®. Non-herbicide treatment methods that would be used by the BLM, 

including the use of biological controls, are discussed in the PER. In addition, the 

BLM would use Standard Operating Procedures and mitigation measures identified in 

Chapter 2 of the PEIS to reduce risks to the environment and human health. As noted 

in Chapter 2 of the PEIS under Site Selection and Treatment Priorities in the 

Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management section, the BLM would consider 

nonchemical methods of vegetation treatment before using herbicides. 

Comment: BLM does not provide justification for its “approved” list of herbicides. It 

is wrong to state that “Except for diquat, new herbicides proposed for use pose few or 

no risks to workers or the public.” Herbicides are inherently harmful and should be 

replaced with safe non-chemical alternatives. We are particularly concerned that BLM 

is proposing to add diquat to its list of “approved” herbicides. The following acute 

(short-term) health effects may occur immediately or shortly after exposure to diquat: 

• irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat and may cause nosebleeds 

• nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, tremors, convulsions, and even death 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-180 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

• reproductive toxicity that may decrease fertility in males. 

• repeated exposure may cause clouding of the eye lenses (cataracts) and 

damage skin 

• damage to the liver, kidneys and lungs. 

Since diquat is a nonselective herbicide, it may present a danger to non-target plant 

species. Cows are particularly sensitive to the toxic effects of this material. 

http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/diquatdi.htm 

Response: These symptoms are associated with acute exposure to the active 

ingredient, which would not occur except in the accidental spill scenario. The diquat 

risk assessment, for 17 occupational scenarios involving typical application rates, 

predicted no risk for 10 scenarios, low risk for 5 scenarios, and moderate risk for 2 

scenarios (mixer-loaders for plane and helicopter). Risk can be managed with the 

proper use of personal protective equipment and by following label instructions. The 

risk assessments included a large mammalian herbivore, which could be used as a 

surrogate to estimate risk to cows from use of diquat. 

FL-0006-007 Comment: The proposed actions appear to meet financial needs of chemical 

companies and other large corporate interests, rather than support ecological integrity 

and public interests. 

Response: The BLM disagrees. The Proposed Action is required to support 

restoration of ecological integrity and maintenance of healthy ecosystems in the public 

interest. See Social and Economic Values in Chapter 4 of the PEIS for a discussion of 

the economic benefits of herbicides and their applications. 

FXC-0071-009 Comment: Which active ingredients/formulations of herbicides considered by BLM 

Campbell, Bruce did you not do a recent risk assessment on due to reliance on earlier risk assessments? 

Which herbicides/formulations relied on BLM’s risk assessments from 1988 and/or 

1991? Which herbicides/formulations relied on old U.S. Forest Service risk 

assessments? (I object that it was handily presumed that, “Based on the general 

similarity of the risk assessments conducted by the BLM in 1988 and 1991 and the 

current risk assessment, it is likely that the risk estimates calculated previously would 

not differ significantly from risk estimates calculated for the present herbicide active 

ingredients using the updated risk assessment methods and the updated toxicity values. 

Therefore new risk assessments were not conducted for the herbicides currently in use 

other than sulfometuron methyl and dicamba.” How do these updated risk assessment 

methods and updated toxicity values impact contamination pathways, cumulative 

impacts on human receptors and of sensitive species(?) – and if you are not sure, 

present the info, conduct the risk assessments, and find out!). 

Response: The BLM prepared human health risk assessments (HHRAs) for the PEIS 

for diflufenzopyr, diquat, fluridone, imazapic, and sulfometuron methyl and ecological 

risk assessments (ERAs) for bromacil, chlorsulfuron, diflufenzopyr, diquat, diuron, 

fluridone, imazapic, sulfometuron methyl, and tebuthiuron. The Forest Service 

prepared HHRAs and ERAs for 2,4-D, clopyralid, dicamba, glyphosate, hexazinone, 

imazapyr, metsulfuron methyl, picloram, and triclopyr in the late 1990s and early 

2000s. The BLM did not conduct HHRAs or ERAs for six currently-available 

herbicides—2,4-DP, asulam, atrazine, fosamine, mefluidide, and simazine—because 

they have not been used, or have been little used, by the BLM during the past decade, 

and under the Preferred Alternative and alternatives D and E would not be used by the 

BLM in the future until a new risk assessment was conducted and the chemicals found 

to be safe. Information on the risks from the use of herbicides can be found in Chapter 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-181 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

FXC-0071-010 

Campbell, Bruce 

RMC-0067-003 

Wyoming Outdoor 

Council 

RMC-0067-004 

Wyoming Outdoor 

Council 

RMC-0221-070 

4 and appendixes B and C of the PEIS, in the HHRAs and ERAs prepared in support 

of the PEIS (and included on the CD that accompanies the Final PEIS), and from the 

Forest Service at http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/risk.shtml. Scenarios, 

receptors, and dose-response values for risks to humans from herbicides evaluated in 

1988 and 1991 were discussed and evaluated in Appendix B of the PEIS under 

Evaluation of Currently-available Herbicide Active Ingredients. Risk assessment 

conclusions would not change significantly for these herbicides with updated risk 

assessment methods and dose-response values. The dose-response values and 

exposure pathways used in the earlier risk assessments and currently used by the 

USEPA were compared. If the earlier risk assessment found a particular herbicide to 

pose toxic effects, then it is likely that this outcome would not change with an updated 

risk assessment. 

Comment: In regards to the 9 herbicides for which BLM relied on outdated federal 

land management agency risk assessments, is it true that only dicamba underwent a 

new risk assessment? In regards to the other 8 herbicides (2,4-D, clopyralid, 

glyphosate, hexazinone, imazapyr, metsulfuron, methyl, picloram, and triclopyr), were 

there complete toxicological profiles for any of these in the old Forest Service or BLM 

risk assessments? Do you know if there have been well-conducted studies since those 

documents of about 14 to 18 years ago which would lead to a more complete 

toxicological profile? And besides calling for complete toxicological profiles for all 

herbicides and formulations which BLM is considering using in vegetation treatments, 

did BLM seek any studies since the 1988 and 1991 era in regards to inert ingredients, 

adjuvants, and degradants relating to these 9 herbicides? If so, which studies were 

they? If not, why not? 

Response: See response to Comment FXC-0071-009 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Herbicide Active Ingredients Evaluated under the Proposed Alternatives for a 

discussion of data sources and dates of analysis for herbicides evaluated by the BLM. 

See response to Comment FXC-0071-008 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, 

Herbicide Effects Analysis for analysis of inert ingredients, adjuvants, and degradants. 

Comment: The most significant cause of catastrophic wildfires on BLM lands relates 

to the invasion of cheatgrass into sagebrush habitats. Yet the herbicides that will be 

used most heavily to control weeds are effective against broadleaved plants (dicots), 

not grasses (monocots). Thus, it is not clear to us that any real reduction in the 

incidence of catastrophic wildfire can be realized unless the herbicide that is used is 

effective against grasses. But if the herbicide used were to also kill native grasses 

(such as glyphosate does), it is not apparent to us that any real benefit will be 

achieved: BLM would likely just be creating ecological niches for further weed 

invasion. 

Response: Table 2-3 of the PEIS lists the herbicides that are currently approved and 

proposed for use on BLM-administered lands. This table includes imazapic and 

describes the areas where its registered use would be appropriate. Imazapic is a 

herbicide identified as having activity on grasses and broadleaves, and has significant 

activity on downy brome (Bromus tectorum) while having safety on several grass 

species, as identified on the Plateau® label. 

Comment: We believe there is a real issue of the “cure being worse than the disease” 

with what is being proposed. We would all like to reduce the incidence of catastrophic 

wildfires and the spread of noxious weeds, but if the herbicides that are used kill all 

manner of native vegetation in addition to undesirable vegetation, it is not apparent to 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-182 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Center for Biological 

Diversity 

RMC-0068-005 

Damus, Marilyn D. 

RMC-0069-008 

Desert Survivors 

us any real benefit is being achieved. 2-4-2, Tebuthiuron, Picloram, and glyphosate 

will kill many highly desirable native species in addition to any undesirable invasives. 

The programmatic EIS does not appear to analyze or provide for mitigation that 

ensures this is not the case. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0317-002 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management regarding herbicide selectivity. The 

potential for herbicide treatments to impact non-target vegetation is discussed in detail 

under several resource sections in Chapter 4 of the PEIS, including Vegetation and 

Wildlife Resources. In most cases, loss of some non-target vegetation would be 

acceptable if the long-term health of the ecosystem is improved. 

Table 2-3 in Chapter 2 of the PEIS lists the herbicides that are currently approved and 

proposed for use on BLM lands. This table includes imazapic and describes the areas 

where its registered use is appropriate. Imazapic is a herbicide identified as having 

activity on grasses and broadleaves, and has significant activity on downy brome 

(Bromus tectorum) while being safe for several grass species, as identified on the 

Plateau® label. Also see response to Comment EMC-0486-020 under PEIS 

Alternatives, Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management. 

Comment: Most of the chemicals you are planning to use do not have very thorough 

safety testing. I don’t know of any that have long records of completely safe use, and 

some are already known to cause reproductive and developmental harm. In fact, I 

think I even read that you are reserving the right to add more herbicides later, without 

going through the EIS process again. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0032-002 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Herbicide Active Ingredients Evaluated under the Proposed Alternatives. As a result of 

the process for registration of a herbicide through the USEPA and the risk assessments 

completed by the BLM and Forest Service, the BLM will have a sound understanding 

of the herbicide chemistry and its behavior in the environment prior to allowing its 

application on public lands. As discussed in Appendix E of the PEIS, the BLM would 

have to prepare a NEPA EIS to use new herbicides in the future. 

Comment: Studies presented in the PEIS do not even begin to shed any light on this 

matter. Studies done by herbicide manufacturers are worthless; they are obviously 

self-serving. The long-term effects of all of these chemicals are lethal. That has been 

brought forward in many studies on fish and amphibians, as well as humans. Studies 

of residues in soils are inadequate. The use of these chemicals should not even be 

considered by the BLM. 

Response: The BLM, like all government agencies, relies on pesticide toxicological 

studies required and reviewed by the USEPA. The USEPA has very stringent and 

comprehensive standards for these studies. See: 

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/data.htm#dissipation. USEPA scientists 

review and approve (or reject) the study results. The BLM also conducted a 

comprehensive literature review for the nine herbicides proposed for use by the BLM 

(see individual ecological risk assessments), and for six herbicides the BLM currently 

can use, but does not propose to use under the Preferred Alternative and Alternatives 

D and E (see Appendix B of the PEIS under Evaluation of Currently-available 

Herbicide Active Ingredients). Use of herbicides in the proper manner and with 

mitigating measures described in the PEIS will certainly not be lethal to humans, and 

likely not lethal to wildlife, partly because the (human) risks are low and partly 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-183 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0069-018 

Desert Survivors 

RMC-0076-005 

San Miguel County 

Board of 

Commissioners 

RMC-0101-005 

Custer County Board 

of Commissioners 

RMC-0101-006 

Custer County Board 

of Commissioners 

because the (human and wildlife) risks are based on the no-adverse-effect level with 

safety factors, not on lethality. The risk assessments are used to identify doses and use 

parameters that will not cause adverse effects in people. 

Comment: Also instructive would be a listing of campaign contributions and/or bribes 

made to the Bush campaign and those of other Republican office holders by chemical 

companies and/or herbicide manufacturers. There has been a rash of proposals for use 

of herbicides and pesticides on our public lands since the advent of the current 

administration, and it is likely that influence from chemical companies and/or 

herbicide and pesticide manufacturers is responsible for this. Such research, which is 

publicly available, would help the public immensely in its effort to evaluate the need 

for these types of programs. Most observers accept the corruption of the Bush 

Administration and its kowtowing to corporate interests as a given, but we need to 

know the details. This information was left out of your PEIS. It is the most important 

information that we need to judge the significance of this herbicide-spraying program. 

Send me this information as soon as you can. 

Response: Thank you for your interest in this project. The information you request is 

outside of the scope of the analysis in the PEIS. 

Comment: We support Alternative B, although we feel great caution should be 

exercised in expanding herbicide use and increasing acres of control. We are 

particularly concerned about the use of new herbicides. We feel that new technology 

needs a thorough vetting before its use on public lands. We have seen a number of 

herbicides withdrawn from use after we’ve become more familiar with their at-firstunrecognized toxicity. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0032-002 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Herbicide Active Ingredients Evaluated under the Proposed Alternatives. 

Comment: While it appears that with approval of the Preferred Alternative, the BLM 

will be able to use Plateau® and other new chemicals that have been developed since 

this issue was last addressed in 1991, we would encourage the addition of one more 

chemical to the list. The chemical is Milestone® (aminopyralid) manufactured by Dow 

AgroSciences LLC. It’s effectiveness in controlling spotted knapweed (Centaurea 

maculosa); our other noxious weed of major concern, exceeds that of other 

recommended chemicals and is environmental safe. If it cannot be added to the current 

PEIS we would encourage you to start the “Protocol for Identifying, Evaluating and 

Using New Herbicides” [Appendix D of the Draft PEIS] immediately. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0566-008 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Prevention of Weeds and Early Detection and Rapid Response. The BLM has been 

made aware of aminopyralid and will consider its evaluation for use in the future. 

Comment: Along with support of the above protocol, it follows that the EPA approval 

of herbicides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act registration 

process is also a must. The EPA has looked at all the environmental concerns 

including Human Health Risk Assessments (HHRA) and Environmental Risk 

Assessments (ERA) and there should he no need for BLM to go through the same 

process and expense again. Ideally it would seem that once a new chemical has gone 

through the rigorous FIFRA registration process, its approval by the BLM, or any 

government agency for that matter, would be automatic. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-184 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0101-007 

Custer County Board 

of Commissioners 

RMC-0106-012 

Public Employees for 

Environmental 

Responsibility 

RMC-0106-013 

Public Employees for 

Environmental 

Responsibility 

RMC-0106-014 

Public Employees for 

Environmental 

Response: NEPA requires the BLM to evaluate the use of herbicides for its intended 

application scenarios. 

Comment: Also as a point of clarification, once a new active ingredient has gone 

through the BLM Herbicide Evaluation Protocol and a Supplemental EIS and Record 

of Decision is issued additional NEPA processes should not be required at the local 

level in order to use the herbicide on public lands. For example, when the Preferred 

Alternative for this EIS is chosen and the use of Imazapic is permitted, all the Field 

Offices in the Western United States should not be required to write additional NEPA 

documents to use it. 

Response: The PEIS represents the highest tier of analysis under NEPA, and does not 

represent site-specific analysis for the use of herbicides. The PEIS will allow field 

offices and districts the tool, under the CEQ regulations, of effective tiering (40 CFR 

[Code of Federal Regulations] 1502.20) for site-specific projects. The BLM has an 

affirmative obligation to comply with NEPA at every level of decision-making. At this 

programmatic level, the decision is to ascertain which herbicide active ingredients may 

be used on public lands. This analysis, inclusive of the risk assessments, will not need 

to be repeated at the local or regional level. The PEIS does not determine which 

herbicides will ultimately be used for any specific project, where or how they may be 

applied, or what specific mitigation measures may need to be implemented to protect 

sensitive resources at the local level. The BLM will continue to conduct NEPA at the 

project-specific level, or regional level as appropriate, for all vegetation treatment 

projects regardless of the method used. 

Comment: It is stated [on page 2-4 of the PEIS] that the decision to use the particular 

active ingredients proposed is “...based on a detailed analysis of the risks to human 

health and non-target species...” Properly described this is a detailed analysis of 

extremely limited information about the impacts of these herbicides. The “detailed 

analysis” then is performed on surrogate species, and supplies virtually no information 

on soil and aquatic microorganisms. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0585-199 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis regarding the use of surrogate species. Soil 

and water microorganisms were not evaluated because studies show that 

microorganisms actually degrade herbicides. Terrestrial invertebrates were assessed 

using the susceptible honeybee. Aquatic invertebrates were assessed, as they are part 

of the food chain for fish and consumers of fish (herons, mink, etc.). 

Comment: It is stated [on page 2-4 of PEIS] that local BLM offices were “...consulted 

to determine if they had information from field applications that would suggest that 

any of these chemicals should be reanalyzed.” There is no evidence of specific 

application of any information from field offices. If such exists, it must be cited in full. 

If there is no such information, that should be stated. 

Response: The BLM did not receive information from the field offices that any of the 

herbicides in use should be reanalyzed, except for sulfometuron methyl (Oust®). Thus, 

Oust® was reanalyzed. Several offices did make recommendations for new herbicides 

they would like reviewed in the PEIS for use in the future. 

Comment: This account [pages 2-4 to 2-6 of PEIS] is confused-since the problem 

encountered did not involve human health, the statement that “It was determined that 

the remaining 19 herbicides did not require further analysis for human health risks” 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-185 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Responsibility does not follow. 

Response: Sulfometuron methyl, an herbicide currently used by the BLM, could have 

impacts to non-target vegetation, which could have implications for human health 

(consumption of crops) and ecological health. The remaining 19 herbicides used by 

the BLM did not require analysis for human health risks. However, several of the 

herbicides used by the BLM did require analysis of ecological risks. Thus, the 

statements are consistent. 

RMC-0109-003 Comment: I do wish that atrazine had remained on the list of approved herbicides, as 

Sanders, Kenneth D. research many years ago had shown it to be promising tool for controlling annual 

(University of Idaho) grasses. 

Response: As shown in Table 2-4 of the PEIS, the BLM has not used atrazine during 

the past 7 years, and there are several environmental concerns associated with its use. 

If Alternative A is selected by the BLM, the BLM would be able to continue to use 

atrazine. If another alternative is chosen, the BLM would have to meet the 

requirements of the protocol to use new herbicides as discussed in Appendix E of the 

PEIS, before the BLM could use atrazine in the future. 

RMC-0157-005 Comment: Although the County supports Alternative B, the Board feels great caution 

Pitkin County should be exercised in expanding herbicide use and increasing acres of control. The 

Commissioners Board is particularly concerned about the use of new herbicides. Any new technology 

needs a thorough vetting before its use on public lands, as a number of herbicides have 

been withdrawn from use after greater familiarity with their initially unrecognized 

toxicity. 

Response: See responses to Comment EMC-0646-018 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Herbicide Active Ingredients Evaluated under the Proposed Alternatives, and 

Comment EMC-0566-008 under PEIS Alternatives, Prevention of Weeds and Early 

Detection and Rapid Response. The BLM has undertaken extensive toxicological 

studies on human health and ecological risks to minimize the risk that an herbicide 

will be adopted for use and then subsequently withdrawn due to unforeseen toxicity 

considerations. 

RMC-0159-007 Comment: We are extremely concerned about the toxicity, drift potential, and 

Proctor, Gradey persistence of this chemical [dicamba] and expect the BLM to fully analyze the 

potential adverse effects that may result from using products containing dicamba. We 

are also concerned that dicamba may increase the risk of other plant diseases on the 

BLM. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0159-005 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Herbicide Active Ingredients Evaluated under the Proposed Alternatives. The BLM 

did evaluate toxicity and risk associated with dicamba application scenarios, which 

considered herbicide drift, and predicted a range of risks to vegetation from use of 

dicamba, from none to high. Risks to humans and fish and wildlife were generally 

none to low under various treatment scenarios. Risks from drift would be minimized 

by following the buffer recommendations presented in Table 4-12 of the PEIS. The 

BLM is not aware of dicamba increasing the risk for plant diseases. 

RMC-0159-010 Comment: While just triclopyr is known as 3,5,6-tricholor-2-pyridinyloxy acetic acid, 

Proctor, Gradey herbicides contain either triethylamine salt of triclopyr, or the butoxyethyl ester of 

triclopyr. Which form and what products is the BLM proposing to use? 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-186 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0159-011 

Proctor, Gradey 

RMC-0159-014 

Proctor, Gradey 

RMC-0173-005 

Delles, Susan 

Response: As of December 2005, the BLM presently applies both the triethylamine 

and the butoxyethyl ester formulations of triclopyr. The following labeled products are 

available for use on BLM-administered lands: Garlon 3A®, Garlon 4®, Remedy®, 

Pathfinder II®, Tahoe 3A®, and Tahoe 4E®. 

Comment: Triclopyr has many different documented toxicities. Triclopyr causes an 

increase in breast cancer, an increase in genetic damage such as dominant lethal 

mutations, an increased incidence of reproductive problems, and damage to the 

kidneys. The ester form of triclopyr is highly toxic to fish, inhibits behaviors in frogs 

that help them avoid predators, and decreases the survival rate of baby birds. Triclopyr 

also inhibits the growth of mycrorhizal fungi , and with fixation of atmospheric 

nitrogen. Triclopyr is mobile in soil and readily contaminates wells, streams, and 

rivers. The major breakdown product of triclopyr (3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinol) disrupts 

normal growth and development of nervous systems and accumulates in fetal brains. 

We are very concerned that these same effects will occur in wildlife and people if the 

BLM uses this chemical on our National Forest. 

Response: The BLM is not responsible for administering herbicide use on National 

Forests; that is the responsibility of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 

However, the BLM did find that triclopyr posed potentially unacceptable risks to 

humans on BLM-administered lands during assessments of human health in 1991 for 

an earlier EIS, and based on subsequent review in the late 1990s, as discussed in 

Appendix B of the PEIS under Evaluation of Currently-available Herbicide Active 

Ingredients. The Forest Service conducted an assessment of ecological risks, and 

found that triclopyr resulted in low to medium risks for several ecological receptors. 

Comment: Both 2, 4-d and dicamba were dropped from the Forest Service Region 6 

herbicide report due to higher toxicity levels. And based on the Forest Service risk 

assessment, triclopyr, and picloram are not far behind. It would strongly suggest you 

research their data so that their full story can unfold on these chemicals, before the 

effects do. 

Response: The risks of using 2,4-D and dicamba were important considerations when 

the Forest Service decided against using these herbicides in the Pacific Northwest. In 

addition, these herbicides were rarely used by the Forest Service. The risks of using 

these herbicides are mainly associated with their potential to act as endocrine 

disruptors, and to produce degradate products that may also be harmful. See response 

to Comment EMC-0646-016 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, Herbicide 

Effects Analysis regarding the analysis of degradates and endocrine disruptors that 

was conducted by the BLM. Compared to the Forest Service, the BLM uses these 

herbicides more extensively on the lands it administers, and based on its assessment of 

the risks associated with these herbicides, feels that they are acceptable if mitigation 

measures identified in the PEIS are used to minimize risks. 

Comment: 2,4-D has been shown to be toxic to 

a. Birds such as Sagegrouse due to habitat fragmentation and Brewers Sparrows 

reducing availability of insects which are a part of their diet. 

b. Fish The toxicity of this chemical to fish is demonstrated by the warning on 

the EPA label. The toxic effects occur even in low concentrations. 

c. Frogs A recent study from Willamette University shows that 2,4-D interferes 

with frog sex hormones. 

d. Pets 2,4-D is linked with Bladder Cancer and testicular problems in dogs. 

e. Persistence and Contamination 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-187 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

(1) USGS surveys show persistence in agricultural and urban areas, in streams 

and rivers, and to a lesser extent in wells. 

(2) People Centers for Disease Control found that about 25% of Americans 

carry this chemical in their bodies. Levels are higher in children 

(3) Air USGS found that 60% of air samples collected had this chemical on a 

national level. 

(4) Drift problems show this chemical to be one of the top five pesticides 

involved in drift incidents over 26 states. 

(5) Dioxin This is a deadly persistent contaminant in 2,4-D. 

Response: The risks to humans, plants, animals, and other resources from the use of 

2,4-D are discussed in the relevant resource sections of Chapter 4 of the PEIS. 

RMC-0173-006 Comment: Glyphosate (Roundup/Rodeo). This is currently the most popular chemical 

Delles, Susan being used in agriculture and on urban and suburban landscapes. Studies have shown 

this chemical to be: 

a. Carcinogenic to humans in the form of Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma (see 

references) 

b. Miscarriages in human females 

c. Reduction of male reproductive capacity 

d. Birds This chemical effects the plants birds use for food and shelter 

e. Fish Disruption of Fish immune systems has been shown 

f. Frogs/Amphibians Genetic damage and inhibited development has been 

shown 

g. Persistence 

(1) A regional study in the Midwest showed that Glyphosate applied in 

spring persisted into the fall harvest system 

(2) Contamination has been found in six streams in King County WA – an 

urban area. 

Response: The risks to humans, plants, animals, and other resources from the use of 

glyphosate are discussed in the relevant resource sections of Chapter 4 of the PEIS. 

RMC-0173-007 Comment: Picloram. This chemical is very dangerous and was evaluated by the EPA 

Delles, Susan in 1995. Both the Ecological Effects Branch and the Environmental Fate and Ground 

Water Branch of the EPA recommended that the use of this chemical not be continued. 

However, the EPA did not accept these recommendations. The Journal of Pesticide 

Reform of Spring 1998 Vol. 18 #1 with peer reviewed literature referred for citation 

had this to say about the chemical: “In laboratory tests, Picloram causes damage to the 

liver, kidney and spleen. Other adverse effects observed in laboratory tests include 

embryo loss in pregnant rabbits, and testicular atrophy in male rats. The combination 

of Picloram and 2,4-D causes birth defects and decreases birth weights in mice. 

Picloram is contaminated with the carcinogen hexachlorobenzene, 

Hexacholorobenzend, in addition to causing cancer of the liver, thyroid, and kidney, 

also damages bones, blood, and the immune system and the endocrine system. Nursing 

infants and unborn children are particularly at risk from hexachlorobenzene. Picloram 

is toxic to juvenile fish at concentrations less than 1 part per million (ppm.) 

Concentrations as low as 0.04 ppm have killed trout fry. In Montana, roadside 

Spraying of Tordon killed 15,000 pounds of fish in a hatchery 1⁄4 mile downstream 

from the Tordon treatment. Picloram is persistent and highly mobile in soil. It is 

widely found as a contaminant of groundwater and also has been found in streams and 

lakes. It is also extremely phytotoxic, and drift and runoff from Picloram treatments 

have caused startling damage to crops particularly tobacco and potatoes.” 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-188 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0173-009 

Delles, Susan 

RMC-0191-007 

Ertz, Brian 

RMC-0208-035 

California Oak 

Foundation 

Response: Picloram is rated by the USEPA as being only slightly toxic to humans via 

ingestion. It is contaminated with less than 100 parts per million of hexachlorobenzene 

(HCB). The USEPA’s 1995 RED Fact Sheet for picloram rated the carcinogenic risk 

to the general public from the trace contaminant HCB in picloram as negligible, and 

the risk to workers mixing picloram as “not-unacceptable.” As discussed in Chapter 4 

of the PEIS, picloram is persistent in the soil and has been detected in groundwater, 

but risks to humans and wildlife are generally none to low. The BLM would limit the 

size of the application area, where feasible, to reduce the potential for picloram to 

impact soil and water quality. 

Comment: As a resident of Southern Oregon for thirty years, the historical record of 

aerial spraying of these chemicals is clearly a negative one. In the 70s, extensive 

spraying of 2, 4-D and T, 4, 5-T have documented many health effects of coastal 

Oregon residents that resulted in a number of lawsuits. The controversy that resulted, 

led to the suspension of use of these chemicals by public land agencies except in 

small-localized applications. There is no justification for the program the PEIS 

proposes except to support the chemical industry. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0049-003 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, How the Effects of the Alternatives Were Estimated. The herbicide 2, 

4, 5-T was rarely used by the BLM in the 1970s. In the few instances when 2, 4, 5-T 

was sprayed, it was used in a 1:2 or 1:3 mixture with 2, 4-D. The BLM also used an 

herbicide called Silvex. The active ingredient in Silvex is 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy 

proprionic acid (2,4,5-TP), a different chemical from 2,4,5-T. The BLM is an end-user 

of herbicides (i.e., consumer) in the same manner as any other person, company, or 

agency that purchases and applies herbicides. 

Comment: In the Draft PEIS appendixes, within the ERA [ecological risk assessment] 

for each proposed herbicides it is mentioned that “The potential toxicity of degradates 

should be considered when selecting an herbicide.” (D[raft] PEIS C-83) The very next 

sentence claims that “...it is beyond the scope of this risk assessment to evaluate all of 

the possible degradates of the various herbicide formulations of the ten herbicides.” 

(D[raft] PEIS C-83). Perhaps, but not one of the ERA evaluations of the proposed 10 

new herbicide active ingredients consider a single degradate of proposed herbicide in 

risk analysis. Bromacil, diflufenzopyr, Diuron, Imazapic, Sulfometuron Methyl, 

Chlorsulfuron, Diquat, Fluridone, Overdrive, Tebuthiuron, let alone the herbicides 

approved under previous EIS programs for current levels of administration, all make 

reference to the same thing in section 7.3.1 of their individual Risk Assessments. 

Response: The BLM conducted an analysis of degradates for the Final PEIS and 

provided the information in Appendix D. Also see response to Comment RMC-0106-

048 under PEIS Appendix C, Ecological Risk Assessment. 

Comment: Although it purports to assess 25 herbicide active ingredients, the Draft 

PEIS did not specifically analyze 19 active ingredients, including 2,4-D, hexazinone, 

triclopyr, and glyphosate, which had been analyzed in prior EIS’s and previously 

approved for use on federal lands in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s. (Draft PEIS, at 

pp. 2-4 to 2-6.) Instead, for these herbicides, the BLM relied on the previous 

assessments and a “comprehensive literature review” (Draft PEIS, at p. 2-4: see also p. 

4-2 [BLM “consulted risk assessments prepared by the Forest Service for nine other 

herbicides used by the BLM,” including 2,4-D, glyphosate, hexazinone, and 

triclopyr].) However, as the studies cited above show, these active ingredients pose a 

substantial threat to wildlife in and around BLM lands that is not adequately addressed 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-189 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0208-063 

California Oak 

Foundation 

RMC-0213-007 

California Native Plant 

Society 

in the Draft PEIS. Moreover, the historic use of these and other active ingredients 

since the 1980’s has resulted in an environment that is vastly different than the one 

assessed by the earlier EIS’s, on which the BLM now relies. According to the Draft 

PEIS, 2,4-D, glyphosate, hexazinone, and triclopyr were assessed in EIS’s in 1988, 

1991, and 1992. (Draft PEIS, at p. 2-5.) Now, more than a decade later, the BLM 

proposes a massive vegetation management project, heavily reliant on the use of 

herbicides in general and two of these active ingredients in particular (see p. 4-46), but 

fails to conduct any further analysis of the effects of these known toxic ingredients. 

Reliance on outdated analysis and selective literature does not satisfy the “hard look” 

at the scientific data that is required by NEPA. (See 40 C.F.R. §§ 1500.l (b); 1502.24; 

Native Ecosystems Council v. United States Forest Serv. (9th Cir. 2005) 418 F.3d 953, 

964.). 

Response: See response to Comment FXC-0071-009 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Herbicide Active Ingredients Evaluated under the Proposed Alternatives. The BLM 

contracted expert literature reviews on all herbicides to assess what information is 

available and whether this information is substantially different than information used 

to prepare earlier BLM risk assessments. The USEPA was consulted for up-to-date 

toxicity information on each BLM herbicide, and a comprehensive literature review 

was performed for each of the 10 ecological risk assessments (ERAs) prepared by the 

BLM for this PEIS (see Appendix A to each ERA; see the ERAs on the CD included 

with the PEIS). 

Comment: In reviewing these comments, please keep in mind that both federal courts 

in the Ninth Circuit and the California state court have held that an agency may not 

curtail its assessment of the environmental effects of applying herbicides by relying on 

the registration of these chemicals by the Environmental Protection Agency (see, Save 

Our Ecosyststems v. Clark (9th Cir. 1984) 747 F.2d 1210, 1247 (“[tlhe EPA 

registration process for herbicides under FIFRA is inadequate to address 

environmental concerns under NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] ... .” ) or in 

California, by the Department of Pesticide Regulation (Californians for Alternatives to 

Toxics v. Department of Food & Agriculture (2005) 2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 2060,26-

27 ). 

Response: The BLM did not rely on the USEPA or Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and 

Rodenticide Act to determine whether individual herbicides should be used on public 

lands. The BLM used a variety of information sources to assess the risks associated 

with using herbicides on public lands. The reader is encouraged to review the 

individual risk assessments prepared by the BLM and Forest Service, and information 

sources contained therein, to learn more about how the analysis of risks was 

conducted. Information from the risk assessments was then used to conduct a NEPA 

analysis of the effects of use of herbicides on public lands. 

Comment: In Idaho, Oust was sprayed aerially in 1999 and 2000, resulting in drift 

that allegedly damaged 100,000 acres of farmland. Use of the chemical was 

subsequently suspended by the Idaho BLM, and the incident is the subject of an 

ongoing lawsuit involving over 100 farmers, BLM, and DuPont (manufacturer of the 

chemical). While DuPont claims that BLM used the chemical improperly, BLM 

claims that it followed label instructions. This incident suggests that such damage 

cannot be predicted or avoided even if the chemical is used according to instructions 

approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s pesticide registration 

process. Soil tests conducted by the Montana State University have determined that 

crop damage was caused by concentrations of Oust© ranging from 0.079-24 ppb. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-190 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0214-043 

Natural Resources 

Defense Council and 

National Wildlife 

Federation 

RMC-0216-019 

Neff, Jack 

RMC-0217-008 

Sierra Club Utah 

Chapter 

RMC-0218-009 

Blue Mountains 

Biodiversity Project, 

League of Wilderness 

Defenders 

Response: The labeled use of sulfometuron methyl (Oust®) is for the control of many 

annual and perennial grasses and broadleaf weeds in forestry and non-croplands. A 

24(c) label or Special Local Needs Label was approved for the states of Utah, Idaho 

and Nevada to use the herbicide to control downy brome (Bromus tectorum), cheat 

(Bromus secalinus), and medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae) on fire-damaged 

land, firebreaks, and other non-crop areas owned and administered by agencies of the 

State of Idaho or the federal government such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

and the U.S. Department of Interior including the BLM, the Forest Service, and the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. However, since the 2001 incident in Idaho, the 24-C 

label approving its use for fire-damaged lands has been pulled, and the current labeled 

use of sulfometuron methyl is limited to bare ground applications. The PEIS and PER 

identify the parameters for use and standard operating procedures that are designed to 

reduce the risk of all of the herbicides currently used by the BLM including, but not 

limited to, sulfometuron methyl, as well as those proposed for use, including imazapic. 

Comment: The BLM proposes to use 18 herbicides annually on nearly 1 million acres 

in 17 western states. This would more than triple the acreage that BLM currently treats 

with herbicides. See D[raft] PEIS Executive Summary-1. One of the BLM-selected 

herbicides included in the Preferred Alternative (as well as alternatives A, D, and E) is 

2,4-D, which is especially inappropriate for the proposed use because of its toxicity, 

existing scope of contamination, and threats to the environment and public health. 

Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0106-037 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Fish and Other Aquatic Organisms and Comment RMC-0159-014 

under PEIS Alternatives, Herbicide Active Ingredients Evaluated under the Proposed 

Alternatives. 

Comment: BLM’s wish list contains more than 1,000 separate toxic chemical 

compounds present within the brand-name pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides BLM 

proposes. 

Response: The PEIS analyzes the impacts of using herbicides on public lands. The use 

of fungicides on public lands is outside the scope of the document. See response to 

Comment EMC-0585-057 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, Herbicide 

Active Ingredients Evaluated under the Proposed Alternatives regarding other 

herbicide formulation constituents. 

Comment: The PEIS makes the arbitrary and unsupported leap to merely defining a 

list of chemicals that might at some future point be used in ways the PEIS does not 

identify as the most effective, having the least environmental impact, or even 

scientifically supported as useful for solving the actual problem to be remedied. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0374-001 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Herbicide Active Ingredients Evaluated under the Proposed Alternatives. As noted in 

this comment response, the BLM considered effectiveness, environmental risk, and 

scientific studies of the proposed herbicides when determining which herbicides to 

evaluate in the PEIS. 

Comment: The BLM would also reserve the right to use new, unspecified active 

ingredients if they were registered by the EPA and the BLM determined the benefits of 

use outweighed the risks to public health and the environment. Incorporating approval 

of such future undefined toxic chemical use without assessment of potential risks at 

this stage is legally sketchy since it leaves the public and decision-makers in the dark 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-191 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0218-019 

Blue Mountains 

Biodiversity Project, 

League of Wilderness 

Defenders 

RMC-0218-034 

Blue Mountains 

Biodiversity Project, 

League of Wilderness 

Defenders 

as to what those future risks would be while approving them now. 

Response: Under the Preferred Alternative and alternatives D and E, the BLM would 

not be able to use new herbicides without conducting a risk assessment, preparing a 

supplemental EIS, and going through the public review and comment process. These 

procedures are discussed in more detail in Appendix E of the PEIS under Prepare a 

New NEPA Document. 

Comment: Toxicity of herbicides proposed for use: Region 6 of the Forest Service 

decided to drop the use of 2,4-D and dicamba due to their higher toxicity across 

various exposure scenarios for different wildlife species, humans, water quality, etc . 

Based on the Forest Service risk assessments, picloram and triclopyr are close behind 

for high toxicity and should be dropped from use. According to BLM assessments 

(although their tables seem to under-estimate risk compared to the Forest Service’s), 

Diquat and Diuron consistently come out with higher toxicity risks than other 

proposed herbicides and should not be used. Picloram and clopyralid both contain an 

impurity (hexachlorobenzene) that has been identified as having potential to cause 

human cancer. The Forest Service analysis makes it clear that aerial and boom 

spraying greatly increase the risks of non-target plant, aquatic organism, wildlife and 

human hazardous exposures. The Forest Service also made the distinction that the 

sulfonylurea herbicides should not be aerially sprayed due to their high potency, The 

sulfonylurea herbicides (listed and banned under alt. [Alternative] E) pose a significant 

risk to fruit and seed production (including crop plants) and should not be used. 

Response: Similar to the Forest Service risk assessments, the BLM risk assessments 

found that aerial and boom spraying pose higher risks to receptors than other methods 

of herbicide application. Table 4-29 in the Human Health and Safety section of the 

PEIS indicates that there is no risk to humans associated with use of clopyralid, 

picloram, or triclopyr at typical and maximum application rates, or diquat at the typical 

application rate. These results were obtained using Forest Service risk assessment 

models with BLM herbicide application rates. Although these herbicides do not pose 

risks to plants, fish, or wildlife, the BLM proposes to use buffers (see Table 4-14 of 

the PEIS) to minimize risk to non-target vegetation, and other mitigation measures 

(see Vegetation, Fish and Other Aquatic Organisms, and Wildlife Resources sections 

of Chapter 4 of the PEIS) to minimize risk to plants and animals from aerial and boom 

spraying. Also see response to Comment RMC-0173-007 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Herbicide Active Ingredients Evaluated under the Proposed Alternatives. 

Comment: Unspecified “new” herbicides not analyzed in this programmatic EIS 

should not be allowed for use in the future without analysis at this scale. Otherwise the 

public and decision-makers have no idea what impacts they are agreeing to in 

choosing an alternative that allows for unspecified new herbicides to be used with risk 

assessment and analysis only at the District level, where less funding and scientific 

expertise is available for the kind of detailed risk assessment and analysis needed. Yet 

automatic adoption of unspecified new herbicides through such inadequate assessment 

at the District level is proposed for alternatives B, D, and E. ([see] pp. 2-11 - 2-13, 

DEIS [Draft PEIS]) 

Response: As discussed in Appendix E (Protocol for Identifying, Evaluating, and 

Using New Herbicides) of the Final PEIS, the BLM considers the use of herbicides to 

be a “controversial federal action affecting the human environment.” Thus, the BLM 

would be required to conduct a risk assessment and prepare an EIS for any new 

herbicides proposed for use. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-192 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0221-054 

Center for Biological 

Diversity 

RMC-0221-055 

Center for Biological 

Diversity 

RMC-0221-058 

Center for Biological 

Diversity 

Comment: This D[raft] PEIS and the D[raft] PER completely fail to analyze the 

effects of eight herbicides proposed for continued use by the BLM: clopyralid, 

dicamba, glyphosate, hexazinone, imazapyr, metsulfuron methyl, picloram, and 

triclopyr. The BLM justifies its omission of analyses for these chemicals by noting 

that “these herbicides have been evaluated in a previous BLM EIS (USDI BLM 1991), 

as well as more recently in an invasive plant EIS prepared by the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service (Forest Service; USDA Forest Service 2004).” Appendix C 

DEIS [Draft PEIS] Ecological Risk Assessment at p. C-1. Thus, the D[raft] PEIS and 

D[raft] PER defer to previous analyses for nearly half the 18 herbicides proposed for 

use in the preferred alternative. 

Response: The BLM conducted a human health risk assessment for dicamba and 

analyzed dicamba for risks to plants and animals as part of its assessment of 

Overdrive® for the ERA. For the remaining seven herbicides, the BLM updated and 

modified the Forest Service spreadsheets using BLM exposure parameters and 

application rates to better reflect herbicide application risks on BLM-administered 

lands. 

Comment: Unfortunately, however, the previous [Forest Service] analyses are either 

insufficient because they are outdated, or they do not analyze all of the herbicides 

proposed for use in this action. One of the previous analyses was the BLM’s 

evaluation of herbicides from 1991. Relying on an outdated EIS from 1991 – by now 

nearly 15 years old – is a violation of NEPA’s requirements to insure the use of highquality, accurate, and updated scientific data. 40 C.F.R. [Code of Federal Regulations] 

§ 1502.22. Hundreds, if not thousands, of new studies have been published over the 

past 15 years regarding the effects of numerous herbicides, including those proposed 

for use in this action, on a variety of variables. Analyses from the BLM’s previous EIS 

do not replace the need for new analyses in this D[raft] PEIS due to the outdated 

nature of the 1991 document. 

Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0221-054 and Comment FXC-0071-009 

under PEIS Alternatives, Herbicide Active Ingredients Evaluated under the Proposed 

Alternatives. The oldest Forest Service risk assessment used in the PEIS was prepared 

in 1998, the most recent in 2005. 

Comment: The Forest Service was proposing to treat 8,989 acres per year out of 24.9 

million acres on National Forest System land (USDA Forest Service 2005 at p. 240) 

whereas the BLM’s preferred alternative would treat an astounding 932,000 acres 

annually. The BLM’s analysis of impacts is not analogous to the Forest Service’s 

analyses, as the Forest Service concluded that the small number of acres to be treated 

with herbicide per year “represents a negligible risk to wildlife on a regional scale.” 

While we disagree with the Forest Service’s conclusion that the treatment of nearly 

9,000 acres per year would not have serious adverse environmental impacts, 

particularly on endangered species and rare or restricted plant communities, even if 

those conclusions were supportable, the fact remains that the analyses and conclusions 

from the Forest Service’s EIS is simply not comparable [with] the BLM’s vastly larger 

proposal. 

Response: The two documents are not comparable, as the Forest Service is primarily 

treating forestlands in the Pacific Northwest, while most public lands are rangelands 

where weeds and other invasive vegetation have been more successful in establishing 

and spreading. Based on information provided by BLM field offices, the percentage of 

acres treated using herbicides in western Oregon (where most BLM forestlands are 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-193 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

located) would be less than half the percentage used by the BLM in the 17 states 

covered in the PEIS. The PEIS, supporting ecological risk assessments, and Biological 

Assessment discuss the risks to plants and animals, including threatened, endangered, 

and sensitive species. These assessments found that for most treatment scenarios, the 

risks were very minor, but were moderate to high for other scenarios. 

RMC-0221-059 Comment: In sum, the BLM’s D[raft] PEIS and D[raft] PER fail to include any 

Center for Biological analyses whatsoever about the effects of hexazinone on the biota of nearly 1 million 

Diversity acres proposed for treatment annually, and it does not disclose that it relied on 

conclusions from a previous, much-smaller Forest Service program that did not 

include the use of dicamba or 2,4-D. The BLM must not rely on the Forest Service’s 

2004 EIS for its analyses of these three chemicals, nor can it rely on its previous 15­

year old analysis. The lack of examination of these three chemicals as well as the other 

five chemicals that remain wholly unexamined in these documents due to the BLM’s 

reliance on outdated and non-comparable data, renders the D[raft] PEIS inadequate. 

Response: Based on information provided in Table 2-4 of the PEIS, less than 1% 

(9,300 acres) of the total number of treated acres would be treated using hexazinone 

under the No Action and Preferred Alternatives, and Alternatives D and E. The BLM 

used Forest Service risk assessments for some herbicides because they were recently 

completed and followed protocols that were similar to those used by the BLM. The 

BLM did not use 15-year-old analysis for its risk assessments, but relied on recent 

toxicological data for analysis of ecological and human health effects. 

Alternatives, Herbicide Modes of Action and Treatment Methods 

EMC-0018-003 

Shaw, T. Gray 

Comment: Several of the herbicides proposed do even not have products currently 

registered for use by the California by the Department of Pesticide Regulation. 

Response: The BLM would not apply any herbicide active ingredient or formulation 

unless it meets the states registration requirements. 

EMC-0027-008 

McNeel, Hank 

Comment: Page 2-14 [of Draft PER], Second Column, Paragraph 2, Line 7. Anyone 

applying pesticides on BLM lands must be certified whether the pesticide is general or 

restricted use. Refer to the BLM Manuals 9011 and H-9011-Chemical Pest Control. 

Response: This clarification has been made in Chapter 2 of the Final PEIS under 

Herbicide Modes of Action and Treatment Methods, and in Chapter 2 of the Final 

PER under Herbicides Evaluated in the PEIS in the section on Herbicides. 

EMC-0063-002 

EMC0066-002 

EMC0069-003 

Comment: Several of the herbicides proposed do even not have products currently 

registered for use by the California by the Department of Pesticide Regulation. 

Gunder, Jenn 

Conrick, Teresa 

Murphy, Jennifer 

Response: See response to Comment FXC-0071-006 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Herbicide Active Ingredients Evaluated under the Proposed Alternatives. 

EMC-0076-002 

Viani, Susan and Nick 

Comment: BLM needs to make a strong commitment to reducing its reliance on 

herbicides, for the sake of all life! 

Response: As noted in Chapter 2 of the PEIS under Site Selection Priorities in the 

Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management section, the BLM would consider 

nonchemical methods of vegetation treatment before using herbicides as part of an 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-194 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0080-005 

Winfree, Robin 

EMC-0091-003 

Rice, Molly 

EMC-0093-006 

Barrett, Anne Albrecht 

EMC-0101-002 

Terry, Noalani 

EMC-0133-005 

Ryan, Stephanie 

EMC-0140-013 

Small, Jack W. and 

Joyce C. 

integrated pest management approach to vegetation management. The PER lists other 

treatment methods the BLM could use before choosing to use herbicides. 

Comment: You need to make a strong commitment to reducing its reliance on 

herbicides. It has been proven that plants develop resistance to repeated applications of 

herbicides, requiring stronger and more potent applications. 

Response: See responses to Comments EMC-0076-002 and EMC-0267-007 under 

PEIS Alternatives, Herbicide Modes of Action and Treatment Methods. 

Comment: BLM also needs to make a strong commitment to reducing its reliance on 

herbicides: This agency needs to make a specific measurable commitment to reducing 

reliance on herbicides. I have worked for a Landscaping company and recognize the 

more you spray, the more you Have to spray!!!! The weeds become immune to the 

chemicals, and that just means the chemical companies make them stronger and 

stronger. 

Response: See responses to Comments EMC-0076-002 and EMC-0267-007 under 

PEIS Alternatives, Herbicide Modes of Action and Treatment Methods. 

Comment: BLM needs to make a strong commitment to reducing its reliance on 

herbicides. These products are chemicals made from expensive foreign oil, and 

tripling their use does not support the present administration’s lip service to reduction 

of reliance on foreign oil, which is the raw source for these poisonous and not 

necessary agents. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0076-002 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Herbicide Modes of Action and Treatment Methods. 

Comment: Large-scale use perpetuates a cycle of pesticide resistance leading to 

stronger and heavier use of pesticides that create more resistance, etc. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0267-007 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Herbicide Modes of Action and Treatment Methods. 

Comment: BLM also needs to make a strong commitment to reducing its reliance on 

herbicides by changing your practices in the first place which are contributing to this 

problem. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding causes and vectors of weed 

spread. See also response to Comment EMC-0145-006 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. 

Comment: I think it would be a step forward to begin monitoring the numbers with 

respect to the amount of chemicals being dispensed, and make some commitments in 

the direction of changing the whole program to one more environmentally friendly. 

Response: Table 2-4 of the PEIS gives historic and proposed herbicide use by the 

BLM. This information is based on Pesticide Application Reports completed for each 

herbicide application by the BLM. Yearly reports of the acres treated, herbicide 

applied, application rates, and application type (ground vs. aerial) are prepared, which 

allows the BLM to track the pesticides that are applied on BLM-administered land. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-195 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0214-003 

Vollmer, Jennifer 

(BASF) 

EMC-0237-002 

Murphy, Patricia 

EMC-0237-004 

Murphy, Patricia 

EMC-0248-002 

Harrer, Roger 

Also see response to Comment EMC-0121-004 under PER Vegetation Treatment 

Programs, Policies, and Methods, Vegetation Treatment Methods regarding nonherbicide treatment methods used by the BLM and research to find other effective 

methods to treat vegetation. 

Comment: Alternatives/Herbicide Modes of Action and Treatment Methods/last 

paragraph: A drawback of herbicide use is “Weeds may develop a resistance...” This is 

more likely to happen with limited available herbicides where BLM would have no 

choice but to use the same herbicide repeatedly over the course of time to control a 

particular weed, encouraging resistance development. Several herbicide options for 

control of a weed species will allow BLM to modify the vegetation treatment program 

to avoid resistance development. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0267-007 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Herbicide Modes of Action and Treatment Methods. 

Comment: We also need to be responsive to the fact that you would be engaging in an 

herbicide cycle, where plants develop resistance, and more and more poison will be 

needed to control unwanted growth. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0267-007 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Herbicide Modes of Action and Treatment Methods. 

Comment: We need to seriously consider that the poison of herbicide application is 

going to be with us a long time after the plants it kills are dead. We also need to be 

responsive to the fact that you would be engaging in an herbicide cycle, where plants 

develop resistance, and more and more poison will be needed to control unwanted 

growth. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0267-007 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Herbicide Modes of Action and Treatment Methods. 

Comment: It seems to me that it’s pretty well established that many if not all invasive 

species prosper most in areas where there’s no competition, and that is exactly what 

you have if you spray, is it not? I don’t think there are herbicides specific to any of the 

noxious weeds. 

Response: A number of herbicides the BLM proposes to use are selective (2,4-D, 

chlorsulfuron, clopyralid, dicamba, imazapyr, metsulfuron-methyl, picloram, 

tebuthiuron, diflufenzopyr + dicamba, and imazapic; see Table 2-3 in Chapter 2 of the 

PEIS). Selective herbicides are more toxic to some species than to others. Selectivity 

can be based upon several factors, including, but not limited to, timing and rate of 

application. Some of these selective herbicides are toxic to broadleaf species, but are 

practically non-toxic to grass species. This type of selectivity allows for the desirable 

grass species to tolerate the application of the herbicide at a rate that is effective for the 

management of the targeted broadleaf species. Not all broadleaves are affected at the 

same rate of application; thus, selectivity can be achieved by selecting the proper use 

rate of the herbicide. When conducting an environmental assessment for local projects, 

field managers will determine if herbicides can be used to selectively manage 

vegetation, where appropriate, to ensure that non-target vegetation is retained on the 

site. For rights-of-way and along roadways, removal of all vegetation may be 

appropriate and non-selective herbicides may be used. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-196 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0267-007 

Medbery, Angela 

EMC-0306-010 

Klamath River Keeper 

Program and Klamath 

Forest Alliance 

EMC-0314-008 

Alliance for the Wild 

Rockies 

Comment: Intense record keeping should be maintained to discover signs of plant 

resistance to the chemicals that are used. 

Response: Herbicide resistance is the inherited ability of a plant to survive an 

herbicide application to which the wild-type was susceptible. Resistant plants occur 

naturally within a population and differ slightly in genetic makeup, but remain 

reproductively compatible with the wild-type. Herbicide resistant plants are present in 

a population in extremely small numbers. The repeated use of one herbicide allows 

these few plants to survive and reproduce. The number of resistant plants then 

increases in the population until the herbicide no longer effectively controls the weed. 

Herbicide resistance is not the natural tolerance that some species have to a herbicide. 

The appearance of herbicide-resistant weeds is strongly linked to repeated use of the 

same herbicide or herbicides with the same site of action in a monoculture cropping 

system or in non-crop areas. 

There are several things that can be done, and are being done by the BLM, to 

minimize the potential development of resistant weed species, including, but not 

limited to the following: 

1) rotate herbicides – by understanding the different modes of action of each herbicide 

proposed for use on public lands, select the appropriate one to minimize resistance; 

2) understand the potential effects of long-term residual herbicides on the selection for 

resistant weeds, and correctly apply these herbicides with the understanding that they 

can lead to weed resistance if used yearly for several consecutive years; 

3) use mechanical and biological management options to eliminate weed escapes that 

may represent the resistant population; and 

4) keep accurate records of herbicide applications. 

Comment: The use of Tordon/Picloram and other herbicides proposed for use in this 

project are not authorized for use for controlling invasive plants in California. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0018-003 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Herbicide Active Ingredients Evaluated under the Proposed Alternatives. 

Comment: Finally, it has recently been shown in careful field experiments (I also 

attended a presentation by the team leader, as her experiment was performed nearby) 

that herbicides which target broad-leaf plants (forbs--as most herbicides do) cause 

weeds to thrive! This is because removing the native forbs opens-up resource niches 

(nutrients, water compartments, etc.) to weed seeds, which are often present because 

of human or other activity (Monica L. Pokorny, Roger L. Sheley et al. ‘Plant 

Functional Group Diversity as a Mechanism for Invasion Resistance’ Restoration 

Ecology:13:448-59 (Sept. 2005) doi:10.1111/j.1526-100X.2005.00056.x). In fact, this 

experiment demonstrates why any activity, such as fire and animal grazing, which 

targets forbs, seems to inevitably cause weeds. But note, of these various human 

actions, herbicides are the most direct attack on native forbs. Much other literature 

supports this direct experiment. Such results--along with the inevitable growth of 

resistance from overuse of any one management tool--point to the need for a far more 

integrated approach in immunizing the delicate native resources under your 

management from aggressive invasive plant species. 

Response: In the final two paragraphs of the cited article, the authors discuss the 

importance of maintaining functional group diversity and point out: “Diversity can be 

maintained or restored during management practices. For example, intermediate levels 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-197 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0446-019 

The Nature 

Conservancy 

EMC-0446-020 

The Nature 

Conservancy 

of disturbance, proposed to maintain high levels of diversity, can be obtained by 

regulating grazing and burning time and intensity. Diversity can also be maintained 

through careful planning of herbicide applications.” See response to Comment EMC0267-007 under PEIS Alternatives, Herbicide Modes of Action and Treatment 

Methods, which discusses management strategies to deal with the potential for 

development of resistant weed species. 

Comment: For situations in which herbicides are to be used, the PEIS should describe 

how to select among different herbicides and selection methods. Herbicides 

recommended for use should be selective for the target weed(s) and known to be 

effective for control of those species; have relatively low persistence in soils and the 

environment; have low potential for off-site movement; and minimize potential 

harmful impacts to off-target organisms and human health (including that of the 

applicators). 

Response: The BLM’s 9011 manual for Chemical Pest Control and 9015 Integrated 

Weed Management describes how the BLM would select the appropriate method(s) to 

be used in controlling and managing vegetation (9015) as well as the factors to 

consider before considering chemical pest control (9011). In addition, site-specific 

analysis would prepare a proposed action that takes into consideration the target 

species and identifies the best-known, safe and effective method to control vegetation. 

In conjunction with a site-specific analysis, the preparation of a Pesticide Use Proposal 

allows the preparer to evaluate the various components of the herbicide application, 

including, but not limited to, targeted species, characteristics of the proposed 

herbicide, environmental considerations at the proposed treatment site, desired species 

composition of the site, sensitive areas associated with the proposed application, and 

timing of application. Evaluation of all of these components requires the preparer to 

have a good understanding of the herbicide in order to provide the necessary 

information on the proposal. 

Table 2-2 of the PEIS identifies each of the current approved and proposed herbicides 

characteristics and the area where it’s registered use is appropriate. 

Comment: The Draft PEIS lists certain herbicides that would be allowed for 

vegetation management, without adequately describing their appropriate uses. The 

PEIS should list species (where known) and types of plants (including categories for 

new invaders) that will be controlled and the rationales for controlling each. The Draft 

PEIS needs to more clearly identify management goals and associated treatments in 

order to assess which are suitable for public land and to assess the potential impacts of 

each to native plant communities and their associated wildlife. In some cases, the 

BLM appears to be controlling native species to artificially increase allowable uses 

rather than to protect land health. For example, the Draft PEIS discusses situations 

where native species such as oaks, sagebrush, and rabbitbrush, are being controlled 

primarily to produce additional forage for livestock on native shrublands and 

grasslands, rather than to improve ecosystem health. We believe that controlling 

vegetation to artificially alter rather than restore native ecosystems is not appropriate 

on BLM-managed public lands. Artificially creating areas for livestock grazing that 

are not consistent with native plant communities will not restore healthy ecosystems or 

natural fuel regimes, will not protect ecological values, and will require additional, 

expensive treatments to maintain. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0646-191 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management regarding the types of vegetation 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-198 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0446-021 

The Nature 

Conservancy 

EMC-0446-025 

The Nature 

Conservancy 

EMC-0446-027 

The Nature 

Conservancy 

targeted by herbicides. As discussed in Chapter 1 of the PEIS under Purpose and Need 

for the Proposed Action, the goals of vegetation treatments are to improve ecosystem 

health and reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire. The analysis of treatment effects 

presented in Chapter 4 of the PEIS and PER focuses on how treatments would meet 

those goals, and discusses impacts to resources from treatments. Although treatments 

could benefit livestock forage, as discussed under Livestock, most treatment situations 

discussed in the PEIS focus on other resource benefits. 

Comment: The Draft PEIS suggests that there are situations where the BLM allows 

the use of herbicides for complete vegetation control on public land – not to manage 

for natural resources, but to maintain open lots and industrial-type sites. For example, 

the herbicide bromacil, one of the herbicides listed in the Draft PEIS, is labeled for use 

to control undesirable vegetation for extended periods of time in areas such as 

railroads, highway and pipeline rights-of-way, petroleum tank farms, lumberyards, 

storage areas and industrial plant sites. These treatment methods would be more 

appropriately discussed under a separate category for “facility maintenance” rather 

than as generally accepted management methods under “vegetation treatment”. 

Response: See Rights-of-way, Facilities, and Roads in Chapter 3 of the Final PEIS on 

treating vegetation along utility rights-of-way, oil and gas facilities as well as general 

facilities maintenance. 

Comment: The Draft PEIS lacks up-to-date information and citations from the 

scientific literature on potential and appropriate uses of various herbicides. The PEIS 

lacks rationale for including some herbicides on the recommended “approved for use” 

list in the Preferred Alternative, other than the fact that the BLM is already using these 

chemicals and wants to continue to do so. We suggest including a section in the PEIS 

that justifies the use of each herbicide by describing under what conditions specific 

herbicides will be used, for what purposes, and why that specific herbicide is 

appropriate and recommended over others. There are several herbicides on the 

Preferred Alternative list that could be replaced by more modern herbicides with less 

environmental impact, less persistence in soil, and with similar control results. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0646-191 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management regarding the uses of herbicides. See 

response to Comment EMC-0374-001 under PEIS Alternatives, Herbicide Active 

Ingredients Evaluated under the Proposed Alternatives for the process used to select 

herbicides for analysis. 

Comment: Bromacil is a pre-emergent herbicide frequently used to keep all 

vegetation clear along fencerows, parking lots, railroads, etc. It is often used by the oil 

and gas industry to kill all vegetation on the pads around drilling sites and platforms. 

This herbicide has a relatively long residence time/half-life, a high potential for water 

contamination, and a high potential for lateral movement. It is not clear why the BLM 

needs to use this herbicide for general vegetation management treatments, since there 

are few uses for it in a natural landscape. If this herbicide is needed for facilities 

maintenance, a clear statement restricting it to such uses should be included. It can be 

used effectively, but this herbicide can cause severe damage if used incorrectly due to 

its long persistence and ability to leach through soil and contaminate groundwater. If 

this herbicide remains on the BLM’s list, there should be a strict process developed for 

its application in limited circumstances that includes a determination of risks, prior to 

use. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-199 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0446-031 

The Nature 

Conservancy 

EMC-0585-111 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

Response: Bromacil is a non-selective herbicide which is registered for use where 

there needs to be bare ground, in sites associated with oil and gas, rights-of-way, and 

recreational and cultural resources, as shown in Table 2-3 of the PEIS. The BLM 

would follow label instructions regarding the use of bromacil, and Standard Operating 

Procedures and mitigation measures given in the PEIS, to reduce the risk of bromacil 

harming the environment. 

Comment: Tebuthiuron is currently widely used by the BLM. According to the PEIS, 

it was used to treat 34.5 percent of all BLM-managed public land acres treated using 

herbicides from 1999-2003. The Preferred Alternative proposes that it will be used in 

the future on 25 percent of all herbicide-treated acres. Tebuthiuron is generally used 

for control of shrubs and trees as well as weeds, since it eliminates all vegetation from 

the treatment area. It is often applied at a pre-emergent stage for the long-term control 

of shrubs such as sagebrush, rabbitbrush, and other native shrub species. It provides 

long-lasting, non-selective control, and can be used in upland/dry areas away from any 

water resources. We understand that the BLM uses this herbicide to thin or eliminate 

woody plants in order to increase grass production for livestock grazing, for nonselective control of all vegetation in oil and gas production areas, and in-concert with 

chaining to remove sagebrush and juniper. We are concerned with the possible 

widespread use of this chemical in native grass and shrubland areas, since its nonselective nature has the potential of significantly altering native species composition 

and inhibiting restoration of a full complement of native species. We do not believe 

that this chemical will assist the BLM in meeting its goal of improving land health. 

We recommend that the uses and restrictions for use of tebuthiuron on public land be 

specifically detailed in the PEIS. 

Response: The extent of vegetation control provided by tebuthiuron is dependent on 

which formulation is applied, and the application rate. According to the label, the dry 

formulation provides “total control of brush and weeds”, while the granular 

formulation provides “control of woody plants.” The label states that that between 1.2 

lbs and 4.0 lb. active ingredient (a.i.) of the dry flowable formulation is required to 

achieve activity on selected weedy grasses for bare ground control. Between 0.5 and 

4.0 lbs a.i. of the granular formulation are required to achieve activity on selected 

woody species in rangeland and pasture applications. On a supplemental label for the 

application of tebuthiuron to reduce canopy cover of big sagebrush, the rate of 

application is between 0.2 and 0.3 lbs. a.i. tebuthiuron. This rate of application of 

tebuthiuron is well below the rate required for the management of annual grasses. 

Therefore, native perennial grasses are at significantly less risk from application of 

tebuthiuron at rates used to thin sagebrush, which would not be considered a bare 

ground application. According to BLM records, over 95% of the tebuthiuron applied 

on public lands in 2003 was applied at this reduced rate for the purpose of opening up 

sagebrush dominated sites. At these application rates, damage to the native grass 

community was not significant. 

Comment: BLM states [on page ES-1-1 of the Draft PEIS] that as a result, the amount 

of hazardous fuels reduction and other vegetation management work is expected to 

increase, and 15% will involve use of herbicides. BLM does not reveal the data and 

analysis used to derive this projection and these figures – either for acreage of 

herbicide or acreage to be treated by other means. Nor is data presented or the public 

informed of how much herbiciding will accompany each of the treatment methods, 

and where it will be conducted, in each of the states, or what specific type of 

treatments will be accompanied by herbicide use. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-200 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0585-174 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-181 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-183 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

Response: See response to Comments EMC-0585-051 and EMC-0405-010 under 

PEIS Alternatives, Determination of Treatment Acreages. 

Comment: BLM proposes use of existing and new chemicals on Rights-of-way and 

recreation and cultural sites. So here [page B-30] to it appears BLM is authorizing 

these chemicals to be used in rights-of-way that elsewhere the [P]EIS claims are not 

included in acreage totals. In areas such as Wyoming that [are] undergoing massive 

energy exploration and development, large acreages may be treated on or near rows, 

exploration swaths, etc. 

Response: As noted in Chapter 2 of the PEIS, under Other Programs, herbicides are 

often the preferred treatment method on rights-of-way. All areas proposed for 

treatments, including rights-of-way, are included in the acreage totals. 

Comment: How much of the land is considered “directly sprayed” vs. BLM 

supplying contractors or private entities such as ranchers with chemicals or funding 

counties or weed districts to apply chemicals? Is aerial application considered ‘directly 

sprayed’? 

Response: The BLM considers the application of herbicides by any method, 

including, but not limited to, all-terrain vehicle or truck-mounted spray, backpack, 

pack animals, and aerial application, to be a “direct spray” method, regardless of who 

is applying the herbicide. Acres of public lands directly sprayed with herbicides are 

quantified in annual pesticide use reports and do not differentiate what agency or 

entity sponsored the spraying. 

Comment: A question that is unanswered in the [P]EIS, PER, HHRA [Human Health 

Risk Assessment], etc. is: How much of the chemical application, or treatment, will be 

done by BLM itself, or will significant parts of this treatment be turned over to local 

governments, grazing permittees, etc. If so, we are very concerned that even the 

inadequate mitigation, SOPs [Standard Operating Procedures], etc. will not be 

followed. 

Response: The policy for application of pesticides on BLM-administered lands is 

addressed in BLM Manual 9011 – Chemical Pest Control, Section 0.1, “Guidelines for 

Conducting Chemical Pest Control Program.” As stated in the policy, “... chemical 

pest control programs, including those done under BLM proposals, cooperative 

projects, on rights-of-way, or by lessees and concessionaires, and other activities and 

authorizations issued pursuant to a permit, must be submitted for review and approval 

in the PUP (Pesticide Use Proposal) format which is in conformance with the 

procedures below.” Whether the application is made by a local government official, 

permittee, or contract applicator, the same requirements apply for the preparation of 

the pesticide use proposal. 

In addition, as stated in Chapter 1 of the PEIS, under Relationship to Statutes, 

Regulations, and Policies, “All the herbicides evaluated in this PEIS are registered 

with the USEPA, and all applicators that apply them on public lands (i.e., certified 

applicators or those directly supervised by a certified applicator) must comply...” It is 

the policy of the BLM, as stated in Manual 9011 (.12) (B.) (5) (a.), that all persons 

applying pesticides, both general and restricted use, on BLM-administered lands will 

be certified or under the direct supervision of a certified applicator. The BLM plan for 

certification of pesticide applicators, Appendix 2, Handbook H-9011-1, Chemical Pest 

Control, outlines how the BLM certifies its applicators. This process is very similar to 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-201 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

the method by which individual states certify their respective applicators. In both 

cases, the certification plans are approved by the USEPA. 

Also see response to Comment EMC-0585-181 under PEIS Alternatives, Herbicide 

Modes of Action and Treatment Methods. 

EMC-0646-239 Comment: The Draft PEIS does not describe the various methods for controlling the 

Californians for most problematic plant species, whether they are currently or anticipated to become 

Alternatives to Toxics the most problematic. Not all plant groups respond the same to herbicide application, 

for example. Some may be knocked back only to resurrect in a year or two. Others 

require considerably more herbicide and stronger adjuvants than “usual” before a dose 

is lethal. 

Response: Chapter 4 of the PEIS discusses how invasive species of greatest concern 

would be treated and the costs and benefits associated with these treatments. We have 

also listed the major species to be treated using each herbicide in Table 2-3 in Chapter 

2 of the Final PEIS. 

EMC-0646-240 Comment: An analysis at the programmatic level, for example, could describe plants 

Californians for by the characteristics that most influence the ability and the means to control it by 

Alternatives to Toxics providing guidance such as the following: “Herbicides will not be the control method 

of choice for invasive plants that spread by profuse seed production such as purple 

loosestrife, et cetera (listing other species with this characteristic on western BLM 

lands). These seeds are relatively long-lived and germinate sporadically, therefore the 

seed bank of an established population of such a plant is at little risk since it is not 

affected by a control program that removes only the current year’s standing crop of 

growing plants. Plants should be removed before they go to seed and the entire plant 

including all roots and root tips must be removed. Plant locations should be flagged 

and rechecked every year.” 

Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0221-072 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Monitoring, and Comment RMC-0210-053 under PEIS Alternatives, Coordination 

and Education. Regarding the development of programmatic species management 

plans based on specific plant characteristics, such generalities would provide little 

beneficial guidance to those preparing site-specific analysis documents. The purple 

loosestrife example provided in the comment, which states that because of its profuse 

seed production “the seed bank of an established population of such a plant is at little 

risk since it is not affected by a control program that removes only the current year’s 

standing crop of growing plants,” leaves one to question whether we are more 

concerned with the seed bank of the invasive species or the risk associated with the 

environment and ecology of the area the plant infests. 

The approach proposed in the comment would also eliminate any type of integration 

with other management options for “invasive plants that spread by profuse seed 

production.” The management plans for invasive species are best addressed by the 

tiered documents associated with the PEIS and PER, as outlined in Chapter 1 of the 

PEIS. 

FL-0006-003 Comment: Several of the herbicides proposed do not even have products currently 

registered for use by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. As a 

California resident and user of public lands I worry about the irreparable damage these 

chemicals will do to the natural surroundings and public lands I enjoy, as well as the 

health hazards these chemicals pose to my family. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-202 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

FXC-0071-006 

Campbell, Bruce 

FXC-0071-007 

Campbell, Bruce 

PHC-006-003 

H. McNeel 

Response: See response to Comment FXC-0071-006 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Herbicide Active Ingredients Evaluated under the Proposed Alternatives. 

Comment: If an active ingredient is not currently registered for use by the California 

Department of Pesticide Regulation, can it be used on federal land (or water) within 

the State of California? (I understand that Picloram is no longer registered for use in 

California). 

Response: The BLM would not use an herbicide on public lands administered by the 

BLM in California or any other state unless the active ingredient and the particular 

formulation have been registered for use in the state. 

Comment: In regards to “active ingredients” that “may be developed in the future,” 

what if an active ingredient has been discovered and experimented with as of 

November 10th

, 2005 when these BLM documents came out? (Since such has been 

developed, just because it is not an active ingredient currently being used as a 

registered herbicide or herbicide formulation does not mean that it hasn’t already been 

“developed”. Could such active ingredients be used as herbicides by BLM under the 

auspices of the Programmatic EIS and Programmatic Environmental Report? Please 

also note that 3 of the newer active ingredients proposed for use by BLM have yet to 

be evaluated by the California Dept. of Pesticide Regulation.) Could any of the three 

active ingredients newly proposed by BLM for use as an herbicide in vegetation 

treatment be used in California despite the lack of review and approval by CA Dept. of 

Pesticide Regulation? 

Response: Only those herbicide active ingredients evaluated in the Final PEIS could 

be used by the BLM, although not all herbicides evaluated in the PEIS may be used, 

depending upon the alternative chosen in the Record of Decision. As discussed in 

Appendix D of the PEIS, the BLM could use new herbicides, or available herbicides 

currently not used by the BLM, in the future if the protocol outlined in Appendix D is 

followed. The BLM would not use an herbicide on public lands administered by the 

BLM in California or any other state unless the active ingredient and the particular 

formulation have been registered for use in the state. 

Comment: I need to clarify on the use of pesticides on BLM lands. I see in the [Draft] 

[P]EIS it says restricted use pesticides, individuals must be certified. On the policy 

within the BLM, it is any pesticide used on BLM lands will be certified, the 

individuals will be certified. I’d like for that to be clarified. 

Response: As directed by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 

Section 4, and as stated on the label of pesticides classified as “Restricted Use,” 

restricted use products must be applied by a “Certified Applicator or persons under the 

direct supervision and only for those uses covered by the Certified Applicator’s 

certification.” It is the BLM’s policy, as stated in Manual 9011 (.12) (B.) (5) (a.), that 

all persons applying pesticides, both general and restricted use, on BLM-administered 

lands must be certified or under the direct supervision of a certified applicator. The 

BLM plan for training and certification of pesticide applicators, Appendix 2 Handbook 

H-9011-1, Chemical Pest Control, outlines how the BLM certifies its applicators. This 

process is similar to the process by which individual states certify their respective 

applicators in that the certification plans are approved by the USEPA. However, state 

certification is required only for “restricted use” pesticides, while the BLM 

certification is required for the application of both “general” and “restricted use” 

pesticides. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-203 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0005-003 

Mesa County - Tri 

River Area Extension 

RMC-0006-035 

Central Sierra 

Environmental 

Resource Center 

The BLM requires any BLM personnel supervising or applying pesticides to complete 

BLM course 9000-1, a USEPA approved course for Integrated Pest Management and 

certification in the handling and application of pesticides. This course requires the 

completion of 40 hours of classroom time and testing to handle and apply pesticides in 

five categories: Agriculture and Pest, Forestry, Aquatic, Rights-of-way, and Research 

and Development. Recertification is required every three years. In cases where BLM 

has no reciprocal agreement with the state, the BLM requires BLM personnel to 

procure a state license. 

Comment: As for concerns of the health aspects of herbicide use, for the most part 

problems occur when applicators are not properly trained. Health problems can be 

prevented when herbicides are used as directed on the label. BLM should use the best 

educational materials and conduct workshops to assure that employees who are 

applying herbicides are well trained. Applicators should be certified by their State to 

assure they are qualified to do their job. Each BLM field office should have a 

supervisor who is certified and who is assigned primarily as a weed manager. Weed 

management should be their primary job, not a secondary task that gets less than the 

full attention of the supervisor. Problems occur when there is insufficient training, 

supervision and leadership. These suggestions will make the BLM weed management 

efforts more successful and, more importantly, safer for employees and the public. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0267-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Federal Laws, Regulations, and Policies that Influence 

Vegetation Treatments. In the BLM’s Partners Against Weeds - An Action Plan for 

the BLM (PAW; USDI BLM 1996), it states under the Budget and Program 

Opportunities section of the Introduction that “Each Field Office should have at least 

one individual who has weed management as their primary responsibility depending 

upon local need.” Appendix 2 in the PAW document later identifies the 

responsibilities of both the state and field office weed specialist. 

Comment: Only pesticides that identify all ingredients on the label should be allowed. 

Our national pesticide law only requires that certain ingredients in a pesticide (the 

active ingredients) be identified on the label. All the others are misleadingly called 

“inert ingredients” and are not identified. These same ingredients often escape from 

most of the testing and evaluation required for active ingredients. They’re not really 

inert, just untested. The public is being kept in the dark as a favor to the pesticide 

industry. It’s time for a change. Diuron, for example, is the active ingredient of several 

formulations – Karmex, Karmex DF, Krovar, Krovar 1 DF, Diurex 80 DF, Diurex 4L, 

Diuron FL – used on California thoroughfares. The portion of diuron in these 

formulations ranges from 40% to 80%. The identity of the 20% to 60% of the 

formulations’ ingredients is a secret. Chemical manufacturers conceal from the public 

the names of many chemicals in their formulations, and they are supported by state 

and federal agencies in this subterfuge. The information that is publicly available 

about inert ingredients, however, indicates that the majority are biologically active and 

toxic – often as much as are the active ingredients or in some cases, even more so. 

Response: Labeling of pesticides is regulated under the Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and is outside of the jurisdiction of the BLM. Inert 

ingredients are discussed in Appendix C of the PEIS under Degradates, Inert 

Ingredient, Adjuvants, and Tank Mixtures. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-204 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0076-003 

San Miguel County 

Board of 

Commissioners 

RMC-0106-015 

Public Employees for 

Environmental 

Responsibility 

RMC-0122-003 

Bowers, Lynn 

RMC-0159-005 

Proctor, Gradey 

Comment: Herbicides are toxic chemicals and must be used properly by well trained 

applicators. We believe that such use, when in full compliance with the label, can be 

an effective weed control measures. We suggest that the BLM use professional 

applicators certified by applicable state or federal agencies for herbicide applications 

and that BLM personnel be assigned primary duties in weed management rather than 

weed management as an ancillary duty. Public health concerns and potential for 

environmental damage must be mitigated through planning, appropriate choice of 

herbicides and proper application by well trained applicators. 

Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0005-003 under Alternatives, Herbicide 

Modes of Action and Treatment Methods, and Comment EMC-0585-183 under PEIS 

Alternatives, Herbicide Modes of Action and Treatment Methods. 

Comment: p. 2-8, Table 2-3 [of the Draft PEIS]. Classification of herbicides as 

selective or non-selective doesn’t help—the example of a selective herbicide as one 

affecting only broad-leaved plants should invite as careful application as is said to be 

needed for non-selective (broad spectrum) herbicides because “broad-leaved” plants is 

a general term that may include non-target species. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0585-044 under PEIS Glossary. 

Comment: [There is] no system for tracking who is using what poison in any given 

rural area. 

Response: The BLM requires their field offices to provide documentation of all 

pesticide use on public lands. In addition, any use of pesticides by the counties through 

contracts is reported to the appropriate state. 

Comment: Dicamba acts by mimicking auxins in the plant, resulting in abnormal cell 

division. It also acts by inhibiting an enzyme found in the nervous system, 

acetylcholinesterase. Inhibition prevents the smooth transition of nerve impulses. It 

inhibits enzymes in animal livers that detoxify and excrete foreign chemicals. An oral 

dose of 3.5 oz. would kill an average sized human. Dicamba caused reproductive 

problems even at extremely low doses in laboratory tests. These adverse effects were 

exhibited in both mammals and birds. Dicamba is also alarmingly mutagenic, 

significantly increasing the unwinding rate, or single strand breaks, of the genetic 

material in rat livers. It also caused unscheduled DNA synthesis and an increase in 

sister chromatid exchanges. Dicamba has also caused mutations in bacteria. Dicamba 

greatly increases the risk of contracting the cancer non Hodgkin’s lymphoma up to 

two decades after exposure. There are also impurities in the products that increase the 

potential carcinogenicity, such as dimethylnitrosamine, which causes cancer in lab 

animals. Given the potential adverse health effects, why is the BLM proposing to use 

such a toxic chemical? What will the BLM do to ensure that the environment is 

protected from this poisonous chemical? 

Response: The toxicity of dicamba is summarized in Appendix B of the PEIS under 

Toxicity Profiles in the Hazard Identification section. As represented in this section, it 

is not considered highly toxic. Dicamba is not classified by the USEPA as a 

carcinogen and poses no risk to workers and the general public under any of the 

exposure scenarios considered in the risk analysis done by the BLM, except for the 

accidental spill scenario, under which there would be a low risk to workers. The 

toxicity values used in the risk assessments account for a large variety of toxic effects, 

and consider a safe dose to be one at which none of these toxic effects have been 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-205 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0205-021 

Oregon Department of 

Agriculture 

RMC-0208-029 

California Oak 

Foundation 

RMC-0211-027 

Ghandi, Theresa Marie 

K. 

RMC-0221-050 

Center for Biological 

Diversity 

observed. 

Comment: We recognize that protecting water quality is a high priority for public 

land management, and within the municipal watersheds, this also includes protecting 

human health. Within the mission, budget, and legal authority, we request that BLM 

consider local drinking water protection priorities when developing management plans 

for federal lands and facilities. Implementing protective actions and land use decisions 

can be very effective in providing clean source water to public intakes and wells. This 

will preserve the use of public funds that would otherwise be spent to upgrade 

treatment facilities to remove contaminants downstream. 

Response: Provisions of the Well Head Protection program in the Safe Drinking 

Water Act provide for protection of local or municipal drinking water supplies. These 

requirements include buffer zones around wells used for drinking water supply. 

Additionally, provisions in the Source Water Assessment Program in the Clean Water 

Act amendments of 1996 require delineation of boundaries of areas providing source 

waters for public water supplies. The BLM will consider this information during 

treatments. 

Comment: Many of the same herbicide active ingredients the BLM proposes to use 

have historically been used to control vegetation throughout California generally and 

within oak woodland habitats specifically. In addition, different active ingredients 

have accumulated over time in California’s agricultural lands, rivers, streams, and oak 

woodlands, suggesting the potential for far greater environmental impacts as more 

herbicide active ingredients are emitted into the environment as a result of the BLM’s 

vegetation management proposal. The net result is that the BLM’s proposed use of 

herbicides on its lands containing oak woodland habitats will exacerbate the threat to 

oak woodlands and the special status species that inhabit or rely on oak woodland 

ecosystems. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0208-003 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management. 

Comment: I did not find a history of previous “control” applications in areas where 

noxious or invasive weeds have taken root. Could past use of herbicides by various 

parts of BLM and agriculture have contributed to the soil being open to invasive 

species? With trees and animals migrating north could some of the increased problems 

with fires be the result of changing weather patterns? One hundred plus days of no rain 

in Phoenix and the ongoing drought could be more than just a part of the cause. Clear 

cutting forests changes weather patterns, justifying more cutting to prevent fires and a 

downward spiral makes the problem huge. 

Response: A summary of past applications of herbicide treatments over the 17-state 

area is provided in Chapter 2 of the PEIS (Figure 2-1 and Table 2-4). With regard to 

the causes of the spread of weeds and invasive species, please refer to response to 

Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Scope 

of Analysis. 

Comment: The Center [for Biological Diversity] questions the effectiveness of use of 

herbicides to control fire. Herbicides may have the effect of killing standing 

vegetation, leaving brushy and highly flammable dead vegetative tissue in its place— 

which may not actually reduce fire danger at all. The analysis of the herbicide 

treatments also fails to address potentially caustic reactions when the chemicals are 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-206 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

burned, through natural or artificially ignited fires, and fails to analyze how application 

of herbicides increases or decreases the flammability of the undesirable vegetation. 

Without identifying and answering these questions it is impossible for the BLM to 

explain how its proposed action will mitigate the hazard of catastrophic wildfire. 

Response: Through an integrated vegetation management approach, prescribed fire 

has been successfully used both prior to herbicide treatment and in the season 

following herbicide treatment. Usually herbicide treatments are completed prior to 

prescribed fire to provide the fuel necessary to accomplish the burn. Prescribed fire 

cannot immediately follow a chemical treatment, because the intent is for the 

vegetation to dry first. Therefore, with at least one season lag time, caustic reactions 

from the dried vegetation should not be an issue. 

When vegetation is treated and killed during a fuels treatment, a secondary treatment 

is planned to remove any remaining dead plant material. This process would be no 

different for vegetation treated by herbicide. After the initial treatments, monitoring 

and follow-up treatments (which can be of any type, not necessarily chemical), will 

occur if necessary. A comprehensive literature review on the use of prescribed fire for 

controlling invasive plants can be found at www.weedcenter.org under publications. 

RMC-0221-065 Comment: The D[raft] PEIS and D[raft] PER fail to include detailed information on 

Center for Biological the amounts of herbicides that have been used in the project area in the past, as well as 

Diversity the past and current amounts of herbicides that are used by other agencies and on 

private lands within the project area. These types of data are critical for any 

meaningful cumulative effects analysis. 

Response: Information on historic use of herbicides on BLM-administered lands is 

provided in Table 2-4 in Chapter 2 of the PEIS (see column “Historic Use [1999­

2005]). We have also included information on herbicide use on other lands in the 

western U.S. in the Vegetation section of the Cumulative Effects Analysis in Chapter 

4 of the Final PEIS. The commenter may also want to consult the National Pesticide 

Use Database at http://www.ncfap.org/database/state/default.asp to obtain additional 

information on pesticide use by state. 

RMC-0233-066 Comment: Because some of the herbicides are restricted use (2,4-D, picloram) and 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife more toxic than others, the final PEIS should state if priority for use will be given to 

Service Region 6 the less toxic herbicides before resorting to the use of more toxic herbicides. 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office Response: See response to Comment EMC-0585-157 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Mitigation. 

Alternatives, Description of the Alternatives 

EMC-0562-004 Comment: The alternatives section of NEPA documents are the foundation and crux 

The Lands Council of the law and without providing an adequate range of feasible alternatives within the 

PEIS, its analysis is incomplete and violates NEPA requirements. The BLM fails to 

show preference for alternatives that consider the contributing causes if noxious weed 

infestation. The preferred alternative does not consider non-chemical treatments such 

as integrating a combination of goat grazing, mowing, prescribed burns, bio-controls, 

ground covers, etc. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding causes and vectors of weed 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-207 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0562-005 

The Lands Council 

EMC-0585-067 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-069 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-071 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

spread. See response to Comment EMC-0486-020 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management regarding the integrated pest 

management approach used in designing BLM vegetation treatments projects. 

Comment: NEPA requires that all feasible alternatives be objectively evaluated. By 

disregarding scientific literature (see citations later in this comment letter), the PEIS is 

not giving preference to reasonable and feasible alternatives that must be included as 

part of the possible effective treatment methods. Moreover, the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) advises [i]n determining the scope of alternatives to be 

considered, the emphasis is on what is ‘reasonable’ rather than on whether the 

proponent or applicant likes or is itself capable of carrying out a particular alternative. 

Reasonable alternatives include those that are practical or feasible from the technical 

and economic standpoint and using common sense, rather than simply desirable from 

the standpoint of the applicant. CEQ, Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s 

NEPA Regulations, § 2 (a). 

Response: The BLM has analyzed a reasonable range of reasonable alternatives in 

regard to the Proposed Action and Purpose and Need of the PEIS. Scientific literature 

was reviewed in the development and analysis of the PEIS alternatives and is 

documented in Chapter 6, References. 

Comment: BLM failed to evaluate any alternatives related to the greatly increased 

treatment acreages (as discussed in the PER). BLM never evaluates a reasonable range 

of alternatives or alternative acreages for non-herbicide treatments. 

Response: See responses to Comments RMC-0222-005 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Organization of the Vegetation Treatments Assessments and 

RMC-0222-006 under PEIS Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Scope of 

Analysis. As noted for Comment EMC-0585-236 under Biological Assessment, nonherbicide treatment actions were evaluated in earlier EISs. 

Comment: BLM failed to evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives. BLM never 

examined an alternative, or range of alternatives including alternative treatment acres 

that focused on passive restoration. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0585-068 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. 

Comment: BLM has not assessed a reasonable range of alternative[s] related to 

chemical use. It has primarily eliminated from consideration some chemicals that it 

has not used much ([P]EIS at [page] ES-2). BLM has failed to analyze a range of 

alternatives that do not use chemicals such as Oust that are known to have caused great 

economic [harm], instead only eliminating this use under one alternative. BLM has not 

presented a reasoned analysis why it chose to add diquat and other chemicals under 

several Alternatives. 

Response: The range of alternatives evaluated in the PEIS was developed based on 

comments received during scoping. Oust® and similar herbicides with sulfonylurea 

and other acetolactate synthase-inhibiting active ingredients would not be allowed 

under Alternative E. Alternative A is the No Action Alternative. Alternative B 

includes the full suite of chemicals being considered for use by the BLM. Alternative 

C prohibits use of herbicides (including Oust®), while Alternative D prohibits aerial 

spraying. Since Oust® could not be aerially sprayed under Alternative E, Alternative E 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-208 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0585-072 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-136 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0619-008 

Bellovary, Christopher 

EMC-0640-024 

Animal Welfare 

Institute 

responds to some of the issues evaluated in Alternative D. A discussion of how 

herbicides were chosen for analysis is given in Chapter 2 of the PEIS under Herbicide 

Active Ingredients Evaluated under the Proposed Alternatives. 

Comment: There is no clear comparison of components of some alternatives, as any 

passive treatments that may be occurring to some degree on some BLM lands are not 

assessed under the No Action alternative. 

Response: Passive treatments were considered under all alternatives, as passive 

treatments were considered in Chapter 2 of the PEIS under Standard Operating 

Procedures and Guidelines. Also see response to Comment EMC-0585-068 under 

PEIS Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. 

Comment: Also, BLM’s discussion claims that BLM uses IPM [Integrated Pest 

Management], and something it calls IVM [Integrated Vegetation Management], with 

goals of controlling and prevention of invasive vegetation. BLM violates its own 

policies and guidance by: Casting aside the RNEA [Restore Native Ecosystems 

Alternative] and failing to assess a range of passive restoration treatments, and 

ignoring analysis of a range of alternatives and data that are based on IPM. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0585-068 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. 

Comment: For these reasons, I consider the PEIS to be incomplete. The PEIS 

includes the use of herbicides with inadequate laboratory data from which a rational 

decision maker can base a decision and still comply with their legal duties as caretaker 

of the public land. The PEIS does not evaluate alternatives that most decision makers 

would consider before herbicides, such as reducing or eliminating disturbances by offroad vehicles, logging and grazing through effective regulations or mechanical and 

biological controls, all of which are likely to have a significantly lower impact on 

threatened and endangered native species. Furthermore, the PEIS does not appear to 

comply with applicable Federal law. I suggest that these shortfalls be remedied, as this 

PEIS provides and incomplete basis for rational decision-making to occur. 

Response: The reference to inadequate laboratory data is unsubstantiated. The 

toxicological analyses conducted for human health and ecological risk presented in 

the PEIS, Appendixes B and C, disclose the results of the quantitative risk 

methodology developed in collaboration with toxicological scientists from USEPA, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Marine Fisheries Service, and represent 

the most current state of the science in human health and ecological risk assessment. 

See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action and Purpose 

and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding causes and vectors of weed spread and 

response to Comment RMC-0055-004 under PEIS Proposed Action and Purpose and 

Need, Scope of Analysis regarding limitations on public land uses. Impacts to 

Threatened and Endangered Species are described in Chapter 4 of the PEIS and in the 

Biological Assessment submitted to the services for consultation under Section 7 of 

the Endangered Species Act. The BLM has complied with all federal laws in the 

development of this PEIS. 

Comment: The use of herbicidal and non-herbicidal vegetation treatments should be 

limited to the direct control of invasive exotic species that represent a potential fuel 

source for a catastrophic wildlife fire, to reduce the potential for a catastrophic wildfire 

to destroy property within the wildland-urban interface where there is documented 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-209 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0646-185 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

PHC-005-011 

K. Fite

RMC-0067-002 

Wyoming Outdoor 

Council 

RMC-0087-005 

Central Valley 

California Regional 

Water Quality Control 

Board 

evidence that such species have degraded wildlife (including fish) habitat, or where 

vegetation manipulation is deemed crucial to facilitating the recovery potential of 

protected species (state, federal, and special status species). These limitations would be 

in addition to the restrictions suggested above. 

Response: The range of uses of chemical and non-chemical methods for vegetation 

treatments, described in Chapter 2 of the PEIS and PER, include control of vegetation 

related to hazardous fuels and prevention of catastrophic fire. Restrictions and criteria 

for use are described in Table 2-6 of the PEIS and Table 2-4 of the PER in Chapter 2. 

Comment: The BLM has failed to include an IPM [integrated pest management] 

alternative. Weed control scientists regularly point to the necessity of integrating 

multiple methods for effective long term weed control. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0486-020 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management. The BLM already conducts its 

activities in an IPM context, which has been affirmed in the Records of Decision in all 

past vegetation EISs leading to this effort. Use of IPM applies to Alternatives A, B, D, 

and E in the PEIS, as existing management, and does not require a separate alternative 

analysis. The PEIS focuses on the herbicide component of an IPM program. See 

Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management in Chapter 2 of the Final PEIS. 

Comment: So I would just urge BLM to prepare a Supplemental Draft EIS that 

embraces a broader range of alternatives, including passive restoration techniques. 

And we – the same coalition of groups that worked in developing an alternative 

before, would be happy to work with you in amending what we presented, or 

providing additional information, if necessary. 

Response: See responses to Comment EMC-0585-068 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis, and Comment RMC-0167-007 under PEIS 

Alternatives, Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management. 

Comment: BLM’s preferred alternative appears to be focused on substantial 

expansion of the use of herbicides as a means to reduce the incidence of catastrophic 

fires, and perhaps to a lesser degree as a means to reduce the spread of invasive or 

noxious weeds. Thus, the preferred alternative appears to be focused on areas that have 

been subject to catastrophic fires due to cheatgrass invasion in Nevada, Oregon, Idaho, 

and Wyoming. This expansion of the use of herbicides is problematic for a number of 

reasons. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0585-051 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Determination of Treatment Acreages. 

Comment: Another concern with Alternative B [in the Draft PEIS] is that the BLM 

would use new active ingredients that are developed in the future if the BLM 

determines that the benefits of use on public lands outweigh the risks to human health 

and the environment. The PEIS fails to explain or provide examples of what type of 

benefits can outweigh risks to human health and the environment. What does the BLM 

consider an acceptable risk to human health and the environment? 

Response: The BLM cannot authorize new herbicides without conducting a new EIS 

and risk assessment and allowing the public to comment on the proposal. The BLM 

used the USEPA’s definition of acceptable risks (Levels of Concern). There are 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-210 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0106-007 

Public Employees for 

Environmental 

Responsibility 

RMC-0163-004 

Skrine, Eugene 

RMC-0170-003 

Carson Forest Watch 

significant environmental benefits associated with using herbicides in a responsible 

manner, if risk assessments show risks to be none to low. The habitat is preserved or 

restored for wildlife, endangered species, native plants, and recreational users. 

Comment: On p. 1-4, it is stated that the D[raft] [P]PEIS “...does not address 

vegetation treatments exclusively designed to increase forage production...” It is 

presumed, therefore, that herbicide treatments using the 20 previously approved 

herbicides will continue. This means that well over one million acres in the best case 

will be treated annually or at some unspecified interval with herbicides. The [Draft] 

[P]EIS documents PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility) has 

reviewed that involve “rangeland improvement” generally claim additional benefits to 

wildlife, habitat, and watershed conditions and thus are not exclusively devoted to 

“rangeland improvement.” 

Response: The PEIS and PER address vegetation treatments that provide a multitude 

of resource benefits. Although treatments would increase forage production, their 

primary objectives are to control invasive vegetation and reduce hazardous fuels. 

Under alternatives B through E, only 18 or fewer herbicides would be used by the 

BLM, and under all alternatives, about 930,000 or fewer acres would be treated using 

herbicides each year. 

Comment: The Range of Alternatives considered in the DEIS [Draft PEIS] are too 

narrow. The only Alternative that considers use of non-chemical methods is 

Alternative C, No Use of Herbicides. This creates a false choice. In the real world, the 

treatment of invasive plants is not an all herbicides or no herbicides proposition. The 

best choice for treatment is most often a combination of these methods. These 

combination alternatives need to be considered. Invasive plant prevention and site 

restoration also need to be included. Only focusing on treatment, and excluding other 

important elements of Integrated Weed Management, almost assure the continuation 

of the invasive plant problem. Only a thoughtful combination of prevention, treatment 

(both herbicides and non-herbicides) and site restoration will assure success in meeting 

the stated underlying need. 

Response: Alternatives A, B, D, and E involved the use of herbicides, prescribed fire, 

and manual, mechanical, and biological control treatments. Alternative C did not 

include the use of herbicides, but did include the use of the other treatment methods. 

Response to Comment RMC-0214-011 under PEIS Proposed Action and Purpose and 

Need, Organization of the Vegetation Treatments Assessments discusses the rationale 

for only evaluating herbicide use in the PEIS. All elements of vegetation control were 

considered when doing the analysis in the PEIS, although a detailed discussion of 

prevention and site restoration were mostly limited to the PER; this discussion has 

been included in the Final PEIS. 

Comment: There are numerous effective, safe, & proven alternatives to herbicides for 

treating noxious weeds. The DEIS [Draft PEIS] needs to fully analyze these non-toxic 

methods & propose a wide range of alternatives, as per NEPA regs. 

Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0003-005 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Revegetation and Comment RMC-0214-

011 under PEIS Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Organization of the 

Vegetation Treatments Assessments. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-211 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0214-012 

Natural Resources 

Defense Council and 

National Wildlife 

Federation 

RMC-0218-002 

Blue Mountains 

Biodiversity Project, 

League of Wilderness 

Defenders 

RMC-0218-030 

Blue Mountains 

Biodiversity Project, 

League of Wilderness 

Defenders 

Comment: The D[raft] PEIS fails to consider seriously alternatives that do not focus 

primarily upon chemical treatment. The one alternative that does not include chemical 

treatments as the primary action is relegated to the PER. The very fact that traditional 

vegetative treatments are relegated to what BLM considers a second tier NEPA 

document is proof that the agency has not considered the broad options that a PElS 

requires an agency to explore. 

Response: Alternative C analyzed non-herbicide treatments. The PEIS includes a full 

range of herbicide use alternatives, ranging from no use of herbicides to no aerial 

spraying of herbicides, to using only certain herbicides, to treatment of 932,000 acres 

using herbicides. Also see responses to Comment RMC-0003-005 under PER 

Vegetation Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Revegetation, and Comment 

RMC-0214-011 under PEIS Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Organization of 

the Vegetation Treatments Assessments. 

Comment: The Bureau of Land Management’s preferred alternative would almost 

triple herbicide use from the current 325,000 acres per year and increase non-chemical 

manipulation of the land from 500,000 acres a year to six million acres annually--a 

twelve-fold increase. 

Response: The BLM currently treats about 2 million acres, and proposes to increase 

treatment levels to about 6 million acres annually (see Executive Summary under 

Program Objectives and Goals in the PER). The BLM’s proposed action would 

increase herbicide use 3-fold, from about 325,000 acres to 932,000 acres annually, and 

increase non-herbicide treatments 3-fold, from about 1.7 million acres to 5.1 million 

acres annually. 

Comment: Inadequate range of alternatives – there is no alternative offered that 

would emphasize prevention and only use the most ecologically benign herbicides in 

“last resort” scenarios where risks from invasives outweigh risks from herbicide use 

and no other non-herbicide control method has worked. In other words the 

introduction to use of new, less toxic herbicide is held captive to required continued 

use of existing, more toxic herbicides, so that those members of the public who want 

only the least toxic herbicides for potential use if needed are not allowed that option, 

as it is instead either “No Herbicides” or use of all herbicides proposed for use in the 

offered alternatives. 

Response: The comment is incorrect. See response to Comment RMC-0218-005 

under PEIS Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis for a 

discussion on prevention. The BLM incorporates prevention measures into all resource 

programs and authorizations for public land uses. A separate alternative to highlight 

ongoing policy and practice under all alternatives is not required to assess the 

environmental effects of herbicide active ingredients on public land resources. Under 

an integrated pest management (IPM) vegetation treatment strategy, each situation and 

treatment method is assessed for the best treatment for the given circumstances. An 

IPM approach does not imply a priority order of use of methods in which herbicides 

are a last resort only. In some cases, it may be more effective to use herbicides on a 

small infestation first and eradicate it immediately, rather than through trial and error 

approaches, potentially allowing the infestation to spread beyond practical control. In 

every case, best available science and professional expertise and judgment are used to 

determine which method of treatment is appropriate for a given set of circumstances 

and provides the authorized officer maximum flexibility to meet land use plan goals 

and objectives in designing treatment options. See Chapter 2 of the PER for a 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-212 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

discussion of vegetation treatment programs, policies, and methods. 

The characterization that the public is provided either a choice of no herbicides 

(Alternative C) or the use of all herbicides currently approved (Alternative A), plus 

those proposed under Alternative B, is incorrect. See Table 2-2 of Chapter 2 of the 

PEIS for a list of herbicides currently approved and proposed under Alternative B. It is 

noted that six approved herbicides have not been used, or have been used at a limited 

scale over the past decade. Under Alternative B, the use of these six previouslyapproved herbicides would be discontinued by the agency. The four proposed 

herbicide active ingredients under Alternative B are considered to be less toxic, with 

greater efficacy, than many of the active ingredients currently approved, providing the 

agency with alternative, less toxic products to use in lieu of more toxic products that 

are available. 

RMC-0222-012 Comment: In contrast to Alternative E (i.e., “No Use of Sulfonylurea and other 

Salvo, Mark Acetolactate Synthase-inhibiting Active Ingredients”), the central element of the 

(Sagebrush Sea Restoration Alternative is the linkage of prevention, treatment (both passive and 

Campaign), Cox, active), and restoration to judicious use of herbicides. By contrast, Alternative B, the 

Caroline (Northwest Preferred Alternative in the DEIS [Draft PEIS], merely describes the disembodied use 

Coalition for or lack of use of herbicides. 

Alternatives to 

Pesticides), and Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0222-059 under PEIS Alternatives, 

O’Brien, Mary Prevention of Weeds and Early Detection and Rapid Response, Comment RMC-0163-

005 under PEIS Alternatives, Mitigation, and Comment RMC-0148-001 under PEIS 

Alternatives, Alternative E - No Use of Sulfonylurea and other Acetolactate Synthaseinhibiting Active Ingredients. 

Alternatives, Alternative A – Continue Present Herbicide Use (No Action Alternative) 

EMC-0214-006 

Vollmer, Jennifer 

(BASF) 

Comment: Current Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation efforts are ineffective 

with annual bromes out competing expensive plantings of introduced and native 

grasses and forbs. Of the treatments allowed under Alternative A, none will result in a 

successful plantings. In my experience, at this time BLM range specialists are satisfied 

with a 10% desirable plant establishment rate for soil stabilization. These types of 

results are unacceptable to private landowners and should be unacceptable to tax 

payers. One reason only a 10% establishment rate is achieved is due to the lack of 

appropriate herbicide treatment to control the competing annual brome under 

Alternative A. 

Response: Thank you for your comment. The Proposed Action and Preferred 

Alternative (Alternative B; see Chapter 2 under Description of the Alternatives) of the 

PEIS includes the use of herbicides that would provide greater control of competing 

annual brome species. 

EMC-0503-014 

John Day-Snake 

Resource Advisory 

Council 

Comment: Why is it, if current levels of herbicide use, according to the [Draft] 

[P]EIS, are 160,000 acres, that the “no action” alternative states 305,000 acres would 

be treated? 

Response: Although about 160,000 acres have been treated using herbicides in recent 

years, it was estimated by the BLM that the number of acres treated would be closer to 

305,000 at the time of the release of the Draft PEIS based on information provided by 

field offices. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-213 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0049-020 Comment: Alternative A has been demonstrated that it is inadequate to address the 

Wilson, Robert E. scope of the invasive weed problem as it is currently being implemented. As such, the 

(University of Nevada effect of increased infestations of invasive weeds on the environment needs to be 

Cooperative Extension) included in this [Draft] [P]EIS. 

Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0221-008 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Determination of Treatment Acreages, Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS 

Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis, Comment FL-0004-010 

under PEIS Alternatives, Prevention of Weeds and Early Detection and Rapid 

Response, and Comment EMC-0553-006 under PEIS Alternatives, Determination of 

Treatment Acreages. 

Alternatives, Alternative B – Expand Herbicide Use and Allows for Use of New Herbicides in 17 Western 

States (Preferred Alternative) 

EMC-0503-011 Comment: The practices discussed in Alternative E should be incorporated into the 

John Day-Snake preferred alternative such as restricting activities such as livestock grazing, OHV [offResource Advisory highway vehicle] use, logging or oil and gas development in areas where these 

Council activities have promoted a less desirable vegetation community or increased soil 

disturbance and erosion. Also the early detection/rapid response strategies from 

Alternative E should be incorporated in the preferred alternative. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-004 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Alternative E - No Use of Sulfonylurea and other Acetolactate Synthase-inhibiting 

Active Ingredients. 

EMC-0503-012 Comment: Considerations regarding amphibians in alternative E should be included 

John Day-Snake in the preferred alternative [in the PEIS]. A few of the chemicals proposed for use 

Resource Advisory such as diquat, diuron, and tebuthiuron pose a potential risk to aquatic species and 

Council more detailed requirements for their use should be included in the document. 

Response: Standard Operating Procedures and Guidelines and mitigation to minimize 

or avoid risks to amphibians are given in Chapter 2 of the PEIS and in Chapter 4 under 

the Wetland and Riparian Areas, Vegetation (habitat protection), and Wildlife 

Resources sections. These protections include elements of Standard Operating 

Procedures and mitigation recommended under Alternative E. The BLM would treat 

only about 10,000 acres of wetlands annually using herbicides, and would use the 

herbicides and treatment methods (e.g., spot treatments) with the least potential to 

impact amphibians, where feasible. In some cases, impacts to individual amphibians 

would have to be weighed against the benefits of treating a site and enhancing the 

long-term success of the local population. 

EMC-0562-003 Comment: The Lands Council strongly opposes the preferred Alternative B, which 

The Lands Council allows herbicide use and also proposes the use of new herbicides. The range of 

alternatives should be developed based on the statutory goals and requirements of 

NEPA, NFMA [National Forest Management Act], and the ESA [Endangered Species 

Act]. 40 C.F.R.[Code of Federal Regulations] § 1502.2(d) (analyses shall state how 

alternatives will or will not achieve the requirements of NEPA and other 

environmental laws and policies); See Westlands Water District v. U.S. Dept. of 

Interior, 376 F.3d 853, 872 (9th Cir. 2004). Instead, the BLM seems primarily focused 

on experimenting with new chemical treatments of invasive plants, to the exclusion of 

other alternatives. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-214 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Response: The range of alternatives is governed by the breadth of the PEIS’ Purpose 

and Need Statement in Chapter 1; an agency need not consider alternatives that are 

“inconsistent with the basic policy objectives for the management of the area.” 

Headwaters, Inc. v. Bureau of Land Management, 914 F.2d 1174, 1180 (9th Cir. 

1990). Where alternatives are analyzed in a NEPA document, the document is 

adequate “if it considers an appropriate range of alternatives, even if it does not 

consider every available alternative.” Id. at 1180-81. See also Robertson v. Methow 

Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332 (1989) (demonstrating that courts only require 

federal agencies to consider, in their EIS, alternatives that are reasonable). “When [the 

statement of purpose] is to accomplish one thing, it makes no sense to consider 

alternative ways in which another thing might be achieved.” City of Angoon v. Hodel, 

803 F.2d 1016, 1021 (9th Cir. 1986). 

The purposes of the proposed action are to provide BLM personnel with the herbicides 

available for vegetation treatment on public lands and to describe the limitations that 

apply to their use, as discussed in Chapter 1 of the PEIS under Purpose and Need for 

the Proposed Action. The need for the proposed action is to reduce the risk of 

catastrophic wildfires by reducing hazardous fuels, restoring fire-damaged lands, and 

improving ecosystem health by 1) controlling weeds and invasive species and 2) 

manipulating vegetation to benefit fish and wildlife habitat, improve riparian and 

wetlands areas, and improve water quality in priority watersheds. Id. Since it is the 

BLM’s purpose to “provide BLM personnel with the herbicides available for 

vegetation treatment,” this defines the range of alternatives BLM must consider. 

Furthermore, the BLM considered alternatives to extend beyond the purpose of the 

proposed action. Therefore, the BLM has not focused on experimenting with new 

chemical treatments to the exclusion of other alternatives. As examples, the BLM 

included a no action alternative (see Alternative A – Continue Present Herbicide Use 

[No Action Alternative] in Chapter 2 of the PEIS) and an alternative which 

contemplated no use of herbicides by using fire, mechanical, manual, and biological 

control methods only (see Alternative C – No Use of Herbicides in Chapter 2 of the 

PEIS). 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations addressing more specific 

requirements for alternatives call for the following: (1) no action alternative; (2) other 

reasonable courses of actions; and (3) mitigation measures not in the proposed action. 

40 C.F.R. § 1502.25(b) (2006). The BLM included a no action alternative (see 

Alternative A – Continue Present Herbicide Use [No Action Alternative] in Chapter 2 

of the PEIS), other reasonable courses of actions (see Alternatives B – D in Chapter 2 

of the PEIS), and mitigation measures (see Mitigation in Chapter 2 of the PEIS). CEQ 

regulations further state that agencies shall (1) evaluate all reasonable alternatives, and 

for alternatives which were eliminated from study, briefly discuss the reasons for their 

having been eliminated; (2) devote substantial treatment to each alternative considered 

in detail; (3) include reasonable alternatives not within the jurisdiction of the lead 

agency; (4) include the alternative of no action; (5) identify the agency’s preferred 

alternative(s); and (6) include appropriate mitigation measures not already included in 

the proposed action or alternatives. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14 (2006). The BLM has 

addressed (1) – (6) requirements in the PEIS. See PEIS Chapter 2. 

The BLM properly addressed the range of alternatives as defined by the purpose and 

need statement of the proposed action. The BLM properly met specified range of 

alternative requirements as outlined in CEQ regulations. The BLM is not bound by the 

NMFA, which applies to the U.S. Forest Service, an agency within the Department of 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-215 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Agriculture. The PEIS meets the statutory requirements of NEPA and the ESA. 

EMC-0609-002 Comment: This report suggests banning the use of herbicides on up to 5.1 million 

Western Plant Health acres of public lands. WPHA [Western Plant Health Association] represents the 

Association manufacturers of fertilizers, crop protection, and biotechnology products, as well as 

agricultural retailers in California, Arizona, and Hawaii. 

Response: The PEIS does not ban the use of herbicides on any public land, but does 

state that herbicides would be used on approximately 932,000 acres, and other 

treatment methods would be used on about 5.1 million acres of public land annually. It 

is likely, however, that there are public lands where the use of herbicides, or other 

treatment methods, would not be beneficial. 

Alternatives, Alternative D – No Aerial Application of Herbicides 

EMC-0338-006 Comment: Also in this alternative it is mentioned that the most sensitive factor for 

Dow AgroSciences aerial applications is the potential for spray drift. This assumes that the application will 

be made with a liquid spray solution; however, there are granular formulations of 

some herbicides, such as tebuthiuron (Spike 20PTM), which generally eliminates or 

greatly reduces drift onto non-target areas. 

Response: The BLM agrees that granular formulations would result in less drift from 

aerial spraying. Also see response to Comment EMC-0338-013 under PEIS 

Environmental Consequences, Wildlife Resources. 

EMC-0623-015 Comment: Drastically curtail the plan treat roughly 400,000 acres of anticipated 

Defenders of Wildlife herbicide application aerially. Aerial application involves too great a risk of pesticide 

drift, reduces the chance that application will be followed by on-the-ground native 

species restoration, and sets up a cycle whereby the same areas are sprayed year after 

year. Aerial application should occur only as a last resort in areas that are too remote 

for ground application and where chance of re-infestation is low. 

Response: See responses to Comment EMC-0001-002 and Comment RMC-0208-061 

under PEIS Environmental Consequences, Air Quality. 

RMC-0210-042 Comment: Herbicides should not be aerially applied (because of inevitable and

MCS Task Force of unacceptable amount of drift on to nontarget areas and species).

New Mexico

Response: As discussed in the PEIS in Chapter 4 under Vegetation, there would be 

impacts to non-target vegetation from drift. However, the long-term beneficial effects 

on desired plant communities and ecosystems would be greater than any potential 

short-term negative effects from aerial treatments because some large and remote areas 

cannot be effectively treated using ground methods. 

RMC-0210-043 Comment: If herbicides are aerially applied, they should not be applied within 5 miles 

MCS Task Force of of surface water, residences, roads, trails, campgrounds, or other areas that are 

New Mexico occupied, or may become occupied, by the public. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0585-178 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-216 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Alternatives, Alternative E - No Use of Sulfonylurea and other Acetolactate Synthase-inhibiting Active 

Ingredients 

EMC-0234-010 Comment: The “Restore Option” does not contain any mention that tens of millions 

Dremann, Craig of dollars will need to be invested, to develop and invent the successful methods to 

achieve successful restoration of the Great Basin habitat, and that the Appendix G [of 

the Draft PEIS] lists the old methods that have never worked: Page 17, Section VI 

“Restoration Vegetation treatments, Part A, “Direct treatments of Invasive Species”, 

Action - Restoration 3 lists the old methods that have never worked on cheatgrass in 

the Great Basin, for example--Biocontrol, cultural practices, mechanical treatments, 

chemical treatments and prescribed fire. 

Response: Comment noted. The “Restore Option” is a citizen-based alternative 

submitted to the BLM, described in Appendix I of the Final PEIS. New techniques to 

address successful long-term cheatgrass control would require substantial investment 

and time, as well as practical application on large areas. Until such techniques are 

developed, it is foreseeable many of the standard techniques would continue to be 

utilized. 

EMC-0234-014 Comment: The “Restore Option” suggests that BLM can legally intentionally sow 

Dremann, Craig seeds of exotic or non-native plants on their lands. The “Restore Option” VII. 

Revegetation. Action - Revegetation 2 and 3 suggests that BLM has already written 

the legally-required NEPA documents allowing the agency to intentionally sow 

millions of pounds per year of exotic and non-native seeds on their lands? The 

intentional sowing of a single pound of non-native seed or any exotic plant seeds is 

illegal, because their use has never been covered by any NEPA documents (EIR, EIS, 

etc.), but nevertheless, millions of pounds of exotic seeds that permanently change the 

native ecosystems that BLM has a duty to protect, are sown by the agency every year. 

You can read about the BLM’s intentional sowing of exotic seeds at 

http://www.ecoseeds.com/juicy.gossip.six.html. Either BLM will have to explain their 

intentional sowing each year of exotic and non-native seeds in a NEPA document, or 

they will have to immediately discontinue their use. 

Response: The “Restore Option” referred to is Alternative E (see Chapter 2 of the 

PEIS for a description of the alternative), which is derived from a Citizen’s alternative 

described in Appendix G and included for analysis in this PEIS. BLM policy does 

allow for the use of non-native seed in vegetation treatment and rehabilitation projects 

and is not illegal. Use of native and non-native seed is guided by BLM Manual 1745 

Introduction, Transplant, Augmentation and Reestablishment of Fish, Wildlife and 

Plants. Each project that proposes the use of non-native seed has site-specific NEPA 

analysis conducted prior to implementation. 

EMC-0416-004 Comment: The BLM should analyze the Restore Native Ecosystems Alternative in 

Lengerich, Tim the DEIS [Draft PEIS]/PER, a citizens’ alternative submitted to the BLM that 

addresses both the causes and the effects of weed invasion and undesirable vegetation 

on public lands 

(www.blm.gov/nhp/spotlight/vegEIS/vol2/PEIS_Appendix_G_RNEA__Alternative.p 

df) 

Response: The Citizen’s Alternative to Restore Native Ecosystems was evaluated 

under Alternative E in the PEIS. Also see response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under 

PEIS Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-217 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0447-004 

Makelacy, Melladee 

EMC-0450-001 

Ray, Lindsey 

EMC-0455-005 

Tashjian, Randy 

EMC-0456-002 

Mendius, Barbara J. 

EMC-0464-002 

Kaufman, Albert 

EMC-0489-004 

Burch, D. 

Comment: Herbicides are not only poisonous and expensive, but they ultimately fail 

because they are treating symptoms, not the causes, of weed invasion and undesirable 

vegetation. Instead, the BLM should analyze the Restore Native Ecosystems 

Alternative in the DEIS [Draft PEIS]/PER, a citizens’ alternative submitted to the 

BLM that addresses both the causes and the effects of weed invasion and undesirable 

vegetation on public lands. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-004 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Alternative E - No Use of Sulfonylurea and other Acetolactate Synthase-inhibiting 

Active Ingredients regarding analysis of the Restore Native Ecosystem alternative. 

Comment: I would like to urge you to take another look at the management of the 

BLM land concerning the noxious weeds. Please take a look at the restore Native 

Ecosystems Alternative in the DEIS [Draft PEIS]/PER. The herbicide use is not only 

costly but harmful to the environment. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-004 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Alternative E - No Use of Sulfonylurea and other Acetolactate Synthase-inhibiting 

Active Ingredients regarding analysis of the Restore Native Ecosystem alternative. 

Comment: The BLM should analyze the Restore Native Ecosystems Alternative in 

the DEIS [Draft PEIS]/PER, a citizens’ alternative submitted to the BLM that 

addresses both the causes and the effects of weed invasion and undesirable vegetation 

on public lands. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-004 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Alternative E - No Use of Sulfonylurea and other Acetolactate Synthase-inhibiting 

Active Ingredients regarding analysis of the Restore Native Ecosystem alternative. 

Comment: Please consider seriously the citizen’s alternative, Restore Native 

Ecosystems Alternative in the DEIS [Draft PEIS]/PER, which addresses both the 

causes and the effects of weed invasion and undesirable vegetation on public lands. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-004 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Alternative E - No Use of Sulfonylurea and other Acetolactate Synthase-inhibiting 

Active Ingredients regarding analysis of the Restore Native Ecosystem alternative. 

Comment: Instead, the BLM should analyze the Restore Native Ecosystems 

Alternative in the DEIS [Draft PEIS]/PER, a citizens’ alternative submitted to the 

BLM that addresses both the causes and the effects of weed invasion and undesirable 

vegetation on public lands. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-004 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Alternative E - No Use of Sulfonylurea and other Acetolactate Synthase-inhibiting 

Active Ingredients regarding analysis of the Restore Native Ecosystem alternative. 

Comment: Herbicides are not only poisonous and expensive, but they ultimately fail 

because they are treating symptoms, not the causes, of weed invasion and undesirable 

vegetation. Instead, the BLM should analyze the Restore Native Ecosystems 

Alternative in the DEIS [Draft PEIS]/PER, a citizens’ alternative submitted to the 

BLM that addresses both the causes and the effects of weed invasion and undesirable 

vegetation on public lands. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-218 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0512-007 

Hells Canyon 

Preservation Council 

EMC-0521-003 

Whitney, Dana 

EMC-0559-002 

Daniel, Bill 

EMC-0584-059 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0630-010 

Porter, Mark C. 

(Wallowa Resources) 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-004 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Alternative E - No Use of Sulfonylurea and other Acetolactate Synthase-inhibiting 

Active Ingredients regarding analysis of the Restore Native Ecosystem alternative. 

Comment: We encourage the BLM to consider and analyze the citizen’s alternative to 

restore native ecosystems. Limiting motorized vehicles, livestock and ground 

disturbing activities would likely be much more effective than herbicide use. The net 

effects of using herbicides are not disclosed in the [P]EIS and are likely to show a net 

loss in natural resource values on public lands. 

Response: The Citizen’s Alternative to Restore Native Ecosystems was evaluated 

under Alternative E in the PEIS. Also see response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under 

PEIS Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. 

Comment: I urge the BLM to consider using passive restoration as a means of 

preventing weed invasion and resting areas of public land where weed growth is 

fostered by overgrazing and rampant off-road vehicles. Furthermore, the BLM should 

analyze the Restore Native Ecosystems Alternative in the DEIS [Draft PEIS]/PER, a 

citizens’ alternative submitted to the BLM that addresses both the causes and the 

effects of weed invasion and undesirable vegetation on public lands. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-126-004 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Alternative E - No Use of Sulfonylurea and other Acetolactate Synthase-inhibiting 

Active Ingredients regarding analysis of the Restore Native Ecosystems alternative. 

Comment: The BLM should consider and incorporate the Restore Native Ecosystems 

Alternative, a thorough and scientifically defensible plan to prevent the introduction 

and dispersal of invasive plants. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-004 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Alternative E - No Use of Sulfonylurea and other Acetolactate Synthase-inhibiting 

Active Ingredients regarding analysis of the Restore Native Ecosystems alternative. 

Comment: At the best, herbicide use is only a temporary measure or intermediate step 

to be used, and it does not address the basic causes of weed problems. A range of 

alternatives without use of sulfonylurea and acetolactate synthase-inhibiting herbicides 

should not be developed. This is essential due to the demonstrated ability of these 

chemicals to damage off-site plant species. 

Response: See responses to Comment EMC-0585-071 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Description of the Alternatives, and Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed 

Action and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. 

Comment: Please clarify the reasoning behind Alternative E and explain rationale for 

considering acetolactate synthase-inhibiting herbicides separately from the rest of the 

herbicides. These chemicals have low environmental toxicities and are becoming very 

important in the effective and precise control of noxious weeds in the borage and 

mustard families. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0585-071 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Description of the Alternatives. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-219 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0643-046 

California Indian 

Basketweavers 

Association 

EMC-0645-016 

Wroncy, Jan (Gaia 

Vision/Canaries Who 

Sing) 

EMC-0646-183 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

Comment: Further, the BLM implies that none of the other alternatives share the 

objective of restoring native communities, which is not accurate. In 2002, CIBA 

[California Indian Basketweaver’s Association] spent many weeks working with a 

coalition of other conservation biologists and analysts to develop a citizens/scientists 

alternative to the BLM herbicide proposal. This alternative, included as an appendix 

(G-I) in the volume 2 of the DEIS [Draft PEIS], included extensive references from 

the scientific literature, each of which was included as a hard copy reference provided 

to the BLM with annotations to each reference. In spite of this major contribution, the 

BLM did not use any of the scientific literature to inform the analysis. This is contrary 

to the NEPA process which states: “Accurate scientific analysis, expert agency 

comments, and public scrutiny are essential to implementing NEPA.” 40 CFR [Code 

of Federal Regulations] § 1500.1 (b). The Restore Native Communities Alternative 

exemplifies a best science management approach to achieve this objective. The DEIS 

[Draft PEIS] failed to demonstrate that this or other alternatives would not be 

effective. The conclusion is not supported anywhere in the record, and the DEIS [Draft 

PEIS] is inaccurate and misleading. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-004 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Alternative E - No Use of Sulfonylurea and other Acetolactate Synthase-inhibiting 

Active Ingredients regarding analysis of the Restore Native Ecosystems (RNE) 

alternative. The literature cited and annotated bibliography was considered in the 

development of this PEIS. All alternatives analyzed in the Draft PEIS have the 

capability to restore ecosystems; the RNE alternative is not unique in this regard, nor 

does it represent a best science management approach over the approach the BLM 

already uses. Refer to the policy analysis in Appendix I in the Final PEIS for a 

summary of actual BLM policy in regard to the RNE alternative. 

Comment: The BLM needs to reconsider the Restore Native Ecosystems Alternative, 

reissue a draft [P]EIS and make the PER subject to the NEPA process. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-004 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Alternative E - No Use of Sulfonylurea and other Acetolactate Synthase-inhibiting 

Active Ingredients regarding analysis of the Restore Native Ecosystems alternative. 

See response to Comment RMC-0214-011 under PEIS Proposed Action and Purpose 

and Need, Organization of the Vegetation Treatments Assessments regarding 

development of the PER. The BLM has determined that a new Draft PEIS is not 

necessary, since there has been no change in the Proposed Action or Purpose and 

Need, nor has new information arisen relevant to environmental concerns. 

Comment: The BLM has failed to include an alternative based on ecological healing 

and prevention. The current PEIS is focused purely on treatment of symptoms, rather 

than prevention of the conditions that lead to the problem. CAT [Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics] supports an alternative with a focus on restoring native 

ecosystems. In such an alternative the BLM would view vegetation management in the 

context of first, prevention of conditions that have led to introduction, colonization, 

proliferation, and spread of invasive species and fuels hazards; and then second, 

restoration of healthy public lands (including forests, grasslands, etc) to strong native 

ecosystems; thereby third, reducing the need for continued treatments (passive 

restoration). An alternative suggested to the BLM, yet without reason excluded from 

the PEIS/PER analyses, that CATs endorses is the Restore Native Ecosystems 

Alternative. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-220 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0648-004 

Idaho Cattle 

Association 

FXC-0071-024 

Campbell, Bruce 

RMC-0049-022 

Wilson, Robert E. 

(University of Nevada 

Cooperative Extension) 

RMC-0080-003 

Idaho State Department 

of Agriculture 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-004 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Alternative E - No Use of Sulfonylurea and other Acetolactate Synthase-inhibiting 

Active Ingredients regarding analysis of the Restore Native Ecosystem alternative. 

Comment: Additionally, we suggest that Alternative E be removed completely from 

consideration as it would severely limit the effectiveness to manage invasive species 

and inappropriately asserts that reductions in livestock grazing would be a 

management tool. It is not the role for this document to attempt to regulate grazing. 

Response: See Scope of Analysis in Chapter 1 of the PEIS. Livestock grazing is 

outside the scope of analysis of the PEIS. There is no attempt to regulate grazing 

through the PEIS. Alternative E (No Use of Sulfonylurea and other Acetolactate 

Synthase-inhibiting Active Ingredients) is described under Description of the 

Alternatives in Chapter 2 of the PEIS. Alternative E represents a reasonable alternative 

to analyze in the PEIS in regard to the herbicide component contained in the citizens’ 

alternative presented in Appendix I of the PEIS. The alternative description also 

provides a summary of the role passive management would take under the Restore 

Native Ecosystems Alternative proposal. See the revised text under Description of the 

Alternatives in Chapter 2 of the Final PEIS for clarification. 

Comment: Since need for forest and rangeland herbicide use was not thoroughly 

analyzed (to say the least), NEPA is being violated too. Also, though I cannot go into 

detail here, the so-called American Lands Alliance Alternative (E [in the Draft PEIS]) 

is not what some preparers of their submission to BLM had in mind. 

Response: The PEIS presents detailed analysis on herbicide use and its impacts to 

public land resources relative to the Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action, found 

in Chapter 1 of the PEIS. See response to Comment RMC-0126-004 under PEIS 

Alternatives, Alternative E - No Use of Sulfonylurea and other Acetolactate Synthaseinhibiting Active Ingredients regarding analysis of the American Lands Alliance 

proposal. 

Comment: Alternative E does not address how invasive mustard (Brassicaceae) 

species and some annual grasses will be addressed without this family of herbicides. 

Response: 2,4-D, dicamba, and picloram can be used to treat invasive Brassicaceae, 

while annual grasses would be treated using glyphosate. 

Comment: Additionally, in its current form this alternative [Alternative E] falls 

outside the scope of analysis of the PEIS. The stated Scope of Analysis of the PEIS 

“...is to provide an analysis of the expected increased use of herbicides related to 

implementing mandates to reduce hazardous fuels and manage and control vegetation 

affecting other resources” and “...does not address...the effects of livestock grazing on 

vegetation.” (pg. 1-4). The PEIS, however, does address the effects of livestock 

grazing on vegetation under the description of Alternative E. The PEIS states: This 

alternative would place greater emphasis on passive restoration, by prohibiting or 

restricting activities such as livestock grazing, OHV use, logging, or oil and gas 

development in areas where these activities have promoted a less desirable vegetation 

community, or increased erosion. (pgs. 2-13 - 2-14) 

Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0163-004 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Description of the Alternatives and Comment RMC-0148-001 under PEIS 

Alternatives, Alternative E - No Use of Sulfonylurea and other Acetolactate SynthaseBLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-221 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0080-004 

Idaho State Department 

of Agriculture 

RMC-0126-004 

Stevens, Dean 

RMC-0139-005 

Jacobson, Don 

RMC-0148-001 

Stone, Delight 

inhibiting Active Ingredients. 

Comment: The [Draft] PEIS again addresses livestock effects on vegetation under 

this alternative on page 4-216, “By reducing the number of livestock entering 

degraded areas, improvement in ecosystem health can be expected.” If this PEIS is not 

to address the impacts to livestock grazing as it says, then Alternative E is not within 

the scope of analysis and should not be considered by the decision-maker. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. The PEIS and PER did not evaluate 

management of livestock grazing as a vegetation treatment method. Passive 

restoration, including management of grazing, was an important component of 

Alternative E and was considered in the Cumulative Effects Analysis in Chapter 4 of 

the PEIS. 

Comment: The BLM should analyze the Restore Native Ecosystems Alternative in 

the DEIS [Draft PEIS]/PER, a citizens’ alternative submitted to the BLM that 

addresses both the causes and effects of weed invasion and undesirable vegetation on 

public lands [see the following link]: 

www.blm.gov/nhp/spotlight/vegEIS/vol2/PEIS_Appendix_G_RNEA_Alternative.pdf. 

Response: The Restore Native Ecosystems (RNE) alternative was reviewed by the 

BLM National Science and Technology Center (NSTC), which determined that the 

alternative contained a variety of policy provisions which were either duplicative of 

current BLM policy subsumed under current management (Alternatives A and B), or 

were outside the scope of this analysis. The salient points of the RNE alternative 

relative to herbicide use were summarized and used to formulate Alternative E in the 

PEIS. Alternative E (No Use of Sulfonylurea and other Acetolactate Synthaseinhibiting Active Ingredients) is described under Description of the Alternatives in 

Chapter 2 of the PEIS. A policy analysis of the alternatives is given in Appendix I in 

the Final PEIS. 

Comment: Also, the BLM should analyze the Restore Native Ecosystems Alternative 

in the DEIS [Draft PEIS]/PER, a citizens’ alternative submitted to the BLM that 

addresses both the causes and effects of weed invasion and undesirable vegetation on 

public lands [see the following link]: 

www.blm.gov/nhp/spotlight/vegEIS/vol2/PEIS_Appendix_G_RNEA_Alternative.pdf. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-004 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Alternative E - No Use of Sulfonylurea and other Acetolactate Synthase-inhibiting 

Active Ingredients regarding analysis of the Restore Native Ecosystems alternative. 

Comment: Herbicides are not only poisonous and expensive, but they ultimately fail 

because they are treating symptoms, not the causes of weed invasion and undesirable 

vegetation. Instead, the BLM should analyze the Restore Native Ecosystems 

Alternative in the DEIS/PER, a citizens’ alternative submitted to the BLM that 

addresses both the causes and the effects of weed invasion and undesirable vegetation 

on public lands. 

Response: The Restore Native Ecosystems (RNE) Alternative as submitted provided 

the source and framework for the limited herbicide use alternative analyzed in the 

PEIS as Alternative E. In order to develop Alternative E for analysis in the PEIS, 

certain components of the RNE Alternative that were relevant and applicable to 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-222 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

herbicide use under the Preferred Alternative were carried forward into the alternative 

analyzed in the Draft PEIS. The remaining content of the RNE proposal was 

determined to be either already covered under existing BLM policy and, therefore, 

already a component of the Preferred Alternative, or determined to be outside the 

scope of analysis for this PEIS. A table was prepared for the Final PEIS that 

summarizes the BLM’s national policy review of the RNE Alternative (Appendix I, 

Final PEIS). The policy analysis identifies the individual Goals and Actions outlined 

in the RNE proposal. Each Goal or Action then has a determination indicating whether 

it is included in current BLM policy (Yes/No) and a citation for the policy. Under 

Policy Analysis, a brief summary is provided outlining the policy. Under Alternative 

Comparison, the Alternatives that apply to the policy are identified. In most cases, this 

is “common to all alternatives.” The last column outlines the programmatic net effect 

or impact of the policy if the analysis is different from that presented in the PEIS, or 

outside the scope of analysis. Also see response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under 

PEIS Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes 

of weed invasions. 

RMC-0191-004 Comment: It is disappointing that the RNEA [Restore Native Ecosystems 

Ertz, Brian Alternative] submitted in 2002 was cast aside as “not within the scope of the Draft 

PEIS”. Such a statement made by Brian Amme during The DEIS public hearing in 

Boise Idaho, reasonably suggests the BLM’s failure to comply with Section 102 of 

NEPA requiring federal agencies to lend appropriate support to initiatives and 

programs designed to anticipate and prevent a decline in the quality of mankind’s 

world environment. Simply publishing the RNEA in the appendixes does not 

constitute consideration of the Alternative nor does it constitute “support”, especially 

considering the lack of integration concerning the wisdom and science represented in 

the RNEA’s call to prevent the causes of invasive species. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-004 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Alternative E - No Use of Sulfonylurea and other Acetolactate Synthase-inhibiting 

Active Ingredients. Also see responses to Comment RMC-0163-004 under PEIS 

Alternatives, Description of the Alternatives and Comment RMC-0148-001 under 

PEIS Alternatives, Alternative E - No Use of Sulfonylurea and other Acetolactate 

Synthase-inhibiting Active Ingredients. 

RMC-0222-010 Comment: This D[raft] EIS fails to abide by Section 1502.14 of NEPA (“Alternatives 

Salvo, Mark including the proposed action”), because it has not considered a reasonable alternative 

(Sagebrush Sea provided to the BLM in 2002. The Restore Native Ecosystem Alternative 

Campaign), Cox, (“Restoration Alternative”: Appendix G [in the Draft PEIS]) is a reasonable 

Caroline (Northwest alternative. The alternative meets the Purpose and Need by describing 1) herbicides 

Coalition for that should be available for vegetation treatment on public lands; and 2) conditions and 

Alternatives to limitations that apply to herbicide use 

Pesticides), and 

O’Brien, Mary Response: See response to Comment RMC-0148-001 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Alternative E - No Use of Sulfonylurea and other Acetolactate Synthase-inhibiting 

Active Ingredients. 

RMC-0222-011 Comment: The BLM claims ([page] 2-13 [of the Draft PEIS]) that Alternative E (i.e., 

Salvo, Mark “No Use of Sulfonylurea and other Acetolactate Synthase-inhibiting Active 

(Sagebrush Sea Ingredients”) is “based on” an alternative submitted by American Lands Alliance, “an 

Campaign), Cox, alliance of several environmental and conservation groups.” In fact, the Restoration 

Caroline (Northwest Alternative was submitted by the Restore Native Ecosystems Coalition of which the 

Coalition for American Lands Alliance was only one entity that prepared the Alternative. The 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-223 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Alternatives to 

Pesticides), and 

O’Brien, Mary 

RMC-0222-013 

Salvo, Mark 

(Sagebrush Sea 

Campaign), Cox, 

Caroline (Northwest 

Coalition for 

Alternatives to 

Pesticides), and 

O’Brien, Mary 

RMC-0222-016 

Salvo, Mark 

(Sagebrush Sea 

Campaign), Cox, 

Caroline (Northwest 

Coalition for 

Alternatives to 

Pesticides), and 

O’Brien, Mary 

original alternative was collaboratively developed by numerous organizations and 

submitted by 43 organizations; the revised version was submitted by 13 

organizations.) 

Response: Alternative E was submitted to the BLM by an individual associated with 

the American Lands Alliance, although the cover letter with the alternative did note 

that numerous organizations were requesting that the alternative be included in the 

PEIS. We have modified the text in the Final PEIS reflect that the alternative was 

submitted by the American Lands Alliance, but deleted the wording that suggested the 

organization is an alliance of other groups. 

Comment: As illustrated by the title BLM has given its Alternative E substitute for 

the Restoration Alternative (i.e., “No Use of Sulfonylurea and other Acetolactate 

Synthase-inhibiting Active Ingredients”), the BLM describes Alternative E only in 

terms of what it does not do (e.g., doesn’t use ALS-inhibiting/sulfonyl urea herbicides, 

doesn’t rely exclusively on active vegetation treatments to (1) control invasive species 

establishment and/or spread and/or (2) to restore native ecosystems so they will 

subsequently resist invasive species). The BLM fails to analyze the active, positive 

control of invasive species that has been and can be accomplished with (1) prevention 

of the conditions that favor the introduction, establishment, and/or spread of invasive 

species, and (2) passive treatments in conjunction with, or sometimes obviating the 

need for, use of (3) herbicides. 

Response: Alternative E relied on the salient points contained in the Restore Native 

Ecosystems (RNE) proposal, found in Appendix I of the PEIS, as they relate to 

herbicide use and the proposed action. The remainder of the proposal contained 

recommendations that were either 1) already contained within existing BLM policy 

and therefore already part of existing management underlying all alternatives 

presented, 2) outside of the scope of analysis of this PEIS and/or properly addressed in 

local land use planning, or 3) contrary to statute or regulation. A policy analysis of the 

alternatives is given in Appendix I in the Final PEIS. 

Comment: Thus, the Restoration Alternative, by giving highest priority to passive 

treatments and second highest priority to passive treatments linked to active treatments 

(which sometimes and sometimes do not employ herbicides) (1) provides “conditions 

and limitations” that apply to the use of herbicides for “controlling weeds and invasive 

species”, and (2) “manipulate[es] vegetation to benefit fish and wildlife habitation, 

improve riparian and wetlands areas, and improve water quality in priority 

watersheds.” The Restoration Initiative thus fully meets the Purpose and Need of the 

[P]EIS and should have been fully analyzed. It was not analyzed in the DEIS [Draft 

PEIS]. 

Response: The PEIS does not propose a priority ranking for treatment types. Within 

an integrated pest management context, the most effective treatment method or 

combination of methods, including the use of passive treatments, is considered in the 

design of any vegetation treatment project. Prioritization of passive treatments over 

herbicide treatments does not constitute conditions and limitations to the use of 

herbicides. Conditions and limitations are those circumstances that are identified that 

guide or modify the use of herbicides in a given situation. These conditions and 

limitations, commonly referred to as standard operating procedures, include buffers, 

application rates, and drift management practices, among others. They are found in 

Table 2-8 (Standard Operating Procedures for Applying Herbicides) in Chapter 2 of 

the PEIS. Passive treatments, by inherent definition, are not considered to be 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-224 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0222-024 

Salvo, Mark 

(Sagebrush Sea 

Campaign), Cox, 

Caroline (Northwest 

Coalition for 

Alternatives to 

Pesticides), and 

O’Brien, Mary 

RMC-0222-029 

Salvo, Mark 

(Sagebrush Sea 

Campaign), Cox, 

Caroline (Northwest 

Coalition for 

Alternatives to 

Pesticides), and 

O’Brien, Mary 

treatments that manipulate vegetation, i.e., change, alter, remove, seed, or replant. 

The Restore Native Ecosystems proposal only partially meets the Purpose and Need in 

regard to determining which herbicides would be available for use and those portions 

of the proposal that meet the purpose and need were carried forward in the 

development of Alternative E. A policy analysis of the alternative is given in 

Appendix D of the Final PEIS. 

Comment: In its summary of its Alternative E (i.e., Table 2-8 [Summary and 

Comparison of Effects on Resources by Alternatives], at [pages] 2-26 through 2-39 

[in Chapter 2 of the Draft PEIS]), the BLM focuses on Alternative E’s (a) lack of use 

of ALS [acetolactate synthase]-inhibiting/sulfonyl urea herbicides, even though such 

herbicides account for less than 17% of BLM’s projected herbicide use in their 

preferred Alternative B (Table 2-4 at [page] 2-11 [in Chapter 2 of the Draft PEIS]), 

and (b) reduced use of active treatments (i.e., emphasis on passive restoration). The 

BLM has failed to analyze the Restoration Alternative’s active reliance on integrating 

herbicide use with positive management for prevention and non-chemical active 

treatments and/or passive restoration actions. 

Response: Regardless of the percentage of projected herbicide use for ALS-inhibiting 

sulfonylurea herbicides, the BLM considers it reasonable to analyze the elimination of 

this class of herbicides in the impact analysis of the PEIS. Integrated herbicide use 

with active management for prevention and non-chemical treatments or passive 

restoration is included within the integrated pest management approach currently 

practiced by the BLM and is subsumed under all alternatives with the exception of 

Alternative C (No Use of Herbicides), which would disallow herbicide use, but 

continue to utilize an integrated pest management approach using other non-herbicide 

methods. 

Comment: The Restoration Alternative conditions herbicide or other treatments on a 

prior consideration of whether passive treatments can replace, avoid, or augment 

herbicide use to attain vegetation goals (DEIS [Draft PEIS]: G-4): 

Action- Plan 6 

Prior to implementing site-specific vegetation treatments, prepare goals based on: 

1. vegetation conditions, including invasive species concentrations 

2. vulnerable wildlife and plant species and habitats

3. habitat important for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species and 

carnivores: connectivity for habitat-specialist wildlife. 

4. past and present activities within the watershed leading to vegetation problems 

5. passive and active restoration needs 

6. feasible restoration goals

Thus, the Restoration Alternative looks at the whole invasive species problem, not 

merely what herbicide to spray where. Neither the BLM’s alternative E (a fatally 

truncated version of the Restoration Alternative) nor Alternative B (their Preferred 

Alternative) include the above planning steps. 

Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0163-004 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Description of the Alternatives, and Comment RMC-0148-001 under PEIS 

Alternatives, Alternative E - No Use of Sulfonylurea and other Acetolactate Synthaseinhibiting Active Ingredients. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-225 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Alternatives, Alternatives Considered but not Further Analyzed 

EMC-0027-010 Comment: I feel you need to address what would happen to native plant species, 

McNeel, Hank wildlife habitat, recreation etc. if no weed control treatments were made on BLM 

lands. 

Response: The BLM would treat weeds and other vegetation under all alternatives. 

Thus, an analysis of what would happen if no weed control occurred was not done for 

the PEIS or PER. 

Alternatives, Herbicide Treatments Standard Operating Procedures and Guidelines 

EMC-0267-006 Comment: [No matter what scenario is adopted I would like to see] Strict avoidance 

Medbery, Angela of chemical use in the presence of any people who claim asthma, allergy and/or 

chemical sensitivity to those chemicals. 

Response: As discussed in Chapter 2 of the PEIS in Table 2-8 and under Coordination 

and Mitigation, the BLM will post herbicide treatment areas and dates and conduct 

other public information activities so as to minimize public exposure to herbicides. 

EMC-0446-011 Comment: Standard Operating Procedures (SOP’s) and Guidelines: The Standard 

The Nature Operating Procedures (SOP’s) and Guidelines described in both the Draft PEIS and 

Conservancy PER should include additional requirements for wildlife species that are not Federally 

listed. The SOP’s and Guidelines should be mandatory rather than optional (“must” 

rather than “where possible”) to be effective. The PEIS and PER assume that these 

SOP’s and Guidelines are adequate to protect public resources, however, information 

in the reports appears to contradict this assumption. As an example, there are no 

specific SOP’s to mitigate the impacts of proposed fire or mechanical treatments in 

sagebrush communities to protect habitat for declining sage grouse populations, 

although the BLM has developed such guidelines (Guidance for the Management of 

Sagebrush Communities for Sage-grouse Conservation, November 2004). Although 

both documents cite the likely negative impacts caused by livestock grazing 

immediately after certain vegetation treatments, the SOP for livestock use following 

treatments only requires the BLM to “Provide alternative forage sites for livestock, if 

possible.” In our experience, a minimum of two years of complete rest, preferably 

three or more, following prescribed fire treatments is needed to allow for native plant 

restoration. We believe this guidance should be strengthened. 

Response: Additional SOPs and guidelines have been included in the Final PEIS and 

PER. The intent of the SOPs was not to be all-encompassing, but rather to provide 

guidelines that would apply BLM-wide, with the understanding that additional sitespecific SOPs and guidelines would be developed at the local level. Although SOPs 

would apply to most situations, there are situations in which they might not apply. The 

SOPs do not ensure resource protection, but are only measures designed to reduce 

impacts to resources. Because SOPs do not ensure resource protection, additional 

mitigation measures were developed for the PEIS to provide additional protection. As 

discussed in the PER in Chapter 2 under SOPs and Guidelines, grazing by domestic 

livestock would be avoided until vegetation on treatment sites is well established. If 

total rest from grazing is not possible, efforts should be made to modify the amount 

and/or season of grazing to promote vegetation recovery within the treatment area. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-226 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0446-016 

The Nature 

Conservancy 

EMC-0446-018 

The Nature 

Conservancy 

EMC-0486-007 

Siskiyou Project 

Comment: We also support the use of aerial applications of herbicide on extremely 

large or inaccessible weed infestations where the only way to viably treat these areas 

would be via aircraft. The PEIS should require that each aerial application proposal 

include a detailed spray prescription, specifying riparian buffer zones, sites of rare and 

endangered species and communities, goal and objectives of application, protocols to 

minimize drift and avoid off-target damage, and suitable monitoring protocols that will 

elucidate effectiveness of treatment as well as negative impacts to off-target resources. 

In cases of herbicide use post-wildfire, we recommend that the BLM first determine 

the actual need of herbicide application (based upon pre-wildfire inventory of the 

range and extent of weeds in the area) prior to any aerial application to suppress weeds 

following a wildfire, and to allow for natural re-vegetation of native species, wherever 

possible. 

Response: Best management practices are identified in Chapter 2 of the PEIS under 

Herbicide Treatment Standard Operating Procedures and Guidelines. Aerial spraying 

requires detailed spray prescriptions prior to implementing any project utilizing this 

method. Post wildfire herbicide needs follow the Burned Area Emergency 

Rehabilitation Team’s recommendations, which are based on the circumstances and 

damage resulting from the wildfire. It is not always possible to utilize pre-wildfire 

inventories, as not all public lands are 100% inventoried for weeds and there is no way 

of knowing where a wildfire will occur beforehand. 

Comment: Chemical herbicides are important tools for the management and control 

of non-native invasive plants when used responsibly. To be most effective in 

controlling non-native invasive plants on public land, the PEIS should: 

- Require and recommend specific standards and practices to prevent new 

invasions and the spread of weeds; 

- develop early detection and rapid response practices; 

- Require that all vegetation control treatments occur within the context of a 

management plan with clear goals and objectives, and desired future 

conditions; 

- Have clear guidelines for prioritization and integrated pest management 

methods for weed management; and 

- Require adequate monitoring to ensure effective control, proper treatment 

selection, and minimal environmental and health impacts to ensure that offtarget impacts are not beyond those predicted and deemed acceptable. 

Response: The procedures suggested in this comment are already being implemented 

by the BLM. Also see response to Comment RMC-0205-013 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management. 

Comment: Table 2-6 (DEIS [Draft PEIS], V[olume] 1, p. 2-18) “Standard Operating 

Procedures for Applying Pesticides” to water resources, streams, and wetlands 

indicates the use of, “Appropriate herbicide-free buffer zone for herbicides not labeled 

for aquatic use based on risk assessment guidance within minimum width of 100 feet 

for aerial, 25 feet for vehicle, and 10 feet for hand spray application.” “Dicamba can 

result in groundwater and surface water contamination under conditions that favor 

such activities ... a known groundwater contaminant, and has a high potential to leach 

into groundwater” (DEIS [Draft PEIS], V[olume] 1, p. 4-29). “Picloram can move offsite through surface or subsurface runoff, and has been detected in the ground water of 

11 states ... Concentrations in runoff are often reported to be adequate to prevent the 

growth of non-target terrestrial and aquatic plants” (DEIS [Draft PEIS], V[olume] 1, 

4-31). Because of the risk of contamination of our surface waterways and ground 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-227 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0498-004 

Vallone, Cheryl L. 

EMC-0503-013 

John Day-Snake 

Resource Advisory 

Council 

EMC-0566-009 

Western Society of 

Weed Science 

EMC-0584-045 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

water from surface runoff, the buffers (mentioned above) do not seem adequate in 

protecting our watersheds. Herbicide treatments of any kind should reflect a 150 foot 

buffer for all channels including intermittent ones, (this figure is determined in the 

Northwest Forest Plan for riparian reserve protection from logging and other ground 

disturbing activity to ensure the least amount of surface runoff and this figure should 

honor the use of herbicides too as the loss of vegetation often leads to surface runoff) 

or a site specific tree length which ever is greater. 

Response: The buffer distances identified in the PEIS reflect minimum requirements 

across a broad spectrum of vegetation types and ecoregions. Local plans, such as the 

Northwest Forest Plan, would determine appropriate buffer distances for vegetation 

and water resources within the area to which the plan applies. This PEIS does not 

supercede local or more conservative requirements that are developed through local 

planning, consultation with the Services, or court order (in those cases where the 

courts have specified buffer distances). 

Comment: Focus foremost on managing BLM lands to prevent new weed 

infestations; follow best management practices for timing and dosage for all 

herbicides, and use herbicides only in conjunction with an integrated pest management 

approach that also uses other tools such as mechanical control, controlled burning, and 

carefully screened biological control organisms. 

Response: See responses to Comments RMC-0003-005 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Revegetation and RMC-0042-087 under 

PEIS Alternatives, Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management. 

Comment: Chapter 2 page 2-18 the [Draft] [P]EIS states recommended use of 

herbicides with low toxicity to wildlife “where feasible.” That statement is like a red 

flag causing us to wonder what might be used and what circumstance would cause 

harm to wildlife. Perhaps the practice should be changed to “in all cases”. 

Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0144-005 under General Comments and 

Responses, and Comment EMC-0585-152 under PEIS Alternatives, Mitigation. 

Comment: The WSWS [Western Society of Weed Science] also supports a section 

that addresses development of sustainable fuel breaks in the brush/grasslands in an 

effort to return wildfires to historical size as well as protect property, critical habitat 

areas, and newly revegetated or rehabilitated sites. Suppression should be a last resort 

and prevention as fuel breaks and pro-active fuel management as vegetation treatments 

should be a first priority. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0214-050 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Prevention of Weeds and Early Detection and Rapid Response. 

Comment: BLM’s [P]EIS and the “updated” [P]EFR plans are woefully deficient in 

providing adequate periods of rest from livestock grazing following treatments. In 

order to determine necessary rest periods, BLM must understand the condition of the 

community pre-treatment (see, for example, Eddleman et al 1994 describing poor or 

fair condition lands requiring significant periods of rest post-treatment). Specific time 

periods must be applied (5-10 year minimum), along with measurable recovery 

standards for soils, microbiotic crusts, herbaceous and woody vegetation recovery 

before livestock grazing can resume. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-228 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0584-065 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0584-074 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0584-102 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

Response: Most, although not all, vegetation treatments do require some rest from 

livestock grazing. The PEIS identifies the possibility of requiring rest from grazing in 

the Standard Operating Procedures for Applying Herbicides in Chapter 2 of the PEIS 

in Table 2-8. The BLM agrees that the amount of rest required may vary depending on 

several factors, including the condition of the plant community prior to treatment, and 

the climatic conditions during and immediately following treatment. However, rarely 

would a rest period of 5 to 10 years be required, as identified in this comment. The 

BLM has used 2 growing seasons of rest as the basic standard, and in many cases that 

amount of rest following the treatment or disturbance has been adequate. However, 

depending on the specific situation (plant community present before the disturbance, 

precipitation available following the disturbance, etc.), more or less than two growing 

seasons may be appropriate. Monitoring is the best means for determining the amount 

of rest needed for each specific recovery effort. 

Comment: No treatments of any kind should be allowed during nesting periods for 

migratory birds, or in important or critical wildlife habitats during sensitive times of 

year such as winter in sage grouse wintering areas. The role of all past and proposed 

treatments on habitat fragmentation must be assessed. See Knick et al. 2003, Connelly 

et al. 2004 to understand the tremendous fragmentation that exists. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0585-155 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Mitigation. 

Comment: BLM current enforcement of grazing closure restrictions is incredibly lax 

– we have documented burn trespass after burn trespass where BLM has failed to 

administer more than a handslap - or simply ignored – permittee trespass of burns... 

Thus, we have no assurances that any livestock-related post-treatment measures will 

be followed, and these can not be used as “mitigation” for treatments. 

Response: Temporarily restricting grazing following a burn or other treatment is a 

standard practice that must be identified as an element of these treatments within this 

document. Unauthorized use actions are taken if livestock are allowed to use a burn or 

treatment area during the prescribed rest period. The settlement of an unauthorized use 

situation is dependent on the facts of the specific case, whether the unauthorized use is 

determined to be willful or non-willful, and the documented number of animals and 

amount of time involved in the violation. 

Comment: A 4-5 year closure of the pasture or allotment will result in ungrazed areas 

that help to provide grasses of sufficient height, or other necessary habitat 

components, for sage grouse and other native wildlife. Only temporary facilities 

should be allowed, if any are used at all – primarily electric fences. All post-fire rehab 

plans must specify removal dates for any livestock facilities that result from fire rehab 

activities. 

Response: The amount of rest from grazing needed following treatment will vary 

depending upon the condition of the vegetation prior to treatment and the climatic 

conditions that occur following the treatment. A rest period of 4 to 5 years may be 

appropriate in some cases, but that amount of time would not be needed in all 

situations. This PEIS allows for decisions about the amount of rest following treatment 

to be made at the local level, based on the individual situations and the site conditions. 

In many situations, no facilities or only temporary facilities are required to help 

provide rest from livestock grazing. There may be some situations, however, in which 

construction of a more permanent structure such as a fence would be more economical 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-229 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0584-112 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0584-114 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-103 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-154 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

and would provide for better management beyond the first few years following 

disturbance. 

Comment: Periods of Rest: BLM must require adequate periods of rest from all 

livestock grazing to ensure that full recovery, or establishment of seeded vegetation, 

occurs. This time period is much longer than BLM ever requires, and is often 

dependent on the condition and health of vegetation communities pre-fire. Eddleman 

et al. (1994) described 4-5 year periods of rest as necessary for degraded western 

juniper communities. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0584-075 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Mitigation. 

Comment: Commitment to Rehab. Time periods sufficient to achieve adequate and 

healthy native vegetation communities, must be mandatory. A reasonable time period 

would be 5-10 years, given the vagaries of weather and drought cycles in depleted arid 

low elevation lands. 

Response: The BLM guidance allows for flexibility in determining sufficient time to 

achieve adequate recovery of plant communities in rehabilitation projects. For funding 

purposes, mandatory timeframes for monitoring are set at 3 years for Emergency 

Stabilization and Rehabilitation projects. Given the variability of plant communities, 

environmental conditions, and climatic influences across a 17-state area, there is no 

basis provided by the commenter for the BLM to determine that 5 to 10 years is a 

reasonable time period in all situations. 

Comment: The [P]EIS claims buffers would be used between treatment and nontreatment areas. Unfortunately, the extent of the land area needed to buffer impacts 

may be significantly greater on low elevation degraded BLM lands than on nondegraded lands, as often especially in arid climates, there is little standing vegetation 

to buffer or prevent drift/contamination (in contrast to dense higher elevation forests, 

or croplands with dense growth at ground level. Topography such as steep canyons 

may result in need for far greater buffers than are normally applied. Weather such as 

wind shifts, canyon winds, movement of air with diurnal heating and cooling, will all 

affect size and configuration of any wild land buffer. 

Response: The buffers presented in the PEIS represent minimum distances based on 

drift modeling results. They do not incorporate the limiting impact that vegetation 

within the buffer zone would have on herbicide transport. It is recognized that these 

buffers may need to be adjusted for site-specific conditions. Also see response to 

Comment EMC-0585-204 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, Herbicide 

Effects Analysis. 

Comment: BLM also claims it will: “Establish appropriate herbicide-specific buffer 

zones to waterbodies ...”. Yet, BLM does not set out specific buffer zones, or provide 

a specific protocol for decisionmaking on appropriate buffers. Likewise, no specific 

buffers are provided for the witches brew of treatments described in the PER. 

Response: Minimum buffer zones for herbicide treatments are given in Table 2-8 of 

the PEIS. However, buffer widths would usually be developed based on risk 

assessment guidance. The BLM has identified buffer zones to protect water bodies 

from individual herbicides evaluated by the BLM in Table C-16 of Appendix C of the 

PEIS, and in the ecological risk assessments prepared for the PEIS; similar guidance is 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-230 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0585-168 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-242 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

provided in the Forest Service risk assessments used in developing the FEIS. Manual 

treatments, and some mechanical treatments (e.g., mowing) are often appropriate for 

vegetation treatments close to water bodies; a minimum 25-foot buffer would be 

maintained for mechanical treatments as discussed in Table 2-5 of the PER. Because 

biological control organisms can move on their own, it is impractical to establish 

buffers for these organisms. There are also many situations where it is necessary to 

burn vegetation to the edge of water bodies. 

Comment: Throughout the [P]EIS/PER, BLM makes sweeping statements such as: 

“if livestock grazing is managed to increase the vigor of native perennial plants, 

especially grasses, the chance of weeds invading rangelands is much less” ([page] 2­

15 [of the PEIS]), yet provides few or no scientific records or studies to back up its 

rosy claims. 

Response: The wording of the quotation in this comment has been changed by one 

word from the statement as it appeared in the PEIS. In the Draft PEIS in Chapter 2 

under Herbicide Treatment Standard Operating Procedures, it stated “If livestock 

grazing is managed to maintain the vigor . . .” not “if livestock grazing is managed to 

increase the vigor . . .” as it was identified in the comment. This statement reflects the 

concept of “competitive advantage” which can occur when one plant species is grazed, 

and nearby plants are left ungrazed. The following statements are taken from 

Ecological Implications of Livestock Herbivory in the West, Edited by Martin Vavra, 

William A. Laycock and Rex D. Peiper, 1994. “Research in the sagebrush steppe has 

shown that defoliation of grasses during rapid growth decreases the depletion rate of 

soil water (Wraith it al. 1987, Daddy et al. 1988, Miller et al. 1990). Reduced uptake 

of soil resources by forage species due to decreased leaf area and root growth may 

enhance growth and/or establishment of ungrazed neighboring plants. Grazing 

avoidance-type plants often gain the competitive advantage over grazed species 

(Archer and Smeins 1991).” According to Ecological Implications of Livestock 

Herbivory in the West (M. Vavra, W.A. Laycock, and R.D. Piper, eds. 1994. Society 

for Range Management, Denver, Colorado), grazing can be managed to reduce this 

“competitive advantage” by making sure the plants have sufficient opportunity to 

grow undisturbed and reproduce at least occasionally; the statement in the PEIS is 

pointing out that this type of management would reduce the opportunity for weeds to 

become established and/or increase. “The best documented long term evidence 

indicating that light to moderate livestock use can be compatible with the sagebrush 

ecosystem is from communities where plant species composition remained unchanged 

from adjacent ungrazed sites in good ecological condition (Mueggler 2950, Laycock 

1967, Beedlow et al. 1988), or where native perennial grasses, forbs and palatable 

shrubs have reestablished under good grazing management (Sneva et al. 1984, 

Kindschy 1987).” 

Comment: BLM makes false claims. The claim that BLM ‘recommends’ as a SOP 

[Standard Operating Procedure] that grazing animals be fed only weed free forage for 

a minimum of 96 hours prior to going onto public lands’ is completely divorced from 

the reality of BLM actions related to livestock turnout on public lands. In review of 

hundreds if not thousands of grazing permits and BLM NEPA or other assessments of 

grazing, WWP [Western Watersheds Project] has never found any permit Term and 

Condition or EA [Environmental Assessment] management requirement to so. In fact, 

BLM has repeatedly ignored our comments that such measures be used to control 

weed infestation and spread by domestic livestock. ([page] 2-15 [of the PER]). BLM 

elsewhere terms these SOPs [Standard Operating Procedures] “Mitigation”. 

Examination of both Tables 2-6 [in the Draft PEIS] (SOPs [for Applying Herbicides]), 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-231 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0585-243 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0597a-006 

Beeland, DeLene 

EMC-0623-013 

Defenders of Wildlife 

and 2-7 (Mitigation [Measures]) show no indication that this is even “recommended”. 

In fact, the discussion of “livestock” relates to limiting impacts of treatment to 

livestock, and not impacts of livestock to the land or treatment outcome. Livestock 

may continue to bring weeds onto lands, or create disturbed conditions for sprayed or 

treated lands to stay infested or to become reinfested, yet no SOP or mitigation is 

applied to limit this. 

Response: This is a new recommendation that we will be making to all public land 

users that have grazing animals, but it will not be a condition of their permit. We have 

moved this recommendation from under the heading of Standard Operating 

Procedures and Guidelines to under the heading Prevention of Weeds and Early 

Response and Rapid Detection, as this action would do much to help prevent the 

spread of weeds. 

Comment: BLM refers to “poor grazing management” as a resulting in “conditions 

that enhance invasive species spread”, yet never defines “poor grazing management”, 

or provides any data or other information showing where this has or is occurring. 

Since 35 million acres of public lands are now dominated by invasive species (where 

are these lands, and how old is this figure???), and weeds continue to spread at an 

alarming rate, such “poor” management must be commonplace. ([page] 2-15 [of the 

Draft PEIS]). 

Response: Poor grazing management could involve various things, such as the use of 

excessive numbers of livestock, poor management that results in concentrations of 

animals in some areas, or grazing during critical times during the plants’ annual 

growth cycle year after year; or leaving animals in the same area for a long period of 

time, which allows animals to graze the same plants repeatedly during the grazing 

season. Although these grazing practices may create conditions that would enhance the 

spread of invasive species, this is not the only vector that can do so. Many of the plant 

species that we now consider to be invasive were purposefully introduced into this 

country for a variety of reasons unrelated to livestock grazing, and many others were 

accidentally introduced through activities unrelated to livestock grazing. Many of the 

invasions of undesirable vegetation have occurred in areas that have not had any recent 

(or in some cases historical) livestock use, so it would not be correct to assume that 

areas dominated by invasive species have experienced poor grazing management. The 

35 million acres are scattered throughout the West, and that figure was derived from 

information gathered in 2000. 

Comment: If there is going to be oil and gas development on our public lands – BLM 

and other government agencies must set up a strict policy for vehicle washing, 

including the undercarriage of trucks and ORVs [off-road vehicles] to halt the spread 

of seeds and grasses using the network of roads and trails accessing the well-heads. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0544-004 under PEIS Alternatives, Other 

Programs. 

Comment: Follow best management practices for timing and dosage for all 

herbicides, and use herbicides only in conjunction with an integrated pest management 

approach that also uses other tools such as mechanical control, controlled burning, and 

carefully screened biological control organisms. Subsequent drafts of the [P]EIS 

should document how many acres the BLM intends to treat with other methods, so that 

stakeholders can evaluate pesticide treatment in the context of other weed control 

methods. BLM should also report on the efficacy of each method. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-232 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0640-041 

Animal Welfare 

Institute 

EMC-0643-047 

California Indian 

Basketweavers 

Association 

EMC-0645-012 

Wroncy, Jan (Gaia 

Vision/Canaries Who 

Sing) 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0623-008 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management. 

Comment: In the event that BLM believes limited herbicide use is needed, the agency 

must: 1) minimize such use to the extent possible; 2) only use herbicides that will not 

produce a high impact or effect on non-target species; 3) use only application methods 

that will minimize impacts to non-target species; 4) ensure that its vegetation 

management plans be based on adaptive management; and 5) engage in 

comprehensive pre and post monitoring work to immediately assess the impact of 

herbicides on wild species and cease or alter herbicide use if adverse impacts are 

identified. Moreover, to the extent that the BLM considers adding any new herbicides 

to its poison arsenal, it should mandate that any toxicity tests be conducted using nonanimal testing methodologies and that any field applications would be preceded by 

focused and limited field studies to determine how the herbicide might impact wildlife 

and other natural features and functions under natural conditions. 

Response: See responses to Comment EMC-0623-008 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management, Comment EMC-0115-005 under 

PEIS Environmental Consequences, How the Effects of the Alternatives Were 

Estimated, Comment EMC-0640-036 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, 

Wildlife Resources, and Comment EMC-0640-037 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis. 

Comment: The DEIS [Draft PEIS] also does not substantively demonstrate through 

citation to scientific studies that the Preferred Alternative and the use of herbicides to 

kill unwanted vegetation will in fact in any way achieve the desired goals for 

restoration of native habitats. 

Response: A listing of the scientific publications relied upon in this PEIS analysis is 

found in Chapter 6 of the Final PEIS. 

Comment: [Herbicides should be considered for use only under the following 

conditions:] 1. When all ingredients in the formulation (including inert ingredients) are 

publicly disclosed and analyzed for their impacts to human health, wildlife and water 

quality; 2. There is notification to the public through signs, newspaper announcements 

and other means; 3. When surface and ground water samples are collected and 

analyzed for herbicides and their breakdown products; 4. When an up-to-date publicly 

accessible database is kept to record the formulation of herbicide, amount applied, 

date, time and weather conditions during application; 5. Vegetation cannot be burned 

the same year it was treated with herbicides; and 6. Herbicide treatments are not 

permitted during the bird nesting season of bird species found through site-specific 

surveys of the application area. 

Response: Thank you for the suggestions to consider when applying herbicides. The 

BLM considers the toxicological effects of herbicides, the potential for public 

exposure and notification, and environmental variables, including effects on nesting 

species and use of fire after herbicide applications, if applicable, in the risk analysis 

and project design and through site-specific NEPA analysis for the project. Herbicide 

use records are currently not in a central database for the BLM; however, these records 

are available from the field offices or state, county, or local agencies that apply 

herbicides. Many regulatory agencies, such as the California Department of 

Environmental Quality, post herbicide use data on their websites. Similar data on 

herbicide application is also provided to both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-233 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

National Marine Fisheries Service when applications involve potential effects to listed 

species. 

EMC-0647-005 Comment: The vegetation management program must provide regular monitoring to 

Alaska Community determine if and when treatments are needed. Educational, physical, mechanical, and 

Action on Toxics biological measures of prevention and control will be given priority over chemical 

measures. Herbicides will be used only as a last resort. If herbicides are used, the BLM 

will use the smallest amount of the least toxic formulation with the least potential for 

contamination of subsistence resources, wildlife, or human exposure. Further, no 

chemical is permitted for use if it is acutely toxic or proven to cause cancer, hormone 

disruption, reproductive damage, immune system damage or nervous system toxicity. 

The BLM will apply the precautionary approach in all pest management decisions to 

prevent harm to human health and the environment from the use of toxic pesticides 

that have not been fully tested. The public process should be open and inclusive if 

herbicides are being considered in a particular area. If herbicides are used as a last 

resort, people that may use the area should be properly notified well in advance with 

publication in local newspapers and signage around the perimeter. Signage should be 

posted at least 72 hours in advance and left up at least 72 hours following herbicide 

applications. The notification and signage should include information about the 

environmental and health effects of the herbicides. 

Response: Most of these measures are listed as Standard Operating Procedures or 

mitigation in the PEIS or PER. Some of the herbicides used by the BLM could be 

acutely toxic if applied incorrectly or accidentally spilled; the BLM would review and 

consider human health and ecological risks before selecting and using herbicides to 

treat vegetation to minimize or avoid risks to humans and plants and animals. 

FL-0004-011 Comment: PEIS is in need of a section addressing development of sustainable fuel 

breaks in the brush/grasslands in an effort to return wildfires to historical size as well 

as protect property, critical habitat areas and newly revegetated or rehabilitated sites. 

Suppression should be a last resort, prevention as fuel breaks and proactive fuel 

management as vegetation should be a first priority. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0566-009 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Herbicide Treatment Standard Operating Procedures. 

FL-0007-008 Comment: The second addition would be to place a greater emphasis on the 

development of sustainable fuel breaks. This would help to return wildfires to 

historical size, protect property, critical habitat areas, and newly rehabilitated sites. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0566-009 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Herbicide Treatment Standard Operating Procedures. 

FXC-0071-014 Comment: In regards to herbicide labels, will BLM assure that all 

Campbell, Bruce herbicide/formulations (and not just in the original package) will have warning and 

instructions in Spanish(?) – seeing that almost all agricultural spraying and an 

increasing amount of rangeland and forestland spraying is done by Latino workers. If 

not, why if you wish the workers to understand the proper precautions to take? The 

BLM documents admit various risks to workers from herbicides proposed for use in 

vegetation treatments in 17 western states – for instance on page 4-131 [of the Draft 

PEIS] where it is said in a clear manner that “The health and safety of workers could 

be at risk from exposure to herbicides” 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-234 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

FXC-0074-010 

Copper Country 

Alliance 

RMC-0006-034 

Central Sierra 

Environmental 

Resource Center 

Response: Table 2-8 in Chapter 2 of the PEIS describes Standard Operating 

Procedures and Guidelines for applying pesticides. In addition, any work contracted 

by the BLM requires the contractor to have the appropriate state licenses and training 

for handling and applying any pesticide. If Latino workers are used, it is the 

responsibility of the contractor to relay appropriate information from the Material 

Safety Data Sheets (MSDS). MSDSs are available in Spanish. In addition, any BLM 

employee handling and applying pesticides is required to be trained and hold an 

updated state and federal license, and to be able to read and speak English. 

Comment: In such a case [use of herbicides], BLM should adhere to the following 

guidelines: 

• Aerial spraying is not used. 

• The herbicide chosen has been fully tested for toxicity to humans and other 

non-target organisms. 

• The herbicide chosen is the least toxic of effective herbicide candidates. 

• The amount of herbicide used and the area covered are as small as possible 

for effective eradication. 

• Public input prior to application is strongly encouraged through public 

notification. 

• Warning of toxic risks are well-advertised. 

• The treatment area is described in a way that the public can readily 

understand. 

• Warning signs are posted around the perimeter of treated areas. 

Response: See responses to Comment EMC-0585-157 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Mitigation, Comment EMC-0220-006 under PEIS Alternatives, Coordination and 

Education, and Comment EMC-0092-003 under PEIS Alternatives, Coordination and 

Education. The herbicides used by the BLM, or proposed for use, have been tested by 

the Environmental Protection Agency for their toxicity to plants, animals, and humans. 

In addition, the BLM and Forest Service conducted human health and ecological risk 

assessments to evaluate the risks to humans and plants and animals from the 18 

herbicides proposed for use in the PEIS. Risk assessments done by the BLM are 

summarized in Appendixes B and C of the PEIS. Alternative D, No Aerial Spraying, 

was one alternative evaluated in the PEIS. 

Comment: Buffer distances between herbicide treatments and all aquatic habitats and 

sensitive species should be a minimum 50 feet. In an attempt to minimize potential 

impacts, the PEIS proposes that “Buffer zones would be used to reduce the risks to 

vegetation from herbicide treatments” p. ES-4 [of the Draft PEIS]). Yet in table C-16 

(p. C-89 [of the Draft PEIS]) “buffer distances” to aquatic areas and non-target plants 

for some herbicides are zero (Chlorsulfuron, Diuron, Imazapic, Tebuthiuron), and, for 

some, not “evaluated” (Diquat, Fluridone, and Tebuthiuron). CSERC [Central Sierra 

Environmental Resource Center] urges that a minimum buffer distance for any 

herbicide used be 50 feet from all aquatic zones and all non-target or sensitive plant 

and animal species. Furthermore, the buffer distances proposed in Table C-16 [of 

Appendix C of the PEIS] are based on modeling, not on empirical data (Table C-16, p. 

C-89 [of the Draft PEIS]). “In some cases, buffer distances were extrapolated (if the 

largest distance modeled still resulted in risk)” (p. C-89 [of the Draft PEIS]). 

Considering the significant possible negative effects, the accuracy of modeling is not 

high enough to be sufficient for establishing buffer guidelines. CSERC strongly urges 

that buffer distances must be determined empirically through experimentation under 

controlled conditions of varying droplet size, application rate and height, and wind 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-235 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0040(1)-008 

Resource Concepts, 

Inc. 

RMC-0040(1)-009 

Resource Concepts, 

Inc. 

speed. The alternative is to be extremely conservative. 

Response: As discussed in Table 2-8 under Herbicide Treatment Standard Operating 

Procedures and Guidelines in Chapter 2 of the PEIS, the buffer zone would be at least 

100 feet for aerial applications, 25 feet for vehicle applications, and 10 feet for hand 

applications. Buffer widths could be greater if modeling done for the herbicide risk 

assessments showed that larger buffers are required to protect aquatic habitats. 

Modeling did show that some herbicides were safe to use adjacent to aquatic habitats, 

as noted above. However, minimum buffer requirements would still apply to those 

herbicides. 

Comment: Pg. 2-26 [of the Draft PER], in Table 2-4 Vegetation Treatment Methods 

Standard Operating Procedures and Guidelines, wildlife resources section for 

Mechanical treatments, limiting chaining clearings to 100 yards in width may not be 

appropriate for fuels reduction projects. For example, in the Mt. Wilson area (Ely 

BLM District, Nevada) 600 to 700 feet was the prescription width for tree thinning 

activities along the wildland-urban interface. A qualified specialist, or specialists, 

should determine the appropriate chaining width, considering the best available 

knowledge regarding potential fire behavior and the wildlife habitat concerns of each 

specific treatment site. 

Response: There may be instances where the 100 foot buffer is not appropriate for the 

site-specific objectives and proposed actions. The wording in Table 2-5 of Chapter 2 

of the Final PER has been changed to read: “Chaining should be designed to provide 

the maximum mosaic of treated and nontreated sites. No more than 50% of an area 

should be chained at one time. Provide natural travel lanes, resting and thermal cover 

areas, snags, and corridors (> 30 feet wide) connecting non-chained areas. The size of 

clearings and chaining widths should be determined using best available knowledge 

regarding potential fire behavior and the wildlife habitat concerns of the specific site, 

but they generally should not exceed 100 yards at their widest point. Fuel breaks and 

projects to provide protective fuel buffers are possible exceptions.” 

Comment: Pg. 2-27, Table 2-4 [of the Draft PEIS], wild horse and burro section for 

chemical treatments, includes an SOP [Standard Operating Procedures] of minimizing 

herbicide use in areas grazed by horses and burros. This SOP would preclude use of 

herbicides in millions of acres of Nevada, and substantial acreages in Wyoming. 

Instead, areas of weed infestations treated with chemical may need to be temporarily 

fenced. Limiting herbicide use across all herd management areas and other horse and 

burro grazing areas could lead to increases in noxious weed infestations throughout 

these two states. In many instances, areas grazed by horses will very likely be a high 

priority for treatment due to year around grazing, and in some cases overgrazing, 

which establishes ideal conditions for weed infestations. 

Response: The SOPs in Table 2-5 of the Final PER refer to minimizing use of 

herbicides in vegetation treatment project areas that may be actively grazed by wild 

horses and/or burros. Minimizing herbicide use does not necessarily mean precluding 

the use of herbicides. Under an integrated pest management approach, herbicide use 

can be minimized by various methods, including, but not limited to selective targeting 

of the herbicide to individual plants or groups of plants, or the use of other treatment 

techniques (manual, mechanical, fire, biological) in conjunction with herbicides or in 

place of herbicides. This information has been clarified in the text for the SOP in 

Table 2-4. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-236 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0049-024 

Wilson, Robert E. 

(University of Nevada 

Cooperative Extension) 

RMC-0057-012 

California Wilderness 

Coalition 

RMC-0070-005 

California Regional 

Water Quality Control 

Board 

RMC-0080-008 

Idaho State Department 

of Agriculture 

Comment: Page 2-14 [of the Draft PEIS] Herbicide Treatment Standard Operating 

Procedures – need to incorporate Ecologically Based Invasive Weed Management as 

part of the standard operating procedures. 

Response: The BLM’s Manual 9015 (Integrated Weed Management) incorporates the 

same integrated approach used in ecologically-based invasive weed management. The 

BLM goes further to identify standard operating procedures that will be used in 

conjunction with the treatment in Chapter 2 of the FEIS under Vegetation Treatment 

Standard Operating Procedures and Guidelines. 

Comment: The D[raft] PEIS fails to describe specific measures to minimize dispersal 

of invasive and non-native vegetation. The Final PEIS should require development of 

Best Management Practices to minimize the dispersal of invasive weeds and require 

BLM employee and contractor compliance with these practices. 

Response: Measures to minimize dispersal of invasive and non-native vegetation are 

discussed in Chapter 2 of the PEIS under Herbicide Treatment Standard Operating 

Procedures and Guidelines. At the broad scale of this PEIS, it is not feasible to identify 

which specific measures would be utilized, since they would be determined on a 

project-by-project basis, depending on factors such as the type of treatment and the 

characteristics of a particular treatment site. As discussed in this section of the PEIS, 

the BLM is required to develop a noxious weed risk assessment for all projects that 

disturb the ground or alter plant communities to determine the risk of introducing 

noxious weeds. The BLM will design management practices or prescriptions, as 

necessary. These activities will take place at the local level, and will be part of the 

local environmental analysis process for vegetation treatment projects. 

Comment: Your [P]EIS should include detailed descriptions of all project-wide and 

site-specific temporary and permanent Best Management Practices (BMPs) or other 

measures to be utilized/installed. This is necessary for us to evaluate the effectiveness 

of proposed BMPs or other measures in mitigating the potential water quality impacts 

that may result from project implementation. Of particular concern are measures 

proposed to mitigate the potential water quality impacts of aerial pesticide 

applications, and ground applications in proximity to surface waters (including 

wetlands). 

Response: Project-wide and site-specific BMPs and related measures are outside the 

scope of the PEIS/PER, which is not project- or site-specific. Chapter 4 of the PEIS, 

under the Water Resources and Quality subheading, lists Standard Operating 

Procedures (SOPs) that are recommended to reduce potential unintended impacts to 

water resources from herbicide treatments. These SOPs provide general guidance that 

will be consulted when the BLM develops treatment programs and assesses their 

impact at the local level. Project-level SOPs and mitigation measures will be 

developed at the local level based on detailed information about the proposed 

treatment program and the treatment site. 

Comment: Under the “General” guidelines of Table 2-6 on page 2-17 [of the Draft 

PEIS], Standard Operating Procedures for Applying Herbicides, the seventh bulleted 

item states, “Have licensed applicator apply herbicides.” This guideline is more 

stringent than Idaho state law requires and may be more stringent than other states as 

well. For example, members of a seasonal weed crew that apply general use herbicides 

are not required to obtain an applicators license in Idaho as long as they are directly 

supervised by a licensed applicator. Following appropriate state laws is adequate and 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-237 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0106-022 

Public Employees for 

Environmental 

Responsibility 

RMC-0144-011 

Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department 

RMC-0144-015 

Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department 

will significantly lessen the burden of supervisors trying to find qualified applicants as 

well as decrease program costs. ISDA [Idaho State Department of Agriculture] 

suggests that this bulleted item be changed to read: “Follow respective state laws 

regarding herbicide application licenses.” 

Response: The BLM requires BLM employees who supervise and handle pesticides 

to complete and pass BLM course 9000-1, a USEPA approved course to certify BLM 

employees for the handling and application of pesticides. Where the BLM has 

reciprocal agreements with the states, those states recognize the BLM 9000-1 course 

for state certification. Where no reciprocal agreement is in place, BLM employees 

follow state laws regarding herbicide application licensing. 

Comment: [Page] 4-13 [of the Draft PEIS]. Here and elsewhere, the assumption that 

SOPs [Standard Operating Procedures] and label instructions will be followed is 

insufficient. Noncompliance must have stated mitigations. 

Response: By definition, a Standard Operating Procedure is a set of instructions 

providing direction and cover features of operations that lend themselves to a definite 

or standard procedure without loss of effectiveness. The USEPA defines them as “ a 

set of written instructions that document a routine or repetitive activity followed by an 

organization.” The development and use of such instructions “promote quality through 

consistent implementation of a process or procedure within the organization.” There is 

no need to mitigate for a group of instructions. 

As for “following the label,” the BLM understands that the label associated with any 

herbicide is defined by the courts as a “legal document,” and any deviation from the 

guidelines, directions, and precautions stated on the label, or other relevant application 

information, is a violation of federal law. 

Comment: [Page] 2-16 [of the Draft PEIS] statement: “Where total rest from grazing 

is not feasible, efforts should be made to modify the amount and/or season of grazing 

to promote vegetation recovery within the treatment area.” We strongly recommend 

BLM replace the term ‘should’ with ‘will’. We generally recommend a minimum of at 

least two growing seasons of rest, assemblage of forage reserve areas to accommodate 

grazing permittees or lessees, and appropriate post management as a part of the plan. 

Response: The statement cited is among the Standard Operating Procedures the BLM 

will follow when revegetating sites, and is followed by examples of the types of 

modifications that could be made to livestock grazing practices in a treatment area. 

The PEIS does not stipulate actual terms and conditions of grazing permits, and it is 

beyond the scope of the PEIS at this programmatic level to predetermine what specific 

terms and conditions or modifications to grazing permits should be made. The BLM 

generally provides a minimum of two growing seasons of rest, although a rest period 

of less or more than 2 years can be authorized if there is sufficient justification based 

on monitoring for modifying the rest period. The BLM recognizes the potential 

advantages of using forage reserve areas to help facilitate the needed rest following 

vegetation treatments, including the potential benefits to grazing permittees by 

providing more options during the rest period. 

Comment: 2-15 statement: “If the risks is moderate to high, the BLM may have to 

modify the project....”. We suggest the term ‘may have to’ to be replaced with ‘will’ 

such that the risk will be less than moderate. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-238 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0144-016 

Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department 

RMC-0210-044 

MCS Task Force of 

New Mexico 

RMC-0210-046 

MCS Task Force of 

New Mexico 

RMC-0210-047 

MCS Task Force of 

New Mexico 

Response: Project modification is one method to address moderate to high risk of 

weed establishment or spread. Other methods to address moderate to high risk may 

include identifying specific mitigation through NEPA analysis, selecting a no project 

alternative, or implementing specific prevention measures, without modifying the 

project. 

Comment: [Page] 2-15 [of the Draft PEIS] statement: “Conditions that enhance the 

invasive species abundance should be addressed....”. We strongly urge the term 

‘should be’ be replaced with ‘will be’. This is crucial to the long-term success of the 

treatments. 

Response: The statement refers in general to the variety of prevention measures that 

are feasible in any given circumstance. In order to design and implement prevention 

measures, the conditions that enhance invasive species abundance should be addressed 

in order to ensure an appropriate prevention measure is identified. The statement has 

been modified to state: “Conditions that enhance invasive species abundance should 

be addressed in developing mitigation and prevention plans for activities on public 

lands. For example, excessive disturbance...” 

Comment: Ground application of herbicides should not be applied within 1 mile of 

surface water, residences, roads, trails, campgrounds, or other areas that are occupied, 

or may become occupied, by members of the public. 

Response: See responses to Comment EMC-0585-185 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis, Comment EMC-0597(a)-007 under PEIS 

Environmental Consequences, Air Quality, and Comment RMC-0210-043 under PEIS 

Alternatives, Alternative D - No Aerial Application of Herbicides. 

Comment: No herbicides should be used unless the identity of all inert ingredients 

and contaminants in the product are disclosed to the public. 

Response: See responses to Comments EMC-0623-017, EMC-0646-011, and FXC0071-020 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis. 

Comment: No vegetation should be burned sooner than one year after an application 

of herbicide. 

Response: The burning of vegetation following herbicide application would depend 

upon several factors, including the species to be managed, the site of the proposed 

treatment, environmental conditions, management plans, and other similar factors. 

Wolters et. al. 1994 (Wolters, G.L., C.H. Sieg, A.J. Bjugstad and F.R. Gartner. 1994. 

Herbicide and fire effects on leafy spurge density and seed germination. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service Research Notes RM-526. Fort Collins, 

Colorado) found that a fall application of picloram followed by a spring burn gave 

better control of leafy spurge in North Dakota than use of herbicides alone. French 

broom canopy cover was reduced from 87% to less than 1% when plants were treated 

with an herbicide, cut and burned one month later, then treated with glyphosate for 

two years to control the germinated seedlings (Bossard, C.C. 2000. Genista 

monspessulana. In: Bossard, C.C., R.M. Randall and M.C. Hoshovsky [eds.]. Invasive 

Plants of California’s Wildlands. University of California Press, Berkeley.) 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-239 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0221-033 

Center for Biological 

Diversity 

RMC-0222-063 

Salvo, Mark 

(Sagebrush Sea 

Campaign), Cox, 

Caroline (Northwest 

Coalition for 

Alternatives to 

Pesticides), and 

O’Brien, Mary 

RMC-0222-084 

\Salvo, Mark 

(Sagebrush Sea 

Campaign), Cox, 

Caroline (Northwest 

Coalition for 

Alternatives to 

Pesticides), and 

O’Brien, Mary 

RMC-0228-007 

Metropolitan Water 

District of Southern 

California 

Comment: The D[raft] PEIS should also analyze an alternative that mandates the use 

of weed- and seed-free livestock feed and supplements on public lands. All livestock 

should be certified weed- and seed-free before being turned out on the public lands. 

This simple preventative measure would reduce the potential for future invasive 

colonization and spread by non-native species. 

Response: An alternative that mandates the use of weed and seed-free livestock feed 

is beyond the scope of the PEIS, as discussed under Scope of Analysis in Chapter 1 of 

the PEIS. The use of weed and seed free livestock feed is endorsed by the BLM and 

many other groups as a prevention measure, and is listed as a Standard Operating 

Procedure in Table 2-6 of Chapter 2 of the PEIS. 

Comment: The BLM wrongly considers the use of “SOPs [Standard Operating 

Procedures] identified in the [Draft] PEIS” ([page] 4-197) as an assumption for 

cumulative impacts assessment, as the DEIS [Draft PEIS] indicates that the ten 

Standard Operation Procedures it identifies as mitigation for herbicide use “can be 

implemented at local level according to specific conditions” [emphasis added]. One of 

the “Standard Operating Procedures,” “use native or sterile species for revegetation 

and restoration projects” cannot be assumed to be operating for the purposes of 

cumulative impacts, as it is not part of any alternatives being considered by the BLM 

([pages] 2-10 through 2-13 [of the Draft PEIS]). It is part of the unanalyzed 

Restoration Alternative. 

Response: As noted in Chapter 2 of the PEIS under Herbicide Treatment Standard 

Operating Procedures and Guidelines, “SOPs would be followed by the BLM under all 

alternatives...” However, as noted in the comment, not all SOPs may be implemented 

at the local level because not all SOPs may be relevant or useful for a specific project. 

However, if an SOP is relevant or useful in reducing impacts, the BLM would 

implement the SOP. These SOPs, including revegetation, were analyzed as part of all 

alternatives, including Alternative E, also referred to as the Restoration Alternative. 

Also see response to Comment EMC-0646-230 under PEIS Alternatives, Herbicide 

Treatment Planning. 

Comment: The BLM goal does not mention native vegetation but instead “desirable” 

vegetation (which could be exotic, as in introduced pasture grasses), Desirable for 

whom? Livestock permittees? Sage grouse? Ground cover in the midst of disturbance? 

Erosion control? 

Response: Desirable plant communities are defined in goals and objectives typically 

identified and determined through land use planning (See BLM Handbook H- 1601-1). 

They are often called “Desired Outcomes,” and may be expressed in written form in 

the planning document as Desired Future Condition, Desired Plant Community, or 

Desired Range of Conditions. The Desired Outcome may be restricted to natives only, 

or may include a combination of native and non-native species. Based on the 

objectives outlined in the land use plan, vegetation treatment proposals are identified 

to meet these objectives. 

Comment: Metropolitan [Water District of Southern California] is also concerned 

about the terrestrial herbicide application that could occur close to the Colorado River. 

The Standard Operating Procedures in the Draft PEIS specify buffer zones of 100 feet 

for aerial, 25 feet for vehicle, and 10 feet for hand spray applications. These buffer 

zones should be adequate to avoid overspray but aerial applications may be more 

prone to error. However, the mechanism to ensure compliance with these procedures 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-240 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

has not been specified. 

Response: These are the minimum buffer distances that would be applied for 

herbicide treatments. Herbicide-specific buffer zones were identified in Chapter 4 of 

the PEIS under Vegetation and Fish and Other Aquatic Resources (wildlife resources 

buffers would be the same as those for vegetation) that are in many cases greater than 

those given in the Standard Operating Procedures. Although it is impossible to ensure 

100% compliance with procedures, use of qualified pesticide applicators, as discussed 

in Comment RMC-0005-003 under Alternatives, Herbicide Treatment Modes of 

Action and Treatment Methods is the most effective way to ensure compliance. 

Alternatives, Prevention of Weeds and Early Detection and Rapid Response 

EMC-0133-006 Comment: What preventative-based practices for [treating invasive vegetation] can be 

Ryan, Stephanie used instead? I hear you are not even open to considering this. Is this true? If you are 

interested in considering alternatives, please respond and I will happily offer you the 

best research I can find. 

Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0222-059 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Prevention of Weeds and Early Detection and Rapid Response, and Comment RMC0214-029 under PEIS Alternatives, Prevention of Weeds and Early Detection and 

Rapid Response. 

EMC-0214-050 Comment: An important missing priority is the development of sustainable fuel 

Vollmer, Jennifer breaks in the brush/grasslands in an effort to return wildfires to historical size as well 

(BASF) as protect property, critical habitat areas and newly revegetated or rehabilitated sites. 

Suppression should be a last resort, prevention as fuel breaks and pro-active fuel 

management as vegetation treatments should be a first priority. 

Response: We agree that the development of fuel breaks is an important element in 

managing fire. We don’t agree that suppression should be considered a last resort. 

Suppression efforts will always be necessary. We do agree that more emphasis must 

be place on prevention and treatment efforts to reduce the risk of wildfire threatening 

lives or property. This is emphasized in the documents, A Collaborative Approach for 

Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment 10-Year 

Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan (USDI and USDA 2006a) and 

Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire Adapted Ecosystems: A Cohesive 

Strategy (USDA and USDI 2006b). The Bureau has already increased fuels treatments 

five-fold since the year 2000. 

EMC-0221-014 Comment: PEIS is in need of a section addressing development of sustainable fuel 

EMC-0256-004 breaks in the brush/grasslands in an effort to return wildfires to historical size as well 

EMC-0272-004 as protect property, critical habitat areas and newly revegetated or rehabilitated sites. 

EMC-0299-004 Suppression should be a last resort, prevention as fuel breaks and pro-active fuel 

EMC-0305 management as vegetation treatments should be a first priority. 

EMC-0325-009 

EMC-0328 Response: See response to Comment EMC-0241-050 under PEIS Alternatives, 

EMC-0332 Prevention of Weeds and Early Detection and Rapid Response. 

EMC-0347 

EMC-0348 

EMC-0368 

EMC-0370 

EMC-0376-009 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-241 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0388 

EMC-0390 

EMC-0391 

EMC-0392 

EMC-0393 

EMC-0394 

EMC-0399 

EMC-0400 

EMC-0418 

EMC-0422 

EMC-0427 

EMC-0431 

EMC-0433 

EMC-0438 

EMC-0443 

EMC-0482 

EMC-0578 

EMC-0596 

EMC-0233-004 

Dyber, Kenneth James 

EMC-0306-008 

Klamath River Keeper 

Program and Klamath 

Forest Alliance 

EMC-0331-007 

Weed Science Society 

of America 

Comment: What about prevention of the problems that create the so-called need for 

usage of herbicides? 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding causes and vectors of weed 

spread. See also responses to Comment RMC-0167-007 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management, Comment RMC-0218-005 under 

PEIS Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis, and Comment 

RMC-0218-030 under PEIS Alternatives, Description of the Alternatives regarding 

prevention-based practices. 

Comment: As directed by the BLM’s policies, Department of Interior’s policies, 

presidential Executive Order 11312, the BLM should focus primarily on preventing 

the introduction and spread of prioritized invasive plants rather than relying largely on 

unproven methods to eliminate existing invasive plant populations through the use of 

unsafe herbicides on public lands. It is well understood and accepted that the only way 

to achieve the effective control of invasive plants, the BLM must first adopt strong 

prevention-based practices for activities (livestock grazing; road construction, use and 

management; use of off-road vehicles; timber harvests; mining; energy development; 

fuel reduction projects; watershed/habitat restoration and various forms of recreation) 

that encourage invasive plants. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding causes and vectors of weed 

spread. See also responses to Comment RMC-0167-007 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management, Comment RMC-0218-005 under 

PEIS Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis, and Comment 

RMC-0218-030 under PEIS Alternatives, Description of the Alternatives regarding 

prevention-based practices. 

Comment: Finally, WSSA [Weed Science Society of America] supports two 

additional sections not currently covered in the Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement (PEIS). The WSSA strongly encourages the BLM to add section that 

addresses an Early Detection Rapid Response (EDRR) protocol for invasive weeds. In 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-242 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0331-008 

Weed Science Society 

of America 

EMC-0350-001 

Morris, Nancy 

EMC-0446-017 

The Nature 

Conservancy 

Appendix D [of the Draft PEIS], the process to secure a new herbicide is 2+ years. 

This is unacceptable for EDRR. There must be an approved procedure for EDRR in 

regard to herbicide use. 

Response: See Herbicide Treatments Standard Operating Procedures and Guidelines 

in Chapter 2 of the Final PEIS regarding discussion of Early Detection and Rapid 

Response (EDRR). The use of the protocol described in Appendix E of the Final PEIS 

to evaluate new herbicides does not constrain, nor preclude, the BLM from 

implementing EDRR practices with existing tools or already approved herbicides. The 

objective of the protocol is to provide a consistent, state-of-the-science methodology 

and public process for the BLM to evaluate herbicides for use on public lands. The 2+ 

years outlined is necessary to integrate the BLM budget process requirements to 

provide funding to conduct risk assessments and National Environmental Policy Act 

compliance for herbicide approval. The last effort to review and approve herbicides for 

use on public lands was initiated in 1988 and completed in 1992. Adopting the 

proposed protocol in the PEIS would establish a consistent approach and streamline 

this process to about 2 years in contrast to the 16 years that have lapsed since the last 

effort. 

Comment: The WSSA [Weed Science Society of America] also supports a section 

that addresses development of sustainable fuel breaks in the brush/grasslands in an 

effort to return wildfires to historical size as well as protect property, critical habitat 

areas, and newly revegetated or rehabilitated sites. Suppression should be a last resort 

and prevention as fuel breaks and pro-active fuel management as vegetation treatments 

should be a first priority. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0214-050 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Prevention of Weeds and Early Detection and Rapid Response. 

Comment: In light of all the recent studies that show there is very serious potential 

health hazards to many segments of our population and wildlife when exposed to 

chemical herbicides, we need to take a preventive approach to managing invasive 

weeds. Another factor to consider is that more and more herbicides are used to treat 

our lands because invasive plants are becoming resistant to these chemicals. Dousing 

areas with herbicides, exposing people and wildlife to toxic chemicals is not the 

solution. There are numerous cases where helicopter spraying companies contracted 

by BLM have even broken the law by using concentrations of chemicals that where 

beyond the recommended level and have needlessly exposed people to pesticide drift. 

Using preventive measures would stop this and prevention should be the goal since 

new invasives can appear if BLM doesn’t regulate the activities that cause invasive 

plant species to take over in the first place. 

Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0218-005 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis, and Comment RMC-0218-030 under PEIS 

Alternatives, Description of the Alternatives regarding prevention. The BLM is not 

aware of any Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act violations involving 

helicopter spraying contracted by the agency. All herbicide spray activities are 

required to have pesticide application reports completed within 24 hours of the spray 

activity. 

Comment: The Draft PEIS should provide additional guidance, direction, and 

emphasis on prevention and early detection of weed outbreaks, rapid response to 

detected outbreaks, and integrated pest management that would minimize the need for 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-243 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0447-003 

Makelacy, Melladee 

EMC-0452-001 

Clark, Charlene Carroll 

EMC-0488-005 

Howell, Mark (Starr 

Valley Conservation 

District) 

EMC-0489-003 

Burch, D. 

future control efforts. The main focus of the PEIS appears to be on treatment of 

already infested areas. The Draft PEIS is mostly silent on prioritization of treatment 

areas, recommendations of which method(s) to use under different circumstances, or 

how to prioritize weed species, treatments and sites of high value. The PEIS should 

provide guidance on how to select among different weed control methods and 

combinations of methods, how to determine when certain treatments are allowable, 

and under which conditions certain treatment options (and certain herbicides) may not 

be used or only used as a last resort. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0205-013 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management. 

Comment: The Forest Service made a commitment to address prevention as part of its 

every day management decisions, and adopted an objective of reducing its reliance on 

herbicides, BLM’s proposed herbicide increase will only create a dependence on 

chemicals. I strongly urge the BLM to take a similar approach. 

Response: The BLM’s approach to prevention is discussed in Chapter 2 of the Draft 

PER under Prevention of Weeds and Early Detection and Rapid Response. This 

section has been revised and expanded for the Final PER, and this information has also 

been included in the Final PEIS. 

Comment: As a physician in the West, and member of PSR, I feel moved to write you 

about the pesticide use planned by the BLM. The long term effects of these poisons on 

human health is only now being recognized. It should not be after the harm is done 

that we find alternate methods of invasive vegetation control, and stop the use of 

pesticides. We should be doing that now. Please adopt strong prevention-based 

practices for activities (livestock grazing, road construction and use, use of off-road 

vehicles, timber harvests, and fuel reduction projects) that encourage invasive plants. 

Response: The long-term effects of herbicide use are assessed in the human health 

risk assessment found in Appendix B of the PEIS. Prevention is discussed in Chapter 2 

of the Final PEIS and PER under Prevention of Weeds and Early Detection and Rapid 

Response. See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding the causes and vectors of weed 

spread. 

Comment: Early detection and rapid response to these invasive plants must be 

addressed. Only through the education of identifying these plant species to mapping 

them through some sort of GPS [Global Positioning System] system, and destroying 

them through spraying or mechanical means will we finally be able to get some sort of 

control over this growing problem in the West. 

Response: Prevention, Early Detection and Rapid Response, and mapping of 

infestations are part of the BLM’s ongoing invasive species management program and 

strategy. The program and strategy are discussed under Prevention of Weeds and Early 

Detection and Rapid Response in Chapter 2 of the PER and has been included in 

Chapter 2 of the Final PEIS. 

Comment: Until the agency takes a similar approach to that of the Forest Service who 

made a commitment to address prevention as part of its every day management 

decisions, and adopted an objective of reducing its reliance on herbicides, BLM’s 

proposed herbicide increase will only create a dependence on chemicals. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-244 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0496-003 

DeLong, Colleen 

EMC-0503-009 

John Day-Snake 

Resource Advisory 

Council 

EMC-0512-005 

Hells Canyon 

Preservation Council 

EMC-0575-003 

Davlantes, Nancy 

EMC-0584-025 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

Response: Prevention policies are already established within the BLM. See responses 

to Comment RMC-0218-005 under PEIS Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, 

Scope of Analysis, and Comment RMC-0218-030 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Description of the Alternatives regarding prevention. 

Comment: Focus foremost on managing lands to prevent new weed infestations. 

Response: See responses to Comments RMC-0222-059 and RMC-0214-029 under 

PEIS Alternatives, Prevention of Weeds and Early Detection and Rapid Response. 

Comment: There needs to be greater emphasis on prevention in the document. No 

clear text or guidance is given to prevention of weed infestations. The document does 

state several times the importance of prevention, but only states actions that ought to 

be taken, rather than establishing some policies which would more clearly assist with 

prevention (such as those established by FS [Forest Service] Region 6 (weed free hay 

requirements, vehicle washings, etc). 

Response: Prevention policies are already established within the BLM. See responses 

to Comment RMC-0218-005 under PEIS Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, 

Scope of Analysis, and Comment RMC-0218-030 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Description of the Alternatives regarding prevention. 

Comment: BLM has not taken effective steps to prevent invasive weed spread, and 

until you do so no herbicides should be used. 

Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0218-005 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis, and Comment RMC-0218-030 under PEIS 

Alternatives, Description of the Alternatives regarding prevention. The BLM has been 

aggressively implementing and stipulating prevention practices, as outlined in the 

BLM Partners Against Weeds - An Action Plan for the BLM (USDI BLM 1996). The 

BLM welcomes efforts to promote invasive species prevention on lands administered 

by the Forest Service, which provide additional coordinated and seamless prevention 

practices across agency jurisdictions. 

Comment: It is abundantly clear that the spread of invasive plants is caused by 

removal of native vegetation and ground disturbance by off-road vehicles, logging and 

grazing. BLM can stop the spread of invasive plant species by restricting or limiting 

these activities from intact native ecosystems, particularly in riparian areas. The PEIS 

offers none of these preventative management measures as an alternative to herbicide 

spraying – a major shortfall of the plan. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding causes and vectors of weed 

spread, and response to Comment RMC-0055-004 under PEIS Proposed Action and 

Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding limitations on public lands uses. 

Comment: Passive treatments primarily minimize site disturbance, and generally 

remove or minimize an environmental irritant that is affecting the health of the plant 

community. Thus, they have less risk of soil erosion, weed invasion or proliferation 

and other negative impacts associated with them. They also have a high probability of 

being beneficial to watersheds, native wildlife habitats and populations and the 

economic well-being of western communities that are increasingly dependent on 

tourism and recreational uses of public lands. An array of passive treatments (provided 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-245 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0584-038 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-068 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

to BLM in the RNEA [Restore Native Ecosystems Alternative]) exist that will enable 

BLM to treat many of the affected lands. Such treatments, wrongfully ignored by 

BLM, includes: Livestock grazing treatment: Livestock grazing treatments can reduce 

spread of flammable invasive species, heal damaged understories so that more natural, 

cool-burning fires can occur, and reduce the proliferation of doghair thickets of dense 

young trees which serve as ladder fuels. Treatments include significant reductions in 

livestock numbers accompanied by prudent utilization and trampling standards in plant 

communities found to have damaged understories vulnerable to invasion by 

flammable exotic species. Closure of pastures with known invasive species 

infestations. Closure of lands to grazing that have known exotic species infestations is 

a prudent first step toward control of spread of flammable, watershed-altering exotics. 

Closure of pastures “at risk” to weed invasion – such as any Wyoming big sagebrush, 

Basin big sagebrush, or juniper communities that still contain relatively intact 

understories. This [P]EIS process should map and identify such areas, as well as all 

areas where cheatgrass already dominates the understory. 

Livestock removal treatment: Grazing permit buyout and permit retirement using 

federal fire funds is a very reasonable treatment that will heal damaged lands, help 

restore natural fire cycles, minimize the spread of exotics and other hazardous fuels. 

Livestock facility removal treatment: Livestock facilities (fences, artificial watering 

sites – especially troughs associated with pipelines and water haul sites, corrals, etc.) 

serve as zones of livestock concentration, and result in areas of severe disturbance 

readily colonized by highly flammable exotic species. Removal of these facilities and 

restoration of disturbed zones will limit spread of invasive flammable species, and 

help develop healthy understories necessary to carry cool, light fires in surrounding 

lands. We are alarmed that BLM’s Draft [P]EIS casually casts aside Alternatives 

development based on a series of passive livestock treatments, and fails to adequately 

explain the ecological benefits of such treatments. 

Response: The benefits of passive treatments are described under Prevention of 

Weeds and Early Detection and Rapid Response in Chapter 2 of the Final PEIS and 

PER. See response to Comment RMC-0126-004 under PEIS Alternatives, Alternative 

E - No Use of Sulfonylurea and other Acetolactate Synthase-inhibiting Active 

Ingredients regarding analysis of the Restore Native Ecosystems alternative. See also 

response to Comment EMC-0525-012 under PEIS Proposed Action and Purpose and 

Need, Scope of Analysis regarding causes and vectors of invasive vegetation spread. 

Comment: Pristine and near-pristine lands should be protected using all possible 

techniques, especially passive restoration techniques such as immediate removal or 

reduction of livestock disturbance. Such lands typically serve as important habitats for 

native species and protection of biodiversity. Economically, it is a lot more costeffective to keep lands from becoming degraded than it is to conduct wide-scale 

treatments after they have become degraded. It is critical that a BLM Weed EIS 

[PEIS] do so. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0486-020 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management. The BLM agrees that it is more 

cost-effective to prevent lands from being degraded than to rehabilitate the lands after 

they are degraded. 

Comment: BLM never addresses an array of passive treatments in its PER, let alone 

under a range of alternatives in the [P]EIS, and the dramatically increased acreage. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-246 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0623-009 

Defenders of Wildlife 

EMC-0630-007 

Porter, Mark C. 

(Wallowa Resources) 

EMC-0630-008 

Porter, Mark C. 

(Wallowa Resources) 

Response: Passive treatments were included in the Standard Operating Procedures 

and mitigation in the PEIS, and were also considered in some detail for Alternative E. 

However, the focus of the PEIS and PER was on the effects of the treatments. 

Alternative C in the PEIS did evaluate the effects of not using herbicides, but the PER 

focused on the management of vegetation using prescribed fire, and manual, 

mechanical, and biological control techniques. Also see responses to Comments 

RMC-0222-005 under PEIS Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Organization of 

the Vegetation Treatments Assessments and Comment RMC-0222-006 under PEIS 

Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. 

Comment: Monitoring and Rapid Response. Ongoing monitoring and prevention 

need to become an integrated part of BLM’s response to invasive species. It has been 

proven time and again that eradication of new exotics, as well as controlling the spread 

of established invaders, is best accomplished when early detection and rapid response 

capabilities are in place. The BLM needs to investigate and expand its capacity 

building in early detection and rapid response. 

Response: See response to Comment FL-0004-010 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Prevention of Weeds and Early Detection and Rapid Response and the section on 

Prevention of Weeds and Early Detection and Rapid Response in Chapter 2 of the 

Final PEIS. 

Comment: Another aspect of the [P]EIS that could use more emphasis is the 

prevention of weeds. While mentioned in the document, it is a critical element of 

Integrated Weed Management and needs more detail. The use of certified weed free 

forage and mulch products should be required on all BLM lands and projects. The 

North American Weed Management Association has a developed a program and 

standards for certifying such products which is easily accessible at their website 

(http://www.nawma.org/ ). Their standards are very applicable to the Western US. 

Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0218-005 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis, and Comment RMC-0218-030 under PEIS 

Alternatives, Description of the Alternatives regarding prevention. BLM policies 

require certified weed-free forage and mulch, and the BLM collaborates with State 

Departments of Agriculture in developing weed-free standards based on the Weed 

Science Society of America certification standards. 

Comment: The [P]EIS should provide some prevention standards for all activities that 

happen on the BLM such as road work, grazing, recreational use, and logging (i.e. 

ATV’s [all-terrain vehicles]). Cleaning equipment, quarantining livestock before entry 

onto allotments if they are from out of the local area, or having completed a weed 

education course before being able to ride an ATV on BLM lands are some examples 

of such measures. 

Response: These practices are already being applied in the BLM and are part of 

existing management under all alternatives analyzed. Also see responses to Comment 

RMC-0218-005 under PEIS Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Scope of 

Analysis and Comment RMC-0218-030 under PEIS Alternatives, Description of the 

Alternatives regarding prevention practices. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-247 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0630-009 

Porter, Mark C. 

(Wallowa Resources) 

EMC-0641-006 

Idaho Conservation 

League 

EMC-0641-011 

Idaho Conservation 

League 

Comment: Finally, prevention standards need to recognize that members of the public 

who use BLM lands are critical partners in weed control. Prevention standards should 

not, in general, be penalties of use but rather means with which to enlist participation 

in the management of noxious weeds. 

Response: The BLM agrees with this comment. 

Comment: Purpose and Need for Action We believe that the BLM should take a 

strong leadership role in the proactive management of noxious and invasive weeds. 

The most effective way to do so is to focus on prevention by aggressively addressing 

root causes of noxious weed dispersal. The PER itself states that "prevention and 

detection is the cheapest and most effective weed control method" (p. 2-16 [of the 

Draft PER]). Yet neither the PER nor the PEIS considers prevention as a treatment 

method. Rather, the documents focus exclusively on reactive methods such as 

herbicide application, fire use, mechanical and manual treatments, and biological 

controls. Simply treating current infestations of weeds does little to prevent future 

problems and ensures that the cycle of treatment and infestation will continue into the 

foreseeable future. The BLM needs to consider alternatives that more directly and 

more aggressively seek to reduce activities that contribute to the spread of noxious 

weeds such as roads, irresponsible ORV [off-road vehicle] use, and grazing. Though 

we appreciate the BLM’s duty to manage public lands for multiple uses including 

grazing, OHV [off-highway vehicle] use, and energy/mineral development, we believe 

the BLM can and should do much more to promote more responsible and less 

ecologically destructive use. 

We recognize that the current [P]EIS is broad in scope and provides basic information 

to local BLM offices to assist them with the development of more specific weed 

management programs. Nonetheless, we feel it is critical that the BLM address root 

causes of the spread of noxious weeds at the programmatic level and to direct local 

BLM agencies to do the same at the RMP (Resource Management Plan] and 

implementation levels. A focus on the prevention of noxious weed infestations via the 

aggressive management of primary vectors should be uniform to all BLM agencies 

and management plans. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding causes and vectors of weed 

spread, and response to Comment RMC-0055-004 under PEIS Proposed Action and 

Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding limitations on public land uses. The 

Partners Against Weeds - An Action Plan for the BLM (USDI BLM 1996) outlines 

that BLM Resource Management Plans (RMPs) should address invasive species and 

provide appropriate goals, objectives, and management direction for invasive species. 

The BLM is currently in the process of a 10-year national level effort, which began in 

2000, to revise most of its existing land use plans. Direction for invasive species 

management, as well as off-highway vehicle management, among other programs, is 

being incorporated into these RMPs as they are revised, per direction outlined in 

Appendix C of the Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601-1 (2005). 

Comment: The BLM should strictly enforce ORV [off-road vehicle] regulations and 

initiate an aggressive campaign encouraging responsible use. As part of this decision, 

the BLM should encourage ORV users to clean off their vehicles at car washes before 

and after use. Signs identifying noxious weeds should be posted at the trailheads. The 

BLM should work with ORV clubs on a noxious weed control program in which club 

members hand pull weeds before they seed, similar to the “Adopt a Highway” 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-248 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0645-004 

Wroncy, Jan (Gaia 

Vision/Canaries Who 

Sing) 

EMC-0646-210 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

EMC-0646-211 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

program. 

Response: The BLM already has established relationships with ORV user groups for 

weed education and volunteer activities. Prevention measures including vehicle 

washing are encouraged and in applicable cases required as a term and condition of a 

land use authorization or permit. 

Comment: I was amazed to find that the comments I wrote to the BLM sixteen years 

ago regarding the proposed treatment of symptoms (invasive species) with herbicides 

on 13 Western States were still germane! Since that EIS, the BLM has done nothing in 

the “prevention” department, and has added more chemicals and more acreage to the 

proposal. This only proves BLM’s utter failure to grasp what is important here: 

prevention, passive and active restoration, native plants and seeds are the keys to 

dealing with invasive plants – not herbicide use! 

Response: The BLM disagrees with your comment regarding prevention. See 

responses to Comment RMC-0218-005 under PEIS Proposed Action and Purpose and 

Need, Scope of Analysis and Comment RMC-0218-030 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Description of the Alternatives. The BLM has been aggressively implementing and 

stipulating prevention practices, as outlined in the Partners Against Weeds - An Action 

Plan for the BLM (USDI BLM 1996). 

Comment: Focusing non-chemical control efforts along the river corridors, at trail 

heads and recreation locations, and along side roads would be an obvious starting 

point for reducing weed vectors. If prevention actions aren’t part of the proposed 

project, after a few years, following project completion, a new problem may arise, 

with possibly worse conditions. CATs [Californians for Alternatives to Toxics] 

questions the wisdom of the proposed herbicide related actions without a long-term 

game plan to manage invasive species in the project area, and hopes the BLM provides 

this as part of project NEPA documentation. 

Response: See responses to Comment EMC-0590-010 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management, Comment EMC-0590-012 under 

PEIS Alternatives, Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management, and Comment 

FL-0004-010 under PEIS Alternatives, Prevention of Weeds and Early Detection and 

Rapid Response. 

Comment: The standard Region 5 Forest Service prevention weed methods of 

washing heavy equipment and vehicles, weed free straw, and education of area users 

are a good start (USDA Forest Service 2000). While CATs applauds these efforts, we 

feel that more can, and should be done. The BLM must include those and additional 

methods as part of the proposed actions for this project to be successful. Immediate 

action, digging or pulling new infestations, post and pre project monitoring, and 

flagging and avoiding large infestations can all be effective. These are basic 

prevention methods commonly referred to by weed experts and utilized with success 

by many public land managers. 

Response: The sections on Herbicide Treatment Standard Operating Procedures 

(SOPs) and Guidelines in Chapter 2 of the Final PEIS and PER include a section on 

Prevention of Weeds and Early Detection and Rapid Response to include more 

information on and SOPs for prevention of the spread of weeds. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-249 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0646-212 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

EMC-0646-213 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

EMC-0646-214 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

EMC-0646-217 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

Comment: The BLM needs to develop a plan to deal with prevention, and eliminate 

disturbance factors that led to past, and will lead to future, invasive species distribution 

and establishment. Re-vegetation with desirable and competitive natives is essential, 

but timing and reduction of the seed bank first is essential to rehabilitation success. 

What specific activities on BLM public lands have facilitated invasive species 

infestations? What can the BLM do to limit future invasions? 

Response: See Chapter 2 of the Final PEIS and PER under Vegetation Treatment 

Standard Operating Procedures and Guidelines (Prevention of Weeds and Early 

Detection and Rapid Response) for information on prevention. 

Comment: Seed banks exist and one-time (or short term) herbicide spraying 

treatments will not prevent the weeds from returning and proliferating, most likely in 

greater numbers, as herbicide residues in the soil will kill any competitive natives. 

Each noxious or exotic weed species must be analyzed to determine the most effective 

treatment strategy. It appears that the BLM accepts the presence and proliferation of 

noxious weeds and cheatgrass, as the PEIS fails to disclose adequate prevention 

measures. 

Response: See responses to Comment EMC-0070-003 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis, Comment RMC-0217-031 under PEIS 

Alternatives, Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management, and Comment EMC0238-009 under PEIS Alternatives, Monitoring. 

Comment: Disturbances are likely to occur beyond what is described in PEIS or PER. 

The PEIS fails to even outline efforts to keep vehicles, machinery, or workers (shoe 

treads, clothing) clean of exotic seeds, the very least that can be expected. 

Unfortunately, while cleaning efforts will reduce the likelihood of seed dispersal, this 

approach is not fail-safe and in most cases avoidance is not feasible. It is possible 

however to set strict guidelines that weed infestations exceeding specific magnitudes 

of density or area will be avoided. Recent land management policy (USDA Forest 

Service) has suggested buffers established around weed populations are necessary to 

ensure their isolation (Lassen National Forest 2005, Clark 2003). Such mitigation will 

reduce the extent of future herbicide treatments deemed necessary for weed 

suppression. For this reason, among others described below, a more thorough analysis 

is required so that mitigations can be formed. 

Response: Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) to reduce the spread of weeds, 

including use of clean equipment that is free of plants and plant parts, are discussed in 

the PEIS and PER in Chapter 2 under Vegetation Treatment SOPs and Guidelines, and 

in Tables 2-8 (PEIS) and Table 2-5 (PER). These tables have been expanded to 

include more SOPs to prevent the spread of weeds. Although buffers may be useful in 

slowing the spread of weeds in some areas, new infestations may develop from wind 

dispersal of seeds from isolated sites, and buffers may be impractical for larger 

infestations. The objective of the PEIS and PER is to evaluate the treatment of 

vegetation. Isolation of weeds is not mitigation for the treatment of weeds. 

Comment: The exclusion of grazers from sensitive areas where weeds exist already or 

may spread to in order to facilitate the restructuring of soil, provide a competitive 

advantage to native perennials, and eliminate an additional vector of seed dispersal, is 

necessary to achieve the desired goals of the PEIS. The exclusion of grazers from 

existing infestations is most crucial and should be the bare minimum expected. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-250 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Response: As stated under Scope of Analysis in Chapter 1 of the PEIS, management 

of livestock grazing is outside the scope of the PEIS analysis. BLM policy is to 

exclude grazing for up to two growing seasons following reclamation or rehabilitation 

of public lands damaged thought wildfire or other activities, or until short-term 

objectives are met as determined through monitoring. Grazing use restrictions for 

specific areas are identified through terms and restriction of livestock grazing permits 

as determined through allotment evaluations and monitoring conducted under the 

grazing regulations at 43 CFR [Code of Federal Regulations] 4100. 

EMC-0646-227 Comment: The BLM needs to include steps to prevent the spread of weeds by both 

Californians for vehicles and especially off-road vehicles as part of its weed management strategy. The 

Alternatives to Toxics PEIS must analyze the impacts that off-road vehicles are having on the spread of 

invasive weed and thus the potential success of the proposed actions. 

Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0218-005 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis and Comment RMC-0218-030 under PEIS 

Alternatives, Description of the Alternatives regarding prevention. Off-road vehicle 

use is outside the scope of analysis of the PEIS. 

FL-0004-010 Comment: PEIS is in need of a section addressing Early Detection Rapid Response 

(EDRR). In Appendix D [of the Draft PEIS] the process to secure a new herbicide is 

2+ years. This is unacceptable for EDRR [Early Detection and Rapid Response]. 

There must be an approved procedure for EDRR in regard to herbicide use. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0566-008 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Prevention of Weeds and Early Detection and Rapid Response. EDRR is common to 

all alternatives. Chapter 2 of the PER under Herbicide Treatment Standard Operating 

Procedures describes standard operating procedures for prevention, and the BLM’s 

Partners Against Weeds - An Action Plan for the BLM (USDI BLM 1996) identifies 

further measures to prevent and reduce the introduction and spread of noxious and 

invasive weeds that can be incorporated into site-specific level actions. The BLM has 

included additional information on EDRR in Chapter 2 of the Final PEIS under 

Herbicide Treatment Standard Operating Procedures and Guidelines. 

FL-0007-007 Comment: [The] PEIS is in need of a section addressing Early Detection Rapid 

EMC-0214-049 Response (EDRR). In Appendix D the process to secure a new herbicide is 2+ years. 

EMC-0221-013 This is unacceptable for EDRR. There MUST be an approved procedure for EDRR in 

EMC-0256-003 regard to herbicide use. Example: A process modeled after EPA/FIFRA [Federal 

EMC-0272-003 Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act] Section 18, to allow temporary, targeted 

EMC-0299-003 new herbicide use by limited BLM district(s) while the appendix D [in the Draft PEIS] 

EMC-0305 protocol is in process. Following NEPA, an EA should be sufficient for this very 

EMC-0325-008 small-scale use that is typical of an EDRR because, due to the small area treated, there 

EMC-0328 would be no significant effect. 

EMC-0332 

EMC-0347 Response: The BLM supports the principles associated with the EDRR system, and is 

EMC-0348 committed to addressing new infestations of invasive species as they are found. In an 

EMC-0368 integrated pest management approach, several management options are available to 

EMC-0370 the land manager. In addressing the problem, should an herbicide be the management 

EMC-0371 option of choice, the land manager upon evaluating several factors associated with the 

EMC-0376-008 infestation (including species of interest, location of infestation, characteristics 

EMC-0382 associated with the infestation, and other factors), would have several active 

EMC-0387 ingredients to consider along with their different formulations, as a result of 

EMC-0388 information presented in the Final PEIS. The BLM is in the process of establishing a 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-251 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0390 

EMC-0391 

EMC-0392 

EMC-0393 

EMC-0394 

EMC-0399 

MEC-0400 

EMC-0418 

EMC-0422 

EMC-0427 

EMC-0431 

EMC-0433 

EMC-0438 

EMC-0443 

EMC-0482 

EMC-0483-011 

EMC-0501 

EMC-0578 

EMC-0596 

FXC-0032-005 

Germino, Matthew J. 

(Idaho State 

University) 

RMC-0006-024 

Central Sierra 

Environmental 

Resource Center 

RMC-0006-032 

Central Sierra 

Environmental 

Resource Center 

RMC-0128-003 

Shoemaker, Bob (Platte 

County Weed and Pest 

Control District) 

policy regarding the use of herbicides not presently approved for use on lands they 

administer (see Appendix E of the Final PEIS). Such a policy will follow NEPA 

guidelines and may involve specific mitigation measures. 

Comment: The BLM should pursue a course of action that addresses the cause of 

invasions, and should not consider mass application of herbicide or other reactiveeradication measures. Actions that address the susceptibility of BLM lands to initial 

invasion and long-term persistence of weeds are the only path towards economically 

and environmentally sounds and pro-active control measures. As the attached 

manuscript suggests, land uses and revegetation with only grasses probably contribute 

to the susceptibility of communities to persistence of weeds. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding causes and vectors of weed 

spread. 

Comment: The continued spread of exotic-invasive weeds should be prevented prior 

to allowing any use of herbicide treatments. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. 

Comment: The BLM needs to develop and implement innovative policies focused on 

reducing and preventing invasions of new weed species. Dollars invested in prevention 

would be well spent if such expenditures can curtail a potential loss of billions of 

dollars to agricultural and environmental weed problems in the future. 

Response: The BLM agrees that prevention is important for containing costs and 

invasions of new weed species. Also see response to Comment FL-0004-010 under 

PEIS Alternatives, Prevention of Weeds and Early Detection and Rapid Response. 

Comment: Thank you for extending the comment period. It is important to make 

provisions to be able to respond very quickly to new weeds as they appear. It would be 

a good idea to get the BLM involved with the Early Detection Rapid Response 

Program. An emergency herbicide approval procedure should be included to allow this 

program to work as it was intended. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-252 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0144-009 

Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department 

RMC-0163-002 

Skrine, Eugene 

RMC-0172-003 

Phillips County Weed 

Board 

RMC-0200-005 

Lindsay, Dianne 

Response: See Prevention of Weeds and Early Detection and Rapid Response under 

Vegetation Treatment Standard Operating Procedures and Guidelines in Chapter 2 of 

the Final PER for a discussion of Early Detection and Rapid Response. The proposed 

protocol for approval of additional herbicides for use on public lands is described in 

Appendix E of the Final PEIS. The BLM has the flexibility to respond proactively to 

new infestations of invasive species without an emergency herbicide approval 

procedure. 

Comment: The analysis failed to thoroughly discuss, analyze and evaluate more 

passive, long-term management actions. Section 2-8 in the Treatment [Draft] PER 

lightly touched on programs and actions to prevent or minimize the need for 

treatments in the long-term. In 50 to 100 or more years, these passive actions may 

make a large difference in terms of effectiveness of the treatments and reduction in 

management costs associated with treatment re-entry. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0167-007 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis Also see Vegetation Treatment Standard 

Operating Procedures and Guidelines in Chapter 2 of the PEIS and PER for a 

discussion on passive treatment methods. 

Comment: The use of herbicides is not the only way to meet this need. Preventing the 

introduction, establishment and spread of invasive plants in the first place is the best 

approach to meeting the underlying need for action. Why isn’t invasive plant 

prevention addressed and emphasized in this EIS? 

Response: The BLM agrees that prevention is the best approach. See Prevention of 

Weeds and Early Detection and Rapid Response in Chapter 2 of the PEIS and PER for 

a discussion of prevention and early detection. This discussion has been expanded to 

better highlight the role prevention takes in an integrated pest management program. 

Comment: Specifically, the Phillips County Weed Board supports Alternative B. This 

alternative provides the most progressive approach to the invasive weed issue. 

Additionally, PEIS is in need of a section addressing Early Detection Rapid Response 

(EDRR). In Appendix D [of the Draft PEIS], the process to secure a new herbicide is 

2+ years. This is unacceptable for EDRR. There must be an approved procedure for 

EDRR in regard to herbicide use. 

Response: See Section on Prevention of Weeds and EDRR in Chapter 2 of the Final 

PEIS. Also see response to Comment EMC-0566-008 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Prevention of Weeds and Early Detection and Rapid Response. There is nothing in the 

protocol that precludes the BLM from implementing EDRR with available tools and 

approved herbicides. 

Comment: The PEIS/PER fails to address prevention of the weed problem. 

Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0218-005 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis and Comment RMC-0218-030 under PEIS 

Alternatives, Description of the Alternatives regarding prevention. Prevention is 

discussed under Prevention of Weeds and Early Detection and Rapid Response in 

Chapter 2 of the Final PER and PEIS. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-253 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0210-040 

MCS Task Force of 

New Mexico 

RMC-0214-029 

Natural Resources 

Defense Council and 

National Wildlife 

Federation 

RMC-0218-005 

Blue Mountains 

Biodiversity Project, 

League of Wilderness 

Defenders 

Comment: The primary focus of weed control should be on prevention, by 

minimizing factors that foster weed establishment or spread, such as ground-disturbing 

activities associated with livestock grazing, logging, mining, road and other 

construction, and off-road vehicles, as well as only using 100% weed-free seed for 

revegetation. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding causes and vectors of weed 

spread and response to Comment RMC-0055-004 under PEIS Proposed Action and 

Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding limitations on public lands uses. It is 

BLM policy is to utilize weed-free seed for all revegetation projects. 

Comment: The Singularly Most Effective Strategy is Not Even Considered— 

Prevention. The BLM in the D[raft] PEIS ignores almost without exception 

“prevention” as a primary mean to address the spread of invasive species. The most 

effective treatment within the realm of Integrated Pest Management is preventing the 

spread of invasive species to begin with—biologically and economically. 

Response: As discussed in Chapter 2 of the PER, under Vegetation Treatment 

Standard Operating Procedures and Guidelines, prevention is identified as the cheapest 

and most effective weed control method, and prevention and early detection strategies 

could reduce the number of acres treated for noxious weeds in the future. We have 

included additional information on weed prevention strategies in the Final PER and 

PEIS under Prevention of Weeds and Early Detection and Rapid Response. 

Comment: “The purposes of the proposed action 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.” (DEIS [Draft PEIS], p, 1-3) This 

automatically biases the decision toward their preferred action alternative, which is 

illegal under the National Environmental Policy Act. Such a narrow and mechanistic 

focus also de-emphasizes the whole range of prevention measures that could be 

implemented to limit invasive plant introduction and spread, such as weed-free 

livestock feed requirements; keeping livestock, heavy equipment and off-road vehicles 

out of invasive weed-infested areas; vehicle inspections and cleaning; limits on forest 

canopy removal and ground-disturbing activities which encourage invasive exotics; 

public education and re-planting native plants in disturbed areas, etc. 

Response: The Proposed Action (Alternative B; see Chapter 2 of the PEIS) and 

Purpose and Need (see Chapter 1 of the PEIS) provide the context for the analysis of 

the alternatives. The alternative analysis compares and contrasts the environmental 

effects of continuing present practices with regard to herbicide use, the BLM’s 

proposed action to use additional herbicide formulations, the effects that would result 

if no herbicides were used, the environmental effects on public lands resources if 

herbicides were used without the techniques of aerial spraying, and consideration of 

eliminating certain classes of ALS (acetolactate synthase)-inhibiting herbicides. The 

analysis is appropriate to support the decisions to be made and is not illegal under 

NEPA. See response to Comment RMC-0167-002 and Comment RMC-0167-007 

under PEIS Alternatives, Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management regarding 

prevention measures. Prevention is discussed under Prevention of Weeds and Early 

Detection and Rapid Response in Chapter 2 of the PEIS and PER. The BLM Partners 

Against Weeds - An Action Plan for the BLM (USDI BLM 1996) details the prevention 

measures for the BLM to follow, which include but are not limited to weed-free 

livestock feed requirements; keeping livestock, heavy equipment and off-road vehicles 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-254 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0218-028 

Blue Mountains 

Biodiversity Project, 

League of Wilderness 

Defenders 

RMC-0221-018 

Center for Biological 

Diversity 

RMC-0221-019 

Center for Biological 

Diversity 

RMC-0221-020 

Center for Biological 

Diversity 

out of invasive weed-infested areas; vehicle inspections and cleaning; limits on forest 

canopy removal and ground-disturbing activities that encourage invasive exotics; 

public education; and re-planting native plants in disturbed areas. The BLM PAW 

Action Plan has been implemented for over a decade, and there is no implied deemphasis in the PEIS of continuing with sound and prudent prevention practices in 

public lands resource management. 

Comment: Prevention of introduction and dispersal of invasive exotic plants should 

have been the overriding priority and emphasis in all of the BLM’s action alternatives 

and thoroughly discussed and laid out as a strategic plan – treating symptoms 

endlessly with more and more toxic herbicide use does not address the causes of the 

problem and therefore does not meet the purpose and need of the project without a 

carefully planned prevention program. 

Response: Prevention is discussed in Chapter 2 of the Final PEIS and PER (Herbicide 

Treatment Standard Operating Procedures and Guidelines). The PEIS was developed 

to assess the impacts of herbicide use in vegetation treatments across a range of 

activities, including hazardous fuels reduction and habitat enhancement. The purpose 

of the PEIS was not to develop a strategic plan focusing on exotic plants, as discussed 

in Chapter 1 of the PEIS under Scope of Analysis. 

Comment: The proposed project reviewed in the D[raft] PEIS offers none of these 

preventative measures as vegetation treatments, and it is a major shortfall of the 

framing of the scope of the project. 

Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0167-007 and Comment EMC-0590-010 

under PEIS Alternatives, Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management regarding 

prevention measures. See response to Comment RMC-0055-004 under PEIS Proposed 

Action and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding curtailment of public land 

uses as a prevention measure. 

Comment: The BLM also failed to discuss or determine the benefits of passive 

restoration, including the removal of livestock and off-highway vehicles from weed 

infested or otherwise disturbed areas. The D[raft] PEIS entirely neglects the effects of 

livestock on weeds species; and the D[raft] PEIS fails to compare alternatives that 

incorporate passive restoration treatment. 

Response: The benefits of passive restoration are discussed in the PER under Chapter 

4, Effects of Vegetation Treatments. The comparison of alternatives in the PEIS is 

germane to the Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, as stated in Chapter 1 of the 

PEIS. Passive treatment, where appropriate, is an option that may be considered by the 

authorized officer in the design for any vegetation treatment project. 

Comment: While the D[raft] PER does discuss prevention, minimization, and nonchemical treatments, it is entirely unclear how the BLM intended the two documents 

to relate to each other. For example, the D[raft] PER states that when developing 

treatment objectives, the BLM will first take actions to prevent or minimize the need 

for vegetation controls and use effective, non-chemical solutions. However, the D[raft] 

PEIS proposes the use of herbicides without including any discussion of prevention 

and minimization or prioritization of non-chemical solutions. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0505-008 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-255 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0222-022 

Salvo, Mark 

(Sagebrush Sea 

Campaign), Cox, 

Caroline (Northwest 

Coalition for 

Alternatives to 

Pesticides), and 

O’Brien, Mary 

RMC-0222-034 

Salvo, Mark 

(Sagebrush Sea 

Campaign), Cox, 

Caroline (Northwest 

Coalition for 

Alternatives to 

Pesticides), and 

O’Brien, Mary 

RMC-0222-037 

Salvo, Mark 

(Sagebrush Sea 

Campaign), Cox, 

Caroline (Northwest 

Coalition for 

Alternatives to 

Pesticides), and 

O’Brien, Mary 

Comment: When preventative actions and restoration treatments (potentially 

including passive treatments) are linked to the judicious use of herbicides, the 

herbicide use will have far more lasting, positive results (i.e., efficacy) than spraying 

invasive species while leaving intact the activities that fostered the introduction, 

establishment and spread of invasive species. This is, in popular parlance, a “nobrainer.” Yet this DEIS [Draft PEIS] insists on disconnecting herbicide use from any 

other management on BLM lands and then purports to estimate the benefits of 

herbicide spraying apart from other preceding or subsequent non-chemical treatments. 

The benefits/costs of herbicide use alone versus herbicide use limited and conditioned 

by priorities for prevention and non-chemical passive and/or active restoration must be 

analyzed in the [P]EIS. 

Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding causes and vectors of weed 

spread, Comment RMC-0055-004 under PEIS Proposed Action and Purpose and 

Need, Scope of Analysis regarding limitations on uses of public lands, Comment 

RMC-0218-005 under PEIS Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Scope of 

Analysis, and Comment RMC-0218-030 under PEIS Alternatives, Description of the 

Alternatives regarding prevention. See Scope of Analysis in Chapter 1 of the PEIS. 

The management of resource programs is properly addressed through land use 

planning. Herbicides are used in an integrated pest management context that includes 

consideration of prevention, non-chemical treatment and passive or active restoration, 

prior to a herbicide project being proposed. 

Comment: But annual herbicide use prescribed for 900,000 acres by the DEIS [Draft 

PEIS] is itself a “vegetation and land use management practice.” So, given the [P]EIS 

purpose (i.e., to describe the conditions and limitations that apply to herbicide use), 

this [P]EIS is the appropriate place in which to analyze the Restoration Alternative’s 

approach to conditioning and limiting use of herbicides, including linking prevention 

to herbicide use, for its direct, indirect, and cumulative beneficial impacts. 

Response: As discussed in Chapter 2 of the PEIS and PER, prevention is an important 

element of all alternatives, not just the Restoration Alternative’s approach. Also see 

responses to Comment RMC-0222-059 and Comment RMC-0214-029 under PEIS 

Alternatives, Prevention of Weeds and Early Detection and Rapid Response. 

Comment: The BLM must analyze the consequences for herbicide use of herbicide 

treatments being linked to prevention. The DEIS [Draft PEIS] has not done this, and 

then the BLM expects the public to fund and acquiesce each year to toxic applications 

on 930,000 acres of the land the BLM is charged with managing each year, even 

though much of the toxic applications will be doomed to failure because of the BLM’s 

failure to explicitly link their applications of toxic chemicals to prevention of the need 

for at least some toxic applications. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0222-024 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Alternative E - No Use of Sulfonylurea and other Acetolactate Synthase-inhibiting 

Active Ingredients regarding prevention and its relationship to all alternatives. See 

response to Comment RMC-0167-002 under PEIS Alternatives, Vegetation Treatment 

Planning and Management regarding project design using herbicides. Herbicides are 

considered effective in controlling certain vegetation. Herbicide methods are applied 

under an integrated pest management framework, which includes prevention practices. 

Claims that the BLM’s application of herbicides is doomed to failure are 

unsubstantiated. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-256 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0222-059 Comment: Chapter 2 of the Programmatic Environmental Report does not indicate 

Salvo, Mark that passive restoration treatments would be considered “first” when developing 

(Sagebrush Sea restoration management plans, nor does it indicate that it would be used “to the extent 

Campaign), Cox, possible within the constraints of FLPMA [Federal Land Policy and Management 

Caroline (Northwest Act].” It doesn’t even use the words passive restoration. 

Coalition for 

Alternatives to Response: As noted in several places in Chapter 2 of the PER and PEIS, and in 

Pesticides), and particular under Vegetation Treatment Standard Operating Procedures and Guidelines, 

O’Brien, Mary prevention and early detection of weeds is identified as the cheapest and most effective 

weed control method. Prevention and early detection are passive restoration 

techniques that can lead to a reduction in the number of acres that are actively treated. 

This section also notes that the BLM must manage livestock, recreation, and other 

land uses to minimize the introduction and spread of weeds. 

Alternatives, Revegetation 

EMC-0115-006 Comment: The most important question I can ask at this time is does BLM have the 

Steele , Mark several million pounds of native grass seed to restore the land immediately after 

spraying to try and insure cheatgrass does not come back the next year from lack of 

enough grass competition? If not, then we begin a cycle of spray, plant, and pray, and 

are at the mercy of the weather and other factors. Those of us with a history of CRP 

[Conservation Reserve Program] and disturbances from natural gas pipelines, drought 

years, and competition among weeds and the commercial grasses we planted, would 

have a concern about starting an ongoing program that may never really see an end. 

That has to be balanced with the need to fight the invasion of cheatgrass. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0584-095 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Herbicide Treatment Planning. 

EMC-0115-007 Comment: If the BLM does not have on hand several million pounds of the various 

Steele , Mark native grass seeds for the areas in question (and I doubt they do because of the very 

nature of the grasses and lack of commercial growing), then other grasses will have to 

be used. A monoculture of thousands of acres of crested wheatgrass may not be much 

better than the same amount in cheatgrass. The reseeding needs to be done in native 

species that have evolved over the thousands of years to compete here. Those same 

species do very well, when established and not disturbed on the surface, against most 

invasive weeds like cheatgrass. Leafy spurge and a few other specific weeds can infest 

native grasses, but we are mostly concerned with cheatgrass, which has a hard time 

competing against established native grasses and plants. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0623-007 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Herbicide Treatment Standard Operating Procedures. 

EMC-0125-003 Comment: First, herbicide use, without proactive reseeding and aggressive changes in 

Seastedt, Timothy R. management, will fail to solve this problem. The work will provide cosmetic, shortterm effects only. This is not good science, nor is it effective use of taxpayer resources. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0222-019 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management regarding the BLM’s Integrated pest 

management approach to vegetation treatments. 

EMC-0139-019 Comment: One final comment. The BLM should address a program of acquiring a 

Troutman, Doug continuous source of native seeds and plants for restocking wherever fire, chemical or 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-257 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0234-009 

Dremann, Craig 

EMC-0234-013 

Dremann, Craig 

EMC-0234-016 

Dremann, Craig 

EMC-0234-018 

Dremann, Craig 

other means is used to “treat” the land. Only by the total exclusion of such seedings as 

“Crested Cheatgrass” – crested wheatgrass, will range trends truly improve on the 

public lands. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0584-077 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Herbicide Treatment Planning. 

Comment: No herbicide spray program will ever manage the cheatgrass in the Great 

Basin, because there is no longer a sufficient native seed source in the vicinity to 

naturally restore the cheatgrass areas after spraying. 

Response: It is BLM policy that natural recovery by native plant species is preferable 

to planting or seeding (BLM Handbook 1742-1 Burned Area Emergency Stabilization 

and Rehabilitation), but where native seedbanks have been depleted, native seed is 

applied. Also see response to Comment EMC-0584-095 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Herbicide Treatment Planning. 

Comment: In the last decade, the agency has never involved the Ecological 

Restoration professionals, because their agency annual budget from Congress to 

manage exotics annually on their land has only been 3 cents per acre. So the lack of 

exotic plant management funds, and the lack of professional consultation has left the 

agency without any successful restoration technologies or any knowledge on how to 

achieve the “Restore Option”. 

Response: The claim the BLM has never consulted with ecological restoration 

professionals is unsubstantiated. See response to Comment RMC-0167-008 under 

PEIS Alternatives, Decisions to be Made and Scope of Analysis. 

Comment: Regarding the [Draft] PEIS [PER], Chapter 4, Effects of Vegetation 

Treatment: 13.) Page 4-26 [of the Draft PER], Standard Operating Procedure: “The 

goal of revegetation is to stabilize and restore vegetation on a disturbed site and to 

eliminate or reduce the conditions that favor invasive species.” That is a nice statement 

in the document, but for the last 50 years, BLM has done everything in their power to 

avoid doing that, by intentionally sowing millions of pounds annually of exotic and 

invasive non-native invasive species. How can we believe that the BLM, after these 

documents are approved, will start to do anything that they are claiming in these 

documents, and not just continue to sow another million pounds of exotic seeds in 

2006? 

Response: The seed mixtures utilized by BLM, which may include non-native 

species, are not considered to be exotic species or invasive non-native species. Please 

refer to Chapter 1 of the PER, Terminology, for definitions of what is considered to be 

exotic and invasive vegetation. Also see response to Comment EMC-0234-024 under 

PEIS Alternatives, Herbicide Treatment Planning. 

Comment: The issue of fire being useful as a “restoration” tool is only applicable, if 

there still exists in the soil-seed bank, any of the native understory and fire-colonizing 

seeds to sprout after the fire. According to a survey of the Great Basin that I conducted 

in 1997, better than 90% of the Great Basin’s native shrub understory (grasses and 

forbs) has been extinct for such a long period of time (>100 years), that the native 

seeds in the soil-seed bank have been dead for decades. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-258 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0234-019 

Dremann, Craig 

EMC-0234-022 

Dremann, Craig 

EMC-0234-023 

Dremann, Craig 

Response: Revegetation is discussed in Chapter 2 of the PEIS and PER under 

Revegetation. It states, “Reseeding or replanting may be required to revegetate sites in 

which the soil has been disturbed or vegetation removed, and where there is 

insufficient vegetation or seed stores to naturally revegetate the site.” The section 

further lays out Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for the BLM to follow when 

revegetating sites. These SOPs include using weed-free seed, revegetating soon after 

treatment is completed, cleaning equipment to remove weed seeds, and using nonnatives only when locally adapted native seed is not available. The Native Plant 

Materials Development program is supported by the BLM fire program. This program 

is working towards developing an extensive supply of locally adapted native seed for 

the multitude of ecoregions that the BLM manages. 

Comment: Even in areas of BLM land where the native understory plants are still 

abundant, and are still producing seeds in the Great Basin, there exists a modern 

paradox-that even if 200 pounds of local native understory seeds per acre were applied 

to 80% of the Great Basin soils, that the seedlings would not survive. You can see 

pictures at http://www.ecoseeds.com/good.exaple.html. I’m certain that the $2.3 

million USDA/BLM project discovered that dying seedling paradox in their test plots 

also, at http://www.ecoseeds.com/2.3million.html so I’m referencing their conclusions 

when they are published, in my comments. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0623-007 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Herbicide Treatment Standard Operating Procedures. The Native Plant Materials 

program covers BLM lands across all states with BLM lands, not just in the Great 

Basin. The BLM has been consistently increasing their knowledge regarding the 

planting of local natives through interagency efforts which include pollination studies, 

genetic variability tests, and development of seed transfer zones. 

Comment: BLM has no current knowledge on how to replant local native understory 

plants (grasses and forbs), and for 50 years BLM has resorted to the sowing millions 

of pounds of exotic and invasive non-native seeds, in the States that this document 

covers. Page 4-95 [of the Draft PER] states: “Treatments that control populations of 

non-native species on public lands would be expected to aid in the re-establishment of 

native plant species. The use of fire, herbicides, or other treatment methods to simply 

kill vegetation is often inadequate, especially for large infestations. Thus, the BLM 

would introduce and establish competitive plants to successfully manage weed 

infestations and restore desirable plant communities (Jacobs et al. 1999).” 

Unfortunately, for the last 50 years, to BLM, “Competitive plants” and “Desirable” 

plant communities also included the sowing of exotic and invasive plant seeds by the 

millions of pounds per year, like Crested Wheatgrass, Smooth Brome, Intermediate 

Wheatgrass, etc. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0234-019 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Herbicide Treatment Planning. 

Comment: All aerial and most hand-seeding of Great Basin understory plants (grasses 

and forbs) does not work. Page 4-114 [of the Draft PER] states: “Aerial reseeding 

would also be allowed to restore natural vegetation.” Yes, that would be a good plan if 

it would work, but it doesn’t and it will not, as BLM knows it, and that’s why that 

suggestion has no references next to it. 

Response: The BLM has found the use of aerial reseeding, especially after wildfire, to 

be useful and cost efficient. The use of mechanical and manual methods for reseeding 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-259 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0234-024 

Dremann, Craig 

EMC-0238-008 

California Partners in 

Flight 

in designated wilderness or Wilderness Study Areas is often precluded by policy and 

physical restrictions for manual and mechanical methods due to lack of access, terrain, 

remoteness, and the general incompatibility of mechanical equipment with wilderness 

and wilderness values. Where revegetation goals allow, aerial reseeding is a cost 

efficient and effective method of seed dispersal in areas of terrain otherwise 

inaccessible. Success of any reseeding is dependent on several factors, including but 

not limited to available moisture, soil characteristics, and time of year. Reseeding 

provides an opportunity to revegetate unstable soils and control erosion following fire, 

to reduce potential degradation of wilderness values. 

Comment: Herbicides cannot restore native vegetation or restore natural ecosystem 

processes. Page 4-163 [page 4-136 of the PER] states: ”Herbicides would be used to 

treat vegetation to... restore native vegetation, and restore natural ecosystem 

processes,” but there’s no supporting documents. It’s as if BLM has a big wish for that 

to happen, but all the Ecological Restoration professionals know that herbicides will 

not restore the native vegetation or restore the native ecosystem processes in the Great 

Basin. The only option is seeding of the local native understory (grasses and forbs). 

Response: It is true that seeding is an important component of restoration in the Great 

Basin. Several long-term projects are currently in place in the Great Basin under the 

auspices of the Great Basin Restoration Initiative (Great Basin Native Plant Selection 

and Increase Project, Integrating Weed Control and Restoration, A Regional 

Experiment to Evaluate Effects of Fire and Fire Surrogate Treatments in the Sagebrush 

Biome). These projects are making great strides in restoration with and without 

herbicides. Results will most likely vary due to site-specific variables, but seeding will 

most certainly be a component leading to success. At the local level, the integrated 

weed management process will help the BLM determine the appropriate combination 

of treatment and restoration requirements, including type of seeding. 

To ensure that suitable native species are made available, the Native Plant Materials 

Development program (a Congressionally directed interagency program) has been in 

place since 2001. This program is funded primarily through federal fire appropriations 

(emergency fire rehabilitation funding). Its purpose is to manage and supply native 

plant materials for use in federal land for rehabilitation and restoration efforts. 

Creating a native plant material supply takes time, research into the use of the proper 

locally adapted seed, and a long-term commitment to reach the supply level required. 

Efforts have been successful in moving toward such a goal; commercial native grass 

seed growers are on the increase. 

Comment: CalPIF supports another recommendation in Alternative E that we believe 

will be a critical component of success for the herbicide treatment program. In the 

overarching discussion covering all of the Alternatives, BLM has taken the position 

that it will only use native plants in its post-treatment vegetation work. CalPIF strongly 

supports that position. We urge BLM to resist using non-native plant species in posttreatment revegetation other than as an initial step in the long-term establishment of 

native vegetation. We support the following recommendations for the use of native 

plants put forth under the Revegetation section of Alternative E, and recommend they 

be incorporated as part of the final planning document: 

• In revegetation efforts, whenever it is possible to do so, use native seed and 

seedlings that have been grown from seeds of locally adapted populations. 

• If native seeds/plants are not available, revegetation projects will rarely be 

undertaken until native plant seed or plants become available. Non-native 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-260 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0446-042 

The Nature 

Conservancy 

EMC-0498-008 

Vallone, Cheryl L. 

EMC-0541-012 

Associated Oregon 

Loggers 

plant species will be used only in extremely degraded/severely altered 

systems as an intermediate step toward/placeholder for native restoration. 

• When reseeding with non-native species, certification must be provided that 

only species that have been documented as non-persistent are present in the 

seeding mixture. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0584-077 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Herbicide Treatment Planning. BLM policies are in concert with the majority of 

recommendations listed in this comment. Revegetation projects may need to take place 

prior to native seed availability, though, to ensure stability and reduce risk of noxious 

weed infestation. Once seed is available, restoration efforts would take place based on 

the local office priorities. The BLM also has policy that no noxious or invasive plant 

seeds be part of seed mixtures (established both in BLM Handbook 1742-1 [Burned 

Area Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation] and a 2006 Instructional 

Memorandum). 

Comment: In much of the Intermountain West where downy brome (Bromus 

tectorum) has invaded, fire frequency has been greatly increased, leading to the 

destruction of native plant and animal communities and the perpetuation of downy 

brome domination. Projects to restore healthy native plant communities as well as to 

restore historic fire regimes are needed in these areas in addition to or instead of fuels 

treatment projects. Only one paragraph ([Draft[ PER [page] 2-3) discusses the BLM’s 

native plant initiative, which has a goal of increasing native seed production for 

restoration use on 500,000 acres per year. The amount of seed production projected 

appears to be inadequate to meet the needs of fire rehabilitation (which treats 1.5 

million acres per year), resource management needs (1.0 million acres per year) and 

restoration of historic fire regimes in altered landscapes (over 1.0 million acres per 

year). The PER should integrate the goals and funding of this program with both the 

fuels reduction and the burned area rehabilitation programs in these documents. 

Response: Fuels treatments reduce hazardous fuels to a level where restoration of 

healthy plant communities and the return of more natural fire intervals will be 

successful. Without such treatments, restoration projects may fail as a result of 

unnaturally intense wildfire. The initiative referred to in the comment is the Great 

Basin Restoration Initiative, and the acreage referenced is only applicable to the Great 

Basin. On a larger scale, the Native Plant Materials Development program is a 

Congressionally-directed program that has been in place since 2001 and is funded 

primarily through federal fire management appropriations (emergency fire 

rehabilitation funding). Its purpose is to develop a program to manage and supply 

native plant materials for use in rehabilitation and restoration efforts on federal land. 

Creating a native plant material supply requires time, use of the appropriate locally 

adapted seed, and a long-term commitment to reach the supply level required. So far, 

efforts have been successful in moving toward program goals; commercial native 

grass seed growers are on the increase. 

Comment: Follow all control efforts with restoration of native plant species. 

Response: Revegetation of disturbed or treated sites is discussed in Chapter 2 of the 

PER under Vegetation Treatment Standard Operating Procedures and Guidelines. 

Comment: Herbicide use must be an available tool to direct rapid establishment of 

reforestation, and “free-to-grow” status, after any harvest or stand damage. The current 

BLM reforestation backlog of poorly-stocked stands is abysmal, in part due to 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-261 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0584-012 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

unnecessary herbicide use obstacles. This problem must be corrected to accomplish 

forest sustainability. Such a backlog is illegal for non-federal forest landowners in 

Oregon. Why do BLM managers blatantly disregard Oregon reforestation law? You 

might not be aware that the Oregon Forest Practices Act requires any landowner 

[including BLM] to reforest stands to “free to grow” standards within six years of 

completion of commercial activities, when stocking levels drop below legal standards. 

[Refer to ORS 527.745 and OAR 629-610-0000 to 629-610-0090]. While the BLM 

seldom harvests many burned areas, nonetheless commercial activities do occur across 

these burned forests—which might be construed as commercial [such as a single tree 

planting, fireline construction, contract firefighting, erosion control, riparian 

improvement, or grass seeding]. 

Response: The BLM agrees that successful reforestation is a vital component of a 

sustainable forest management program. And in certain situations, the use of 

herbicides to control competing vegetation is an important tool toward ensuring timely 

and successful reforestation. While the BLM strives for timely reforestation of all 

forest lands following commercial harvest activities and catastrophic events, such as 

wildfire, the federal government is not subject to state law unless Congress explicitly 

directs it. Congress has not made the public lands in Oregon subject to the Oregon 

Forest Practices Act. The focus of the PEIS and PER is on restoring the health and 

vigor of vegetation communities on BLM-administered lands. As such, these 

documents do not address the need for rapid reforestation following commercial 

timber harvest activities. The use of pesticides to promote forest growth on BLMmanaged lands in western Oregon will be addressed in the step down NEPA process 

that will follow the completion this PEIS and PER. 

Comment: We are alarmed that BLM in the PEIS avoids focus on treating the 

extensive crested wheatgrass and other seedings that have so altered and largely 

destroyed wildlife habitats, and which often form the basis of stocking excessive 

numbers of livestock that also affect native vegetation in or near these seedings. Many 

crested wheatgrass seedings that resulted in the aftermath of past treatments have 

become infested with cheatgrass, halogeton or other weeds and now contain 

continuous fine fuels. In many seedings, exotics such as crested wheatgrass have been 

planted at unnaturally thick densities, and thus present an increased fire risk, or have 

significant components of cheatgrass in understories. Large wildfires sweep across 

such seedings - as in the 2005 Clover fire in the Jarbidge Field Office. The harm and 

fragmentation of native species habitats caused by these seedings must be assessed – 

as it is important to in understanding their role in habitat fragmentation on top of the 

extensive alterations of habitat proposed by BLM under the DEIS [Draft PEIS]/PER. 

Both the Jarbidge and Burley BLM lands provide a perfect example of a woefully 

fragmented landscape where crested wheatgrass seedings have greatly fragmented 

sage grouse habitats across middle to lower elevations, and many are in very poor 

condition and have rampant cheatgrass, halogeton and other problems – as well as loss 

of forage. Yet, in Burley, BLM persists in promoting the killing of native vegetation 

(junipers, mountain big sagebrush, pinyon, and other species) in the Jim Sage and 

other areas, while ignoring the habitat loss, and weed and fire risks, posed by the 

crested wheatgrass and other purposefully altered lands, including those BLM itself 

“treated” with fire and which have become weedlands. The Weed [P]EIS/PER 

continues blindly down this same path. 

Response: The Scope of Analysis in Chapter 1 of the PEIS states that it does not 

address vegetation treatments exclusively designed to increase forage production, 

which was the objective of many past crested wheatgrass seedings. But the commenter 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-262 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0584-030 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0584-031 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

should be aware that as part of management to move toward or exceed rangeland 

health standards, many BLM offices are now treating crested wheatgrass seedings by 

adding additional native forbs and shrubs to those old seedings. 

Historically the BLM did use non-natives at a greater scale than it does currently. 

While it is true that non-natives still can be used by the BLM, their use is primarily for 

emergency stabilization to reduce erosion after disturbance, since native species can 

take longer to become established. The BLM has committed to the use of natives, as 

established in policy. Use of crested wheatgrass as part of seed mixes containing 

native and non-native species may still occur, but must meet BLM policy requirements 

listed in BLM Manual 1745 (Introduction, Transplant, Augmentation and 

Reestablishment of Fish, Wildlife and Plants). This manual states, “Native species 

shall be used, unless through the NEPA process it is determined that: 1) suitable native 

species are not available; 2) the natural biological diversity of the proposed 

management area will not be diminished; 3) exotic and naturalized species can be 

confined within the proposed management area; 4) analysis of ecological site 

inventory information indicates that a site will not support reestablishment of a species 

that historically was part of the natural environment; or 5) resource management 

objectives cannot be met with native species. Also, seeding must meet BLM policy 

requirements established in BLM Handbook 1742- 1 (Burned Area Emergency 

Stabilization and Rehabilitation), which requires the use of a native/non-native 

worksheet that must document the rationale for using non-native plants and lists 

criteria for selecting native plants for revegetation. 

Comment: BLM must focus significant treatment and restoration efforts and spending 

of federal fire funds on restoration of native species composition and function to 

crested wheatgrass that has been rampantly seeded as following ill-conceived 

sagebrush removal or as post-fire “rehab”, and lands overrun by cheatgrass. The 

current abundance of federal fire funds should be used to follow-through on BLM 

post-fire rehab actions that have failed in the past (please evaluate all seedings and 

identify failures and causes of failure), or where crested wheatgrass and other exotics 

were planted as a first step in arid lands rehabilitation. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0584-077 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Herbicide Treatment Planning. 

Comment: BLM should use this [P]EIS/PER as an opportunity to complete post-fire 

rehabilitation that has failed or had poor results on likely tens of millions of acres 

across the arid West. As part of this [P]EIS/PER process, BLM should identify all 

lands where post-fire rehab/”emergency” stabilization with crested wheatgrass, 

intermediate wheatgrass and other exotics was conducted, and prioritize treatment of 

these lands to return them to native vegetation and restore natural fire cycles. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0584-077 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Herbicide Treatment Planning. Restoring the ecological role of fire is required under 

federal fire policy. Monitoring of post fire stabilization and rehabilitation has been 

established in BLM Handbook 1742-1 (Burned Area Emergency Stabilization and 

Rehabilitation). Areas that are identified as needing restoration of native vegetation 

will be prioritized, and restoration will be implemented based on goals and objectives 

established in the local land use plan. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-263 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0584-036 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0584-077 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0584-091 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0584-092 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0584-093 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

Comment: As part of this [P]EIS, BLM must consider restoration of native vegetation 

on all lands initially seeded to exotics in past or future ESR [Emergency Stabilization 

and Rehabilitation] activities. This NEPA document should include a timetable for 

accomplishing this. 

Response: All ESR activities utilize certified weed-free seed. Depending on 

availability, native seed is used where appropriate. ESR activities are required to be 

funded and completed within 3 years of a fire event. 

Comment: BLM must commit to mandatory use of native species, and local ecotypes 

not over-sized cultivars, in all post-treatment plantings. BLM cannot rely on the old 

excuse of seed being unavailable or too expensive for use. Use of all native seed with 

commitments to reseed repeatedly must be part of the planning and funding for all 

projects. Planned development of reliable supplies of native ecotype seed sources is 

essential. 

Response: See responses to Comment EMC-0584-012 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Herbicide Treatment Planning and Comment EMC-0446-042 under PEIS 

Alternatives, Herbicide Treatment Planning. 

Comment: Use of Native Species: BLM must commit to use native species in all 

restoration seedings in all instances. In the past, BLM has used exotic, soil depleting 

crested and Siberian wheatgrasses, and aggressive, invasive, weedy forage kochia and 

intermediate wheatgrass. Instead of focusing on larger exotic plants (primarily because 

they produce livestock forage, no matter how limited its palatability), BLM must use 

natives, especially species like Poa sandbergii, bottlebrush squirreltail and Indian 

ricegrass in lower elevation sites. In the past, BLM has failed to rest lands for 

sufficient periods of time to allow successful establishment of seeded native species. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0584-077 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Herbicide Treatment Planning. 

Comment: As part of this [Draft] [P]EIS, please provide a science-based (not 

livestock-forage-based, but ecological science-based) assessment of predicted 

establishment times for seedings or recovery of native vegetation under the various 

environmental settings, and include in this predictions of “success” with specific 

livestock rest periods much greater than are now applied. Please also thoroughly 

describe and assess the ecological impacts of the exiting seedings – impacts on soils, 

waters, vegetation, weeds, native biota, recreational and cultural concerns. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0584-077 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Herbicide Treatment Planning. The Native Plant Materials Development program is 

scientifically based and is incorporating studies that have already and will continue to 

provide information on seed establishment and recovery at the regional or local level. 

The recommendations made in this comment are best performed at the local level 

using data specific to seeding sites. Effects analyses will be performed during the sitespecific NEPA process. 

Comment: BLM must closely study the lessons provided by the bluebunch 

wheatgrass seeding in an ungrazed area near Kuna Butte in the Four Rivers FO [Field 

Office] – and any examples the agency may have across the West. Due to no grazing 

occurring for a decade, seeded bluebunch wheatgrass was surviving and thriving at 

low elevations. In addition, please use existing exclosures as reference areas for 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-264 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0584-095 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0584-097 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0584-113 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

comparison of effects of no grazing for several years following a fire, vs. BLM’s 

typical woefully inadequate 2 growing season’s rest. There are also exclosures in the 

Jarbidge FO that can serve as reference sites and comparative examples. One is 

located north of Winter Camp Butte, others are near Roseworth. Please visit these 

sites, and quantify the differences between vegetation inside and outside these 

exclosures, and use this information in developing a realistic time frame for livestock 

exclusion from seeded lands. 

Response: The BLM has established numerous reference locations and key use areas 

throughout the West in relation to allotment monitoring and other program 

requirements (e.g., wildlife habitat). Each state in the West has specific examples of 

these types of reference areas that are utilized by field office resource specialists in the 

planning of future treatments. BLM policy is two growing seasons or until the specific 

restoration objectives are met for that site. The authorized officer has the 

administrative flexibility to extend grazing closures longer than two growing seasons 

to allow for recovery of vegetation and habitat resources. 

Comment: BLM must use some of its burgeoning fire funding to set up a reliable 

network and system for supply and storage of native seed, including locally adapted 

ecotypes, so that this native seed is readily available in the wake of fire. BLM will then 

no longer have the time-worn excuse that “we couldn’t get native seeds, so had to 

plant cwg”. It is time to act responsibly, and apply federal fire funds to setting up a 

reliable system of seed supply. BLM must also commit to re-seeding of natives in 

subsequent years, if initial seeding attempts are not successful due to drought or other 

factors. This must be factored into any 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0446-042 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Herbicide Treatment Planning. Monitoring, as required under BLM Handbook 1742-1 

(Burned Area Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation), would help to determine if 

re-seeding is necessary. The National Seed Warehouse has been supplying a variety of 

tested seed through Memoranda of Understanding with Great Basin states. 

Comment: BLM claims it may reseed or replant areas with “desirable” vegetation 

when the plant community cannot receive and occupy the site sufficiently. BLM 

provides no methodology or protocol used for making such determinations. 

Response: See responses to Comment EMC-0584-012 and Comment EMC-0446-042 

under PEIS Alternatives, Herbicide Treatment Planning. 

Comment: Low elevation sagebrush-steppe communities may require a decade or 

more, and repeated seeding efforts during periods of favorable weather, to allow reestablishment of native vegetation. The [P]EIS plan must address these necessary 

periods of rest, and not base its actions on the convenience of the livestock industry. 

Response: The BLM agrees that lower elevation and lower precipitation sagebrushsteppe communities often require greater effort to establish the desired native 

vegetation. As a result of the lower precipitation available, the appropriate conditions 

for seed germination and seedling survival in these harsh environments may not occur 

every year. Therefore, reclamation efforts may not respond as quickly as they would in 

areas where favorable conditions for establishment of the desired vegetation occur 

more frequently. We agree that the manager must plan for additional effort and 

possibly additional rest from livestock grazing to promote recovery of these lower 

elevation areas; however, this planning must be based on site-specific monitoring and 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-265 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0584-115 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0623-007 

Defenders of Wildlife 

EMC-0623-014 

Defenders of Wildlife 

EMC-0646-230 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

prescribed at the local level. In most cases we would expect the recovery to occur 

sooner than the 10 or more years indicated by this comment. 

Comment: What About Restoration? “Rehabbing” in the BLM sense, is vastly 

different from restoration to a full component of native vegetation and ecological 

processes. Under what circumstances will BLM undertake Restoration? 

Response: The need for restoration is determined by the local field office based on 

resource conditions and circumstances (e.g., catastrophic fire). 

Comment: Native Species in Restoration. Restoration efforts should include native 

species. Since one of the outstanding obstacles to the use of native species is seedstock 

availability, BLM should develop models to predict the species needed to restore the 

native vegetative communities that have been displaced by invasive species, conduct 

an inventory of available native seedstocks and work with relevant agencies and 

organizations (such as the Natural Resources Conservation Service and local Natural 

Heritage Programs) to build capacity to identify and utilize native species in 

restoration efforts. 

Response: See responses to Comment EMC-0584-012 and Comment EMC-0446-042 

under PEIS Alternatives, Herbicide Treatment. The Native Plant Materials 

Development program is scientifically based and is incorporating studies that have 

already and will continue to provide information on seed establishment and recovery 

at the regional or local level. The program involves numerous organizations at all 

levels, and is coordinated by the Plant Conservation Alliance. The Plant Conservation 

Alliance promotes rehabilitation, restoration, and conservation activities through 

partnerships with other federal agencies, state governments, tribes, and the private 

sector. 

Comment: Follow all control efforts with restoration of native plant species. Native 

species restoration is particularly critical in habitats for rare, declining and listed 

species. Where this is not practicable due to seed availability, all plantings must be 

ecologically appropriate and pose low risk of invasiveness. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0623-007 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Herbicide Treatment Standard Operating Procedures. Restoration projects are 

developed at the local level using interdisciplinary teams, including biologists, to 

ensure that ecologically appropriate actions are developed. 

Comment: The omission of re-vegetation, in the forms of grasses and forbs, from the 

proposed action will not achieve the desired conditions of a “biologically and 

structurally diverse forest” as described in the FEIS [Draft PEIS]. The herbal layer will 

most likely consist of significant areas dominated by annual exotic grasses and weeds, 

which contribute to catastrophic fire, soil destabilization, and increased soil moisture 

loss. This will defeat the BLM’s very justification for the proposed actions. If the PEIS 

is not altered to avoid these consequences, an analysis of their effects must be 

undertaken due to the significant impacts that may be anticipated. This concern was 

not addressed in the PEIS. 

Response: Revegetation of sites is discussed in Chapter 2 of the Final PEIS and PER 

under Revegetation. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-266 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

FXC-0071-011 

Campbell, Bruce 

Comment: Will any genetically engineered (crossing the trans-species barrier to 

natural reproduction) grasses, turf, plants, or trees be used in revegetating any sites on 

BLM land which have undergone “vegetation treatments”? 

Response: No. BLM has not used genetically engineered or modified plants in its 

revegetation projects in the past and the use of genetically engineered plants in the 

future is not proposed under this PEIS. 

RMC-0006-029 

Central Sierra 

Environmental 

Resource Center 

Comment: Page 2-15 of the [Draft] PEIS states, “Disturbed areas may be re-seeded or 

planted with desirable vegetation when the native plant community cannot recover and 

occupy the site sufficiently.” Repeated seeding or planting of native vegetation and 

animals should be required until self-sustaining native vegetation and wildlife 

communities, free of exotic invasive weeds, become established. This should be a 

requirement for any project, not an option. 

Response: One of the goals of any vegetation treatment or project is to ensure that 

disturbed non-target vegetation has the capability to recover its native plant 

community and sufficiently occupy the site free of exotic species or weeds. The 

statement found under Herbicide Treatment Standard Operating Procedures in Chapter 

2 of the Draft PEIS refers to the BLM prevention practice to ensure that areas 

disturbed as a result of vegetation treatments or by projects are either reseeded or 

planted with desirable vegetation. In this case it is a requirement, rather than an option, 

that one or the other prevention measures be accomplished. Depending on the 

objective of the treatment, seeds or plants that will directly compete with noxious 

weeds may be either native or non-native species, depending on the circumstances and 

availability of native seed and/or plant stocks. The need to repeat seeding or planting 

of desirable vegetation is determined on the success of the initial treatment and 

establishment of desired vegetation, based on monitoring. 

RMC-0040(1)-007 

Resource Concepts, 

Inc. 

Comment: Pg. 2-25, in Table 2-4 [of the Draft PER] Vegetation Treatment Methods 

Standard Operating Procedures and Guidelines, vegetation section for Mechanical 

treatments, there is a SOP [Standard Operating Procedure] to use plant and seed stock 

from appropriate elevations when conducting revegetation activities. This SOP should 

also apply to Fire Use and Chemical Control when seeding is necessary. 

Response: The suggested rewording has been incorporated into the Final PER in 

Table 2-5. 

RMC-0067-005 

Wyoming Outdoor 

Council 

Comment: The following scenario is readily imaginable. An area is sprayed with 

herbicides killing essentially all broad-leafed vegetation, or perhaps all vegetation. 

Then the area is seeded to an introduced grass such as crested wheatgrass. This has 

been the exact scenario that has played out on BLM lands for at least the last 50 years. 

But the effect of this scenario is to create another monoculture of an introduced 

species, crested wheatgrass, which is by no means clearly an improvement over what 

may have been there beforehand, even if it was a noxious weed. If this scenario is 

possible, BLM needs to provide evidence that crested wheatgrass monocultures are a 

desirable change in the vegetation community. In the view of many (including many 

scientists), a monoculture of crested wheatgrass is as noxious and ecologically 

undesirable as a monoculture of cheatgrass [downy brome]. It certainly will have no 

lesser impacts on native species and native ecosystems. Again, the programmatic EIS 

does not appear to ensure that the result of the herbicide spraying is to not replace one 

introduced species with another introduced species, a pyrrhic victory at best. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-267 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0067-006 

Wyoming Outdoor 

Council 

Response: Development of forage for livestock, such as through crested wheatgrass 

seedings, is beyond the scope of this PEIS, as stated in Chapter 1 of the PEIS under 

Scope of Analysis. The scenario described in the comment does not accurately 

represent the intent of vegetation treatments conducted by the BLM. Seedings, such as 

crested wheatgrass, are developed typically through mechanical treatment of the soil 

and vegetation through chaining or plowing and ripping, in much the same way an 

agricultural field is prepared and planted with seed to grow a crop. The BLM does not 

spray vegetation to kill it only to replace it with a monoculture seeding of crested 

wheatgrass. An important difference between crested wheatgrass and downy brome is 

that the latter is an invasive species and crested wheatgrass is not. Downy brome also 

has little forage value, where crested wheatgrass has high forage value for livestock. 

Seedings developed for forage are designed and implemented based on land use plan 

objectives. Seedings, such as would be addressed under this PEIS would fall under 

Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation (ES&R), and would utilize pre-emergent 

herbicides to retard the growth of downy brome, prior to seeding with an appropriate 

seed mix in order to increase the competitive advantage of the native vegetation. 

ES&R seedings are not typically monocultures of crested wheatgrass; rather, they are 

an appropriate grass and forb species mix to stabilize the soils and provide a favorable 

environment for reestablishment of native vegetation. 

Comment: BLM needs to explain more clearly what exactly will replace the invasive 

species it is targeting and how that will be achieved. What species will replace the 

invasive species, or will bare dirt or another suite of weeds or introduced species be 

the result? Over what time frame will this occur—will the replacement of undesirable 

species be immediate or occur over time, by natural revegetation? How will this 

change occur—will BLM actively plant native species to replace the invasives, plant 

other introduced species such as crested wheatgrass, or simply allow natural 

succession to occur? When and where will various options be used? What impact will 

budget limitations have on what is done? What scientific basis is there for pursuing 

any of these routes and claiming that they will be successful? The environmental 

impact statement needs to answer these questions before a proposed action can be 

properly chosen. 

Response: Revegetation is discussed under Revegetation in Chapter 2 of the PEIS and 

PER. The BLM has committed to the use of natives for revegetation, as established in 

policy. BLM Manual 1745 (Introduction, Transplant, Augmentation and 

Reestablishment of Fish, Wildlife and Plants) states, “Native species shall be used, 

unless through the NEPA process it is determined that: 1) suitable native species are 

not available; 2) the natural biological diversity of the proposed management area will 

not be diminished; 3) exotic and naturalized species can be confined within the 

proposed management area; 4) analysis of ecological site inventory information 

indicates that a site will not support reestablishment of a species that historically was 

part of the natural environment; and 5) resource management objectives cannot be met 

with native species.” Also, seeding must meet BLM policy requirements as established 

in BLM Handbook 1742-1 (Burned Area Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation), 

which requires the use of a Native/Non-native Worksheet that must document the 

rationale for using non-native plants, and lists criteria for selecting native plants for 

revegetation. 

To ensure that suitable native species are made available, the Native Plant Materials 

Development program (a Congressionally directed interagency program) has been in 

place since 2001 and is funded primarily through federal fire appropriations 

(emergency fire rehabilitation funding). Its purpose is to develop a program to manage 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-268 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0067-008 

Wyoming Outdoor 

Council 

RMC-0213-017 

California Native Plant 

Society 

and supply native plant materials for use in rehabilitation and restoration efforts on 

federal land. Creating a native plant material supply takes time, research into the use of 

the proper locally adapted seed, and a long-term commitment to reach the supply level 

required. Efforts have been successful in moving toward such a goal; commercial 

native grass seed growers are on the increase. 

Revegetation specifics must be determined at the local level, where knowledge, 

expertise, and site-specific research can be used to determine the best means of 

revegetation after treating invasives. The scientific basis for restoration is a growing 

field, and the latest studies can be accessed by local project planners from such 

journals as Restoration Ecology. 

Comment: Emphasis should be given to promoting the establishment of native plant 

species and communities. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0584-077 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Herbicide Treatment Planning. 

Comment: BLM introduces non-native seeds to a variety of habitats such as prairies. 

CNPS [California Native Plant Society] believes that BLM’s seeding program should 

be assessed before or along with proposals to spray herbicides to manage non-native 

plants. Introductions include alfalfa, crested wheatgrass, sweetclover, white and 

subterranean clover, tall fescue, smooth brome, non-native pines, and Norway spruce. 

The BLM Seed Guidebook recommends many non-native grasses and forbs for 

“rehabilitation and conservation seeding,” including many species considered to be 

moderately to highly invasive in natural ecosystems by the Exotic Pest Plant Councils, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Invasive Species Council and Executive 

Order No.13112 concerning Invasive Species. 

Response: BLM Instruction Memorandum (IM) #2006-073 dated 1-27-06 directs the 

use of weed-free seed on lands administered by the BLM. The IM addresses all BLM 

programs which place seed or approve the placement of seed on public lands as well 

as addressing the quality of seed purchased by BLM for use on public lands. In 

addition, BLM Manual Section 1745 (1992) establishes policy and guidance for 

transplantation, augmentation, and reestablishment of habitat on public land utilizing 

native, and when necessary, introduced plant species. All BLM field offices are 

required to use seed on public lands that contain no noxious weed seed and meets 

certified seed quality. All seed applied on public land must have a valid seed test, 

within 1 year of the acceptance date, from a seed analysis lab by a registered seed 

analyst (Association of Official Seed Analysts). The seed lab results shall show no 

more than 0.5% by weight of other weed seeds; and the seed lot shall contain no 

noxious, prohibited, or restricted weed seeds according to state seed laws in the 

respective state(s). All seed procured for use on public land meets the Federal Seed 

Act criteria. In addition, BLM state contracts for seed may be more restrictive with 

“other weed seeds” of concern as deemed necessary. This includes all donated seed or 

seed used for “mitigation or restoration” by contractors per reclamation plan must 

meet BLM’s noxious weed seed policy prior to use on public lands. BLM does allow 

an exemption for small reclamation projects, less than 20 acres (not to exceed 200 

pounds of seed) which have an approved BLM reclamation or rehabilitation plan or 

permit. This IM also includes straw or mulches applied as part of seeding, 

stabilization, rehabilitation, or restoration projects on public lands must be certified 

weed seed-free. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-269 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0222-039 

Salvo, Mark 

(Sagebrush Sea 

Campaign), Cox, 

Caroline (Northwest 

Coalition for 

Alternatives to 

Pesticides), and 

O’Brien, Mary 

RMC-0222-040 

Salvo, Mark 

(Sagebrush Sea 

Campaign), Cox, 

Caroline (Northwest 

Coalition for 

Alternatives to 

Pesticides), and 

O’Brien, Mary 

Comment: The Restoration Alternative proposes that revegetation may be needed, 

and that the revegetation use native seeds/plants (DEIS [Draft PEIS] [Appendix G 

page] G-16): 

Action- Revegetation 1 

In revegetation efforts, whenever it is possible to do so, use native seed and 

seedlings that have been grown from seeds of locally adapted populations. 

Action- Revegetation 2 

If native seeds/plants are not available, revegetation projects will rarely be 

undertaken until native plant seed or plants become available. Non-native plant 

species will be used only in extremely degraded/severely altered systems as an 

intermediate step toward/placeholder for native restoration, accompanied by a full 

commitment to complete restoration of native species. This commitment must 

include funds set aside as part of the project, with specific deadlines for 

accomplishment. 

Action- Revegetation 3 

When reseeding with non-native species, certification must be provided that only 

species that have been documented as non-persistent are present in the seeding 

mixture. 

Action- Revegetation 4

Assure availability of native seed and plants:

1. establish BLM contracting systems that will provide growers the necessary 

assurance their native, locally-adapted seed plants will be purchased if grown 

2. establish sufficient storage facilities for native seeds for major revegetation 

efforts. 

The DEIS [Draft PEIS] does not include these revegetation considerations in its 

Alternative E ([page] 2-13 [of the Draft PEIS]), which is supposedly “based” on the 

Restoration Alternative. Alternative B (BLM’s Preferred Alternative; [Draft PEIS 

page] 2-11) does not mention use of native vegetation for reseeding/revegetation 

linked to herbicide use. 

Response: Revegetation of disturbed or treated sites is discussed in Chapter 2 of the 

Final PEIS and PER under Vegetation Treatment Standard Operating Procedures and 

Guidelines. 

Comment: The DEIS [Draft PEIS] needs to examine the results of where revegetation 

with and without native seeds has been linked to herbicide use on BLM lands or in the 

scientific literature in order to compare Alternative B with the Restoration Alternative 

for its cumulative consequences for subsequent herbicide use. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0584-051 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Programs, Policies, and Initiatives 

Influencing Vegetation Treatment Activities. See Appendix I of the Final PEIS for a 

comparison of the Preferred Alternative (Alternative B) to the No Use of Sulfonylurea 

and other Acetolactate Synthase-inhibiting Active Ingredients (Alternative E). 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-270 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0222-042 

Salvo, Mark 

(Sagebrush Sea 

Campaign), Cox, 

Caroline (Northwest 

Coalition for 

Alternatives to 

Pesticides), and 

O’Brien, Mary 

RMC-0222-044 

Salvo, Mark 

(Sagebrush Sea 

Campaign), Cox, 

Caroline (Northwest 

Coalition for 

Alternatives to 

Pesticides), and 

O’Brien, Mary 

RMC-0222-046 

Salvo, Mark 

(Sagebrush Sea 

Campaign), Cox, 

Caroline (Northwest 

Coalition for 

Alternatives to 

Pesticides), and 

O’Brien, Mary 

Comment: However, at [Draft PEIS page] 4-61, under “Impacts by Alternative”, the 

DEIS [Draft PEIS] proposes no plan to revegetate with native vegetation: 

Herbicides would be used on rangelands dominated by annual grasses such as downy 

brome and medusahead, followed by revegetation with perennial grasses and forbs. 

The DEIS [Draft PEIS] doesn’t state whether the perennial grasses and forbs will be 

exotic or native. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0222-039 under Alternatives, 

Revegetation. As discussed in this section of the PEIS, the BLM attempts to select 

species that are native or adapted to the area when revegetating a site. Non-native 

species are used only when locally adapted native seed is not available. 

Comment: The above passage (and DEIS [Draft PEIS]) fails to note a major reason 

herbicide activity may not result in native vegetation: Often there are virtually no 

native seed sources remaining in a large, highly invaded site (e.g., where cheatgrass or 

star thistle form a near-monoculture over hundreds or thousands of acres). DEIS [Draft 

PEIS] fails to analyze on what proportion of the estimated 900,000 acres of annually 

sprayed acres revegetation might be needed based on its own experience of the failure 

of herbicide use to promote the establishment of native species. 

Response: For purposes of analysis, the BLM estimated the number of acres that may 

potentially treated with herbicides on an annual basis. The proportion of these acres 

requiring revegetation is unknown at this time and cannot be summarized at this scale 

of analysis. Site-specific requirements for revegetation would be identified in the 

overall treatment project proposal at the time the treatment is proposed. 

Comment: The DEIS [Draft PEIS] fails to analyze the Restoration Alternative’s 

explicit commitment to seeding with native species and its commitment to developing 

an institutional availability/storage of native seeds for revegetation. The Restoration 

Alternative’s use of native species for revegetation as a condition/limitation on use of 

herbicides must be examined. 

Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0222-042 and Comment EMC-0115-007 

under PEIS Alternatives, Herbicide Treatment Planning, and Comment EMC-0623-

007 under PEIS Alternatives, Herbicide Treatment Standard Operating Procedures. 

Alternatives, Special Status Species 

EMC-0338-007 Comment: Comments on the use of herbicides around Threatened and Endangered 

Dow AgroSciences species: Herbicides can benefit threatened and endangered (T&E) species by 

controlling noxious and invasive weeds that otherwise adversely alter habitats making 

them less suitable for T&E organisms. There are herbicides that are selective and will 

control noxious or invasive plants without harming T&E species. Generalizations that 

herbicides should not be used around T&E species ignores the potential value of 

herbicides to help restore T&E habitats. An additional important aspect is that the 

spread of invasive plants is a greater threat to some T&E species than the use of a 

selective herbicides. For example, use of herbicides that control sensitive invasive 

broadleaf species could be used around T&E grass species. Both Dr. Rod Lym, North 

Dakota State University, and Dr. Joe DiTomaso, University of California, have 

conducted field research that support this beneficial effect of herbicides in improving 

or preserving T&E habitat quality. Additionally, some measure of unintentional 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-271 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0446-009 

The Nature 

Conservancy 

EMC-0446-067 

The Nature 

Conservancy 

EMC-0467-005 

Garvey, Lydia 

damage to T&E species should be articulated where non-herbicidal approaches are 

taken. Mechanical removal of invasive plants will likely disturb habitats and possibly 

physically damage T&E species. 

Response: The BLM agrees that the use of herbicides can benefit T&E and other 

special status species. The PEIS does not generally conclude that herbicides should not 

be used around T&E and other special status species. The PEIS discloses the effects of 

herbicide use on these sensitive species and provides recommendations in the form of 

Standard Operating Procedures for mitigation of impacts. The BLM proposes to use 

the conservation measures outlined in the Biological Assessment to protect sensitive 

and federally-listed species and critical habitats. NEPA analysis and consultation will 

also take place at the local level, potentially allowing for use of selective herbicides 

and incorporation of additional protective measures for listed and other special status 

species. Any action implemented under this PEIS that “May Affect” an Endangered 

Species Act (ESA)-listed species will be subject to the consultation requirements 

under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. 

Comment: The PEIS and PER should reference and utilize the many recovery and 

conservation plans that apply to Federally listed and rare species found on public land 

for restoration goals needed to assist in species recovery. In some cases, restoration of 

historic fire regimes, without other significant habitat restoration, may lead to 

additional decline of species of concern. 

Response: This comment pertains to plans that will be consulted on a site-specific and 

species-specific basis after the PEIS has been approved. Many federal recovery plans 

for listed species are referenced in the Biological Assessment that has been issued as a 

supporting document to the PEIS/PER. Other recovery and conservation plans will be 

consulted at the local level when developing treatment programs and participating in 

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

Service. The potential for adverse effects to special status species that occur within a 

project site will be considered before conducting vegetation treatments, including the 

use of fire. 

Comment: All special status species should be surveyed prior to designing any 

vegetation treatment. Treatments should be designed to conserve and restore habitats 

for special status species in addition to avoiding or minimizing adverse effects to these 

species. Additional guidance should be provided to plan projects that will conserve 

and restore habitats used by Birds of Conservation Concern (USFWS 2002). 

Response: As noted in Chapter 2 of the PEIS and PER, under Special Precautions, 

Special Status Species, surveys are conducted for special status species to ensure that 

BLM vegetation treatment actions have minimal impact upon these species. When 

planning projects, the BLM generally strives to implement projects that benefit a broad 

range of resources, including bird and other wildlife special status species. Guidance to 

conserve and restore habitats by Birds of Conservation Concern would be developed at 

the local level. 

Comment: It’s also extremely concerning that endangered, threatened, sensitive 

species would be certainly be killed, violation of the ESA [Endangered Species Act]!!! 

Herbicide use Must be Prohibited for use in riparian areas, aerially, or in Wilderness 

Areas, ORVs [off-road vehicles] must be restricted also. Biocontrols (exotic) must Not 

be released in the wild without stringent testing to ensure that they will not harm 

native plants. The herbicides with the least impacts are the ones that have been studied 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-272 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0525-093 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0559-005 

Daniel, Bill 

the least... They all are toxic! 

Response: The BLM is complying with the ESA through formal consultation with 

both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (the 

Services). The Biological Assessment (BA) is found on the CD included with the Final 

PEIS and PER. The BA is also available for public download from the Washington 

Office Website where the PEIS is posted and was posted during public comment. A 

discussion on biological control agents and the National interagency approval process 

for release of organisms is described under Biological Control in Chapter 2 of the 

PER. The BLM does not release any biological agents until they have been 1) 

thoroughly tested and determined to be host-specific and approved for release by the 

USDA Agricultural Research Service; 2) undergone ESA consultation; and 3) have 

appropriate NEPA analysis conducted prior to release. See response to Comment 

RMC-0055-004 under PEIS Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Scope of 

Analysis regarding limitations of uses. See Scope of Analysis in Chapter 1 of the 

PEIS. ORV use is outside the scope of analysis of the PEIS. 

Comment: BLM must conduct on-the-ground inventories of species, and habitat 

conditions and populations across the [P]EIS area. BLM must use its current special 

status species list, Partner in Flight species lists, information from the Conservation 

Data Center, and other important recent summaries, such as Connelly et al. 2004 and 

Dobkin and Sauder 2004, and Wisdom et al. 2000, to examine species of concern and 

their habitat needs. It must conduct in depth surveys and analyses for species of 

concern, and collect thorough and up-to-date information on the quality and quantity 

of habitats across the [P]EIS area. BLM must carefully review these lists, and updated 

information, and assess habitat conditions for these species. BLM must conduct 

systematic baseline surveys for breeding birds, migrants, wintering species. BLM 

should work with experts to assess populations, genetic uniqueness, etc.) BLM must 

also fully consider the changing dynamics in wildlife populations – such as elk, and 

the high priority segments of the public place on this species, as well as antelope and 

mule deer. 

Response: It is not possible in this PEIS to conduct inventories of species habitat 

conditions and populations across a 17-state area of the West, including Alaska, 

encompassing nearly 261 million acres of public lands. The cost and time would be 

exorbitant. BLM has reviewed all current and pertinent information provided by the 

Services and other agencies and organizations relative to sensitive species addressed in 

this PEIS. The BLM conducts appropriate wildlife baseline inventories to support sitespecific NEPA analysis for vegetation treatments at the time a project is proposed or 

during monitoring and assessments leading up to a project proposal. 

Comment: There is a huge list of “Special Status” species that may be threatened to 

the point of uplisting under the Endangered Species Act or locally or regionally 

extirpated by the preferred action, yet the DEIS [Draft PEIS] fails to analyze how each 

species would be affected or whether requires mitigation. 

Response: The intent of BLM vegetation treatments is to improve public lands for 

special status species, and implement Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and 

mitigation to avoid or minimize impacts to these species from treatment actions, so 

these species would not be extirpated by the Preferred Alternative, or require listing 

under the Endangered Species Act. In general, SOPs and mitigation measures 

identified in the PEIS, PER, and Biological Assessment apply to broad species groups, 

in many cases, making it unnecessary to analyze how each species would be affected 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-273 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0585-065 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

PHC-006-006 

H. McNeel 

PHC-006-007 

H. McNeel 

RMC-0006-036 

Central Sierra 

Environmental 

Resource Center 

by treatment actions. In addition, effects to special status species would be analyzed at 

the local level under NEPA prior to implementing any projects. 

Comment: The current documented declines or endangerment of many species were 

not considered. Outcomes of treatments may wipe out/locally extirpate rare or 

declining species. See Dobkin and Sauder 2004, discussion of small mammals existing 

in highly fragmented habitats. In a context of species existing in small, highly 

fragmented pockets of suitable habitat, BLMs treatments that may disturb native 

habitats or herbicide drift, may have much greater impacts. 

Response: The potential effects of treatments on special status species are addressed 

in the PEIS, PER, and Biological Assessment (BA). This information may be found in 

Chapter 4 of the PER under the subheadings Effects to Special Status Plant Species, 

Effects to Special Status Fish and Other Aquatic Organisms, and Effects to Special 

Status Wildlife Species; in Chapter 4 of the PEIS under the subheadings Special Status 

Plant Species, Special Status Fish and Other Aquatic Organisms, and Special Status 

Wildlife Species, and throughout Chapters 4 through 6 of the BA. Conservation 

measures presented in the BA for threatened, endangered, and proposed for listing 

(TEP) species take into account factors that make species especially sensitive to 

treatments, such small, fragmented habitats. When developing treatment programs at 

the local level, the BLM would take into account all special status species in and near 

the treatment area, and come up with additional conservation measures, as needed, on 

a species by species basis. In addition, consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and National Marine Fisheries Service would occur at the project level. 

Comment: One other thing is I think would help you is – and I haven’t read this in 

detail, is what happens if the BLM doesn’t use a herbicide or a combination of the 

integrated weed management. What happens to our threatened and endangered 

species. 

Response: Information on the benefits to threatened and endangered species from 

integrated weed management is provided in the Biological Assessment that 

accompanies the PEIS (and is included on the CD that is included with the Final 

PEIS). Additional information is provided in the Special Status Species sections for 

Vegetation, Fish and Other Aquatic Organisms, and Wildlife Resources in Chapter 4 

of the PEIS and PER. 

Comment: Many people do not understand that these are useful tools also to save our 

native species and our threatened and endangered species. Sometimes the risk of the 

weed or the nonwanted plant is greater on eradicating a threatened and endangered 

species that the use of herbicides. 

Response: See response to Comment PHC-006-006 under PEIS Alternatives, Special 

Status Species. 

Comment: All areas to be treated with herbicides should first be surveyed for rare and 

at-risk plants and animals. If rare and at-risk plants and animals are found on the site, 

herbicide treatments should not be allowed, or actions to mitigate impacts to rare and 

at-risk species should first be taken. 

Response: As discussed in the PEIS in Chapter 2 under Special Precautions, Special 

Status Species, surveys for special status species would be conducted before any 

vegetation treatment or ground disturbance occurs. Conservation measures to protect 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-274 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0144-017 

Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department 

RMC-0205-018 

Oregon Department of 

Agriculture 

special status plant and animal species are given in the Biological Assessment. 

Comment: [Page] 2-15 [of the Draft PEIS] statement: “The BLM state directors may 

designate sensitive species in cooperation with their respective state.” We recommend 

this be changed from the term ‘may’ to ‘will’. The Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department recently completed a Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy Plan 

for the state that lists state species of concern and sensitive species and we will gladly 

supply the document to you for inclusion in Appendix H [of the Draft PEIS] − Special 

Status Species List. 

Response: The decision to designate a sensitive species is within the state director’s 

discretionary authority and is mutually agreed upon with the affected state. The PEIS 

analyzes the merits and environmental impacts of adopting specific herbicides for use 

on public lands. The PEIS does not propose to commit state directors to any specific 

course of action. The use of “may” is appropriate in this case. 

Comment: As a result of a lawsuit filed against the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) by the Washington Toxics Coalition (2002), a federal judge ordered that 

“buffer zones” be placed around salmon bearing streams for the application of certain 

pesticides. The buffers include a 20 yard no application zone adjacent to salmon 

bearing waters when specific pesticides are being applied by ground methods, and a 

100 yard buffer during aerial applications. Of the 26 pesticides still being investigated 

for their potential affects on threatened and endangered salmon species, diuron, 2,4-D, 

and triclopyr are the only 3 that are approved for use on BLM lands. DEQ asks that 

BLM keep these restrictions in mind during the potential application of these 

pesticides. More information and maps of the affected areas can be found at: 

http://www.epa.gov/espp/wtc/maps.htm. 

Response: The Court issued this Order in response to the Plaintiffs’ motion for 

injunctive relief to establish buffer zones as an interim measure to minimize the risk of 

jeopardy from pesticide use to 26 sub-groups of listed Pacific salmon and steelhead. 

These measures are intended to be in place until the USEPA and National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS), where appropriate, complete consultation on the effects of 

these herbicides. 

The General Exceptions section of the USEPA’s website addressing the lawsuit 

(http://www.epa.gov/espp/wtc/maps.htm#wtc1) provides exceptions to the buffer strip 

requirement, including “programs authorized by the NMFS,” which includes this 

BLM activity. The exceptions state that only a 1-yard buffer strip is required for “Use 

of a pesticide undertaken as part of a specific agency action (other than USEPA’s 

authorization of a pesticide use under FIFRA)” where authorized through consultation 

with NMFS. A Biological Assessment (BA) has been prepared for the activities 

addressed in the PEIS, and consultation is underway. Herbicide-specific buffers for 

listed threatened, endangered, and sensitive fish species are established in the BA (see 

Table 5-6) and PEIS (see Table 4-21). Suggested conservation measures in the BA 

include a restriction on the use of triclopyr butoxyethyl ester (BEE) in areas where 

threatened, endangered, and sensitive aquatic species may occur, and restrictions on 

diuron and triclopyr BEE where off-site drift or surface runoff may occur into habitat 

that supports threatened, endangered, or aquatic species or species proposed for listing. 

These proposed restrictions are more stringent than those imposed by the Court. The 

BA prepared for this PEIS also states that local consultation with NMFS and/or U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service will be required for use of herbicides in riparian areas where 

threatened or endangered species, or species proposed for listing, are found. During 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-275 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0213-005 

California Native Plant 

Society 

RMC-0213-009, 010 

California Native Plant 

Society 

such consultation, the BLM would implement any new label guidelines or restrictions 

established by the USEPA, or include the buffers established by the Court if no new 

information exists. 

Comment: The best available science indicates that many registered pesticides are 

likely to cause negative impacts to endangered species even when used lawfully. 

There is evidence that long-term impacts of herbicides can have dire effects on rare 

plants. CNPS [California Native Plant Society] is particularly concerned with the 

known reproductive effects of sulfonylurea herbicides. Many of the current scientific 

publications addressing the reproductive effects of the sulfonylurea herbicides are not 

included in the literature review for the BLM’s assessment. Copes of these omitted 

references will be sent by U.S. mail and are summarized and cited below. We hope 

that your staff will review these important sources and reevaluate the PElS to address 

these well-known impacts that have been documented by peer-reviewed scientific 

studies funded by the U.S. EPA. 

Response: The BLM evaluated the risks to rare, threatened and endangered species in 

the ecological risk assessments, prepared a Biological Assessment for threatened and 

endangered species, and proposed mitigation measures and Standard Operating 

Procedures to reduce risks to these species. These assessments were based on scientific 

publications and USEPA registration documents. Although sulfonylurea herbicides 

pose low to high risks to plant species of concern, they would pose little risk to fish 

and wildlife species of concern, as discussed in the PEIS in Chapter 4 (Vegetation, 

Fish and Other Aquatic Resources, and Wildlife Resources sections). 

Comment: The following at-risk taxa are also known or likely to occur on BLM lands 

in California, Nevada, or both, and should be included in the Special Status Species 

List in Appendix H of the Draft PEIS: 

Astragalus cimae var. cimae; Astragalus inyoensis; Astragalus johannis-howellii; 

Atriplex argentea var. longitrichoma; Eriogonum beatleyae; Eriogonum microthecum 

var. schoolcraftii; Lathyrus hitchcockianus; Opuntia pulchella; Pediomelum 

castoreum; Salvia funerea; and Sclerocactus polyancistrus 

This does not include additional taxa in the Watch-list portion, which could number at 

least as many species that should be considered. 

Response: Most of these species are classified as Watch-list species by the California 

and/or Nevada Natural Heritage Programs. Watch-list is not a special status species 

category used by the BLM. The list does include BLM sensitive species, which are 

designated by BLM State Directors, in cooperation with applicable state agencies and 

Natural Heritage programs to ensure their accuracy and completeness. As mandated in 

BLM Manual 6840, sensitive species lists are periodically reviewed and updated. A 

species-by-species response to this comment is provided below. 

Astragalus cimae var. cimae does not occur on lands administered by the BLM in 

California. It does occur on BLM-administered lands in Nevada, but it is a Nevada 

Watch-list species. 

Astragalus inyoensis is a California and Nevada Watch-list species. 

Astragalus johannis-howellii is on the special status plant species list in Appendix H 

of the PEIS for its occurrence in California. It is a Nevada Watch-list species. 

Atriplex argentea var. longitrichoma is not known to occur in California. It is a 

Nevada Watch-list species. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-276 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0214-040 

Natural Resources 

Defense Council and 

National Wildlife 

Federation 

RMC-0218-016 

Blue Mountains 

Biodiversity Project, 

League of Wilderness 

Defenders 

RMC-0218-059 

Blue Mountains 

Biodiversity Project, 

League of Wilderness 

Defenders 

Eriogonum beatleyae occurs only in Nevada. It is has been delisted and dropped from

consideration by the Nevada Native Plant Society.

Eriogonum microthecum var. schoolcraftii is not known to occur in California. It is a

Nevada Watch-list species.

Lathyrus hitchcockianus has not been seen in California for over a century, and is not

on BLM or California Native Plant Society lists. It is a Nevada Watch-list species.

Opuntia pulchella is considered by the California Native Plant Society to be “Rare,

Threatened, or Endangered in California, but More Common Elsewhere.” This is not a

special status species category used by the BLM.

Pediomelum castoreum is a California and Nevada Watch-list species.

Salvia funereal is a California and Nevada Watch-list species.

Sclerocactus polyancistrus is a California and Nevada Watch-list species.

Comment: BLM initiated informal consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service

and NOAA [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration] Fisheries in 2001.

See D[raft] PElS at 5-2. The proposed massive use of herbicides across federal lands

in the west is likely to adversely affect dozens of listed species and their critical

habitat. BLM must therefore initiate formal consultation with the Services to prevent

jeopardy to threatened and endangered species. BLM’s failure to do so violates the

ESA [Endangered Species Act].

Response: The BLM initiated consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

and National Marine Fisheries Service (formerly NOAA Fisheries) in 2001. With the

release of the Draft PEIS to the public in November 2005, the BLM initiated formal

consultation with the Services as required under the ESA. The Services responded to

the request for consultation and requested additional information and clarification of

the proposed action. As part of the consultation process, a meeting and follow-up

conference call transmitted this information. This coordination and discussion of

additional information allowed the BLM to conclude the proposed action, at the scale

of the programmatic consultation, resulted in a determination of “May Affect, Not

Likely to Adversely Affect” (NLAA). The BLM subsequently transmitted this

additional information and a request for concurrence to the Services. In September

2006, and again in May 2007, the BLM received a Letter of Concurrence from the

USFWS. The NMFS has indicated that it will issue a formal biological opinion on

June 14, 2007.

Comment: There is a huge list of “Special Status” species that may be threatened to

the point of uplisting under the Endangered Species Act or locally or regionally

extirpated by the preferred action yet the DEIS [Draft PEIS] fails to analyze how each

species would be affected or require needed mitigation.

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0338-007 under PEIS Alternatives,

Special Status Species.

Comment: The BLM has evidently not done wildlife population surveys for

Management Indicator (or “Special Status”) species as required by the National Forest

Management Act. This prevents a Finding of No Significant Impact or “will not likely

lead to a trend toward uplisting” finding for BLM Management Indicator, listed or

special status species as population levels are not known and viability thresholds have

not been established for these species, causing the PEIS or an ROD [Record of

Decision] adopting one of the action alternatives (particularly any involving herbicide

use) to be in violation of NFMA [National Forest Management Act) and the ESA

[Endangered Species Act].

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-277 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0221-012 

Center for Biological 

Diversity 

RMC-0221-013 

Center for Biological 

Diversity 

Response: The BLM is an agency in the Department of Interior with a management 

mandate outlined in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976, 

and is not subject to the National Forest Management Act. However, under FLPMA, 

the BLM routinely inventories for special status wildlife habitat and populations. The 

PEIS/PER include Standard Operating Procedures (see Chapter 2) to survey for both 

threatened and endangered species as well as other special status species. BLM policy 

states that actions should not lead to the need to list special status species (BLM 

Manual 6840 – Special Status Species Management). 

Comment: The BLM’s proposed aerial spaying of herbicides over nearly one million 

acres of public lands annually would violate the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) 

because many, if not all, of the 18 herbicides that the BLM proposes to spray over 

public lands were approved for use by the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) 

in violation the ESA. As courts have found, the EPA has repeatedly granted approval 

for registration of many pesticides and other toxic chemicals without first consulting 

with the Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) and/or the National Marine Fisheries 

Service (“NMFS”) as to the potential impacts to listed species. See, e.g., Washington 

Toxics Coalition v. EPA, 413 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2005) (affirming the district court’s 

order finding that EPA violated the ESA by failing to consult on the impacts of 54 

pesticides before approving them for use and enjoining their use near streams in 

California, Oregon, and Washington that support listed species of salmon and 

steelhead until EPA completed the required consultation); Center for Biological 

Diversity v. Leavitt, No. C 02-01580 (N.D. Cal. September 19, 2005) Order Re CrossMotions for Summary Judgment (finding that EPA failed to comply with Section 

7(a)(2) of the ESA in its registration of 66 pesticides and failed to make the required 

determinations regarding effects of pesticide registrations on the threatened California 

red-legged frog). 

Response: The BLM consults with the Services (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

National Marine Fisheries Service) on its vegetation treatment projects if there is a 

“May Affect” determination for an ESA-listed species. The BLM is consulting with 

the Services on the use of its approved herbicides through this PEIS, and is in full 

compliance with the requirements of the ESA. The BLM proposes to use the 

conservation measures outlined in the Biological Assessment to protect special status 

species and critical habitats. Consultation will also take place at the local level for any 

action that “May Affect” an ESA-listed species. Consultation at this scale will allow 

the BLM to implement any additional protective measures required by the Services for 

federally-listed species. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 

requires that the USEPA register herbicides. All of the herbicides that BLM proposed 

to use have been registered by the USEPA under this Act. 

Comment: There is no evidence in the D[raft] PEIS or elsewhere in the record that the 

18 herbicides that the BLM proposes to use in this project, including the 4 “new” 

herbicides, were properly approved by EPA in accordance with the ESA [Endangered 

Species Act]. Both active and inactive ingredients in the herbicide mixtures can have 

adverse impacts throughout the ecosystem. Pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA, the BLM 

has an independent duty to conserve and protect the threatened and endangered species 

that depend on the public lands it is charged with managing. Therefore, the BLM 

cannot ignore EPA’s failure to comply with the ESA in this regard and to do so would 

also violate the ESA. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0221-012 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Special Status Species. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-278 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0221-014 

Center for Biological 

Diversity 

RMC-0221-015 

Center for Biological 

Diversity 

RMC-0221-023 

Center for Biological 

Diversity 

Comment: Even if some or all of the herbicides that the BLM proposes to utilize in 

the proposed project were properly approved by the EPA in accordance with the ESA 

[Endangered Species Act], which the Center [for Biological Diversity] does not 

concede, the BLM has failed to ensure that the proposed project will not jeopardize 

listed species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Although the BLM has 

initiated consultation with the FWS [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service] and the NMFS 

[National Marine Fisheries Service], the BLM has failed to provide adequate 

information regarding the likely impacts to listed species and their habitats necessary 

to assess the extent of such impacts from the proposed wholesale aerial herbicide 

spraying. As discussed below in Section III.D., the information provided by the BLM 

in the Biological Assessment including the Ecological Risk Assessment is wholly 

inadequate. In order to comply with the ESA (as well as NEPA), the potential impacts 

that must be identified and analyzed to determine how and to what extent the proposed 

action may affect listed species or their habitats include, but are not limited to: direct 

impacts to plants (including seed banks), to wildlife, and to their habitats (including 

impacts to critical habitat); indirect impacts to listed species and their habitats through 

contamination of air, water, and soils; direct and indirect impacts to species due to 

bioaccumulation of these herbicides and/or their breakdown products throughout the 

ecosystem; direct and indirect synergistic effects from these herbicides, their 

breakdown products, and/or other chemicals found in the environment; and cumulative 

impacts to listed species and their habitats from this and other projects that impact air 

and water quality and soils. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0221-012 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Special Status Species. The BLM has initiated consultation with the Services, which 

will determine the adequacy of the information contained in the Biological 

Assessment. Information on the impacts and effects to sensitive wildlife species and 

their habitat from herbicide use, appropriate for the programmatic scale of this 

analysis, is disclosed in the PEIS and PER. The BLM will follow all of the mandates 

of the ESA in its consultation with the Services to ensure that no listed species is 

jeopardized through the use of herbicides. 

Comment: Because the herbicides that the BLM has proposed to use in this project 

were not approved for registration in accordance with the ESA [Endangered Species 

Act], and the BLM has independently failed to fulfill its obligations under the ESA, 

approval of the proposed project will violate the ESA. 

Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0221-012 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Special Status Species, and Comment EMC-0338-007 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Special Status Species. 

Comment: Inevitably, because the area of the proposed project is not clearly defined, 

the identification of potential environmental effects is fatally flawed. For example, the 

D[raft] PEIS fails to provide any meaningful information about the rare, threatened, 

and endangered species and their habitats that may be affected by the proposed 

project, indeed, even the list of species that may occur in the 17 western states 

encompassed by the project is incomplete. NEPA demands far more. Moreover, the 

BLM cannot fulfill its obligations to protect and conserve listed species under the 

Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) without detailed information about the status of 

those species and their habitats on the public lands that may be impacted by the 

proposed action. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-279 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Response: As noted under each relevant resource section (Vegetation, Fish and other 

Aquatic Organisms, and Wildlife Resources) in Chapter 4 of the PEIS under Special 

Status Species, information on federally-listed species, and species proposed for 

listing, including habitats on public lands that could be affected by vegetation 

treatment actions, is given in detail in the Biological Assessment. The Biological 

Assessment also provides Standard Operating Procedures and mitigation to minimize 

and avoid impacts to these species from treatment actions. Also see response to 

Comment RMC-0006-036 under Alternatives, Special Status Species. 

RMC-0221-026 Comment: Accurate baseline data regarding rare, threatened, and endangered species 

Center for Biological on BLM managed public lands is also critical to identifying and analyzing the 

Diversity potential impacts of the proposed action under NEPA and the ESA [Endangered 

Species Act]. For example, in many areas of the arid west native plants may not 

emerge every year but only in years of high rainfall or when temperatures are 

favorable. The survival of these native plants depends on the survival of dormant seed 

in the soils. Without detailed, longitudinal surveys, the locations of these native plant 

seed banks remain unknown to the BLM. Responsible resource management is thus 

impossible. Without this necessary information, allowing aerial herbicide spraying in 

areas that may contain native seed banks critical to the survival of native plants is 

irresponsible. 

Response: The BLM routinely inventories for special status plants. The PEIS and 

PER include Standard Operating Procedures to survey for federally-listed species, as 

well as other special status species. These detailed surveys should include gathering 

data on flowering and seed production of native plants. BLM policy states that actions 

should not lead to the need to list special status species (BLM Manual 6840 – Special 

Status Species Management). Standard Operating Procedures and Guidelines in the 

PEIS and PER (see Chapter 2) include minimizing damage to non-target species, 

which includes seedbank damage, through use of selective techniques or selective 

herbicides. Local interdisciplinary teams that include biologists consider survey data 

on the species populations, their productivity, and potential impacts to the seedbank 

when designing actions that may affect species, in order to ensure that site-specific 

mitigation is developed if necessary. 

Alternatives, Wilderness Areas 

EMC-0252-004 Comment: Furthermore, using herbicides in national and state parks and reserves is 

Levanti, Deanna not acceptable. Destroying the wildfire ecosystem on lands that have been marked for 

the preservation of that very ecosystem is beyond counterproductive. 

Response: The agencies that administer national and state parks, not the BLM, will 

make decisions about what land treatments are appropriate for the management and 

protection of lands under their jurisdiction. The BLM does not manage national parks 

or state parks, but it does manage the Headwaters Forest Reserve in northern 

California. Nothing in the enabling legislation for the Headwaters Forest Reserve 

prohibits the use of herbicides to meet the purposes for which the area was established. 

However, the Resource Management Plan for this area states, “Implementation 

Guidelines – Following completion of weed mapping and inventory, direct removal of 

weed infestations will occur using hand tools. Herbicides will not be used.” 

EMC-0513-004 Comment: The focus of these comments is the need for the PEIS to include specific 

The Wilderness limits and requirements for use of herbicides in designated Wilderness, Wilderness 

Society Study Areas (WSAs) and other lands with wilderness characteristics. All of these areas 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-280 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0513-018 

The Wilderness 

Society 

EMC-0513-022 

The Wilderness 

Society 

EMC-0513-033 

The Wilderness 

Society 

RMC-0049-025 

Wilson, Robert E. 

(University of Nevada 

Cooperative Extension) 

contain special natural character that can be compromised by the use of herbicides; 

protecting that special character requires special attention in the PEIS. 

Response: Limits on the use of herbicides in designated wilderness and wilderness 

study areas are provided in BLM Manual 8560 – Management of Designated 

Wilderness Areas (8560.37A h. (2) Plant Control). For wilderness study areas the 

BLM Handbook 8550-1 – Interim Management Policy for Lands Under Wilderness 

Review (H8550-1 Chapter 3 C. Watershed Rehabilitation and Vegetative 

Manipulation) addresses the issues of herbicide use. Nothing in the PEIS would 

change this guidance. There is no specific guidance for herbicide use on other lands 

with wilderness characteristics; since they have no legislative designation, they would 

be subject to the same rules regarding herbicide use as other undesignated public lands. 

Comment: Prior to permitting or even considering use of herbicides on lands with 

wilderness values, BLM should consider all other alternatives. Any such proposals 

should be required to meet a high burden of proof to determine if use of herbicides is 

really justified in light of their interference with the naturalness of these lands. 

Response: This statement generally agrees with the guidance provided in the BLM 

Manual 8560 – Management of Designated Wilderness Areas and H8550-1 – Interim 

Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands Under Wilderness Review. 

Consideration of the use of herbicides in wilderness and wilderness study areas is 

required to meet the higher standards that are associated with these lands than other 

public lands. 

Comment: A determination that there is “no effective alternative” and that the use of a 

herbicide is needed to maintain the natural ecosystem should be an explicit 

requirement before considering use of herbicides in WSA [wilderness study area]. 

Further, as recommended by the IMP [integrated management plan], a minimum tool 

assessment should be conducted. A similar approach is appropriate for lands with 

wilderness characteristics, which can and should be managed to preserve and enhance 

their wilderness characteristics. 

Response: The BLM’s interim management policy for WSAs allows the use of 

herbicides to maintain wilderness values as defined in the Wilderness Act. Use of the 

minimum tool for such applications is required. 

Comment: The Preferred Alternative, including Tables 2-8 and 2-9, must be revised 

based on the corrected analysis of impacts of herbicides and the legal and policy 

requirements [regarding Wilderness Area] set out above. 

Response: We have revised Table 2-8 in the Final PEIS to note that the BLM would 

follow the “minimum tool.” The other issues discussed earlier are not Standard 

Operating Procedures, are referenced in management plans identified in Table 2-8, or 

are covered in Chapter 2 under Monitoring. Also see response to Comment EMC0513-022 under PEIS Alternatives, Wilderness Areas. 

Comment: Page 2-16 [of the Draft PEIS] Wilderness areas. The benign neglect of 

invasive species suggested in this section is inexcusable for a land management 

agency. Specifically because it is perceived by managers that motorized equipment 

cannot be used within wilderness areas then the agency has a responsibility to take a 

very aggressive stance toward control of invasive species before they have been 

allowed to dominate that “pristine” environment. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-281 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0057-014 

California Wilderness 

Coalition 

RMC-0218-017 

EMC-0559-006 

Blue Mountains 

Biodiversity Project, 

League of Wilderness 

Defenders 

Daniel, Bill 

Alternatives, Monitoring 

EMC-0130-001 

McDorman, Bill 

EMC-0238-009 

California Partners in 

Flight 

Response: The requirements of the Wilderness Act do include managing the 

naturalness of an area to protect it from invasive species. This requirement is reflected 

in BLM Manual 8560, Management of Designated Wilderness Areas, which applies to 

the areas addressed in this comment. 

Comment: The Vegetation Treatment Method selection should include a 

consideration of the treatment area’s wilderness values. The D[raft] PEIS currently 

states that managers will consider an area’s land use before selecting a treatment 

method but the method selection does not direct managers to take special consideration 

for areas with wilderness characteristics. 

Response: In Chapter 2 of the PEIS under Special Precautions – Wilderness Areas, it 

states, “management of vegetation must be directed toward retaining the natural 

character of the environment.” It also states, “tools and equipment may be used for 

vegetation management when they are the minimum amount necessary for the 

protection of the wilderness resource.” Table 2-6 (Standard Operating Procedures) in 

Chapter 2 of the PEIS states, “use chemicals only when they are the minimum method 

necessary to control weeds that are spreading within the wilderness or threaten lands 

outside the wilderness.” 

Comment: There should be no herbicide use or vehicle use in Wilderness Areas as 

proposed. 

Response: The Wilderness Act allows the use of vehicles or herbicides in wilderness 

for various administrative purposes. However, this use would be rare. 

Comment: Please send me your 20, 30 and 40 year studies proving the long-term 

effectiveness of spraying herbicides on BLM lands to control weeds. Please include 

data about diversity of species. Pretty bold to try a million acre experiment. You must 

have some amazing data. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0584-051 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Initiatives Influencing Vegetation Treatment 

Activities. 

Comment: We recommend the final planning document include a more extensive 

discussion of post-treatment monitoring. We did not find that extensive discussion 

anywhere in the Biological Assessment. If the Preferred Alternative is selected and the 

acres treated annually are to triple over the current condition, how will effective 

monitoring be accomplished? Will the annual budget for monitoring be tripled? It is 

critical to know what the effect of such an extensive annual herbicide treatment 

program will have on fish and wildlife, both as a result of direct application on 

populations and their habitats, and indirectly through habitat modification and 

temporary losses of habitat and forage. CalPIF [California Partners in Flight] 

recommends that, at a minimum, an avian monitoring program be developed and 

undertaken as an integral part of the herbicide treatment plan. We recommend avian 

monitoring because birds are often the easiest category of wildlife to monitor in that 

they are easily detectable and often show high site fidelity. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-282 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0291-003 

Maxwell, Bruce 

(Montana State 

University) 

EMC-0340-005 

Craig, Diane 

EMC-0340-006 

Craig, Diane 

Response: We have revised the Monitoring section in Chapter 2 of the PEIS and PER 

to include more information on post-treatment monitoring and BLM guidance on 

monitoring. As discussed, monitoring is primarily implemented at the local field office 

level. Monitoring is included as a specific task and component of each treatment 

project design. As projects are funded, monitoring is included in the funding 

allocation. In those cases where herbicide treatments are planned and potential impacts 

to avian species are identified, appropriate monitoring for these species and their 

habitat would be proposed as part of the monitoring plan. 

Comment: I prefer to keep that aspect separate. Regardless, the point is that the report 

should call for monitoring of weed populations prior to initiating management with 

herbicides or any other management. The report should identify methods and standards 

that allow populations to be site-specifically evaluated for their potential to be invasive 

and set thresholds for management given specific management objectives. Only, after 

substantial changes that would include these concepts should the PEIS receive 

approval. 

Response: See responses to Comment EMC-0133-002 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Human Health and Safety, and Comment EMC-0525-012 under PEIS 

Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. 

Comment: I also wonder how the BLM intends to monitor such a program and what 

they have in mind when it eradicates vast populations that nature placed in these areas 

to live in harmony and balance. Is the BLM responsible for providing emergency 

healthcare to the wildlife and plant populations it intends to exterminate with this 

senseless act? 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0130-005 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Monitoring. 

Comment: The BLM as stated “monitoring ensures that vegetation management is an 

adaptive process that continually build upon past successes and learns from past 

mistakes” my question here is how can the BLM evaluate such successes and mistakes 

when it recognizes “that many sites treated in the past lack monitoring data. In many 

cases, project monitoring was not done, was done sporadically without consistent 

documentation, or was done but the records were lost or destroyed”. A major concern 

to me resulting from the lack of administrative documents is one that few would think 

of, but due to the categorical and systematic assault on our lands resources by this 

administration I cannot help but wonder about the possibility of deliberate overcontamination of chemicals in certain areas so as to close them to public use and the 

public eye – thus allowing for the unseen logging, mining and continued rape of the 

land to occur. 

Response: The BLM acknowledges gaps in monitoring information from past 

activities, as discussed in Chapter 2 of the PEIS under Monitoring. As identified in the 

PEIS, the reasons for these gaps are many and varied and span some 40 years or more. 

Standards and requirements for documentation in the past (e.g. dating from the 1960’s) 

were less stringent than standards considered in subsequent decades and are not 

reflective of standards for documentation in use today. Record keeping likewise is not 

consistent from office to office over a multiple decade time frame. The BLM also 

acknowledges the importance of and need for monitoring; the two statements quoted in 

the comment are not inconsistent with one another. In general, monitoring records are 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-283 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0405-012 

Hoover, Victoria N. 

EMC-0411-007 

Schroyer, Don L. 

available at the field offices and are used in the design of vegetation treatment projects, 

as well as to support current and future vegetation allocation decisions in land use 

plans and appropriate permitted use. Although monitoring records are not complete, 

the BLM is guided by statutory and regulatory considerations pertaining to application 

of herbicides on public lands. Intentional over-contamination of public lands with 

herbicides without environmental consideration would violate a number of statutes, 

including, but not limited to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, 

NEPA, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act. The BLM has not closed any 

public lands to public use as a result of herbicide treatments. All public land uses are 

authorized only after the appropriate NEPA analysis and public participation has 

occurred. 

Comment: Since this whole project, as outlined in the [P]EIS/PER, is basically one 

massive experiment, BLM should start small on these treatments, and monitor results 

carefully for several seasons before expanding the scope of the efforts. A wide range 

of ecoregions, with a large number of vegetation communities and habitats, is being 

considered. Yet, apparently no carefully, scientifically documented controls are 

planned. For each type of vegetation, BLM should design a control area to see 

objectively the difference between treated and untreated areas. 

Response: This PEIS assesses the impacts of herbicide use on human health, 

ecological resources, vegetation, and other public land resources. The PEIS does not 

authorize any action to be taken on the ground, as stated under NEPA Requirements of 

the Program and in Figure 1-1 in Chapter 1 of the PEIS. The proposed action and 

analysis does not represent a massive experiment. The proposed action represents a 

need to provide additional tools to treat vegetation. These tools are well established 

practices in use by numerous federal, state, and county agencies. Treatments proposed 

at the local field level would have established monitoring requirements and 

timeframes. Controls for treated and untreated areas are developed at the local field 

level in collaboration with state, county, and local agencies, as well as university 

extension services. The PEIS allows local BLM field offices to utilize the analysis to 

prepare site-specific environmental documents. Also see responses to Comment EMC0446-032 under PEIS Alternatives, Monitoring and Comment RMC-0049-003 under 

PEIS Environmental Consequences, How the Effects of the Alternatives Were 

Estimated. 

Comment: What is the rate-of-success of containment, control or eradication for 

chemical vs. mechanical means? 

Response: The BLM utilizes an integrated pest management framework for vegetation 

treatment planning. Under an IPM framework, multiple tools or methods may be used 

alone or in combination effectiveness. The BLM cannot compare the “rate of success” 

between two specific treatment methods across the 17-state area for several reasons. In 

many cases, these types of data are incomplete. Furthermore, the BLM does not apply 

vegetation treatments through either chemical-only or mechanical-only methods. The 

benefits (success) and adverse effects of the different treatment methods are discussed 

in Chapter 4 of the PER. In general, treatment methods utilized meet the resource 

specific objectives identified for a specific project. Not all treatment methods are 

appropriate for all situations; thus, a comparison of relative success or “rate of 

success” between two methods is not ascertainable. 

EMC-0446-012 Comment: Monitoring results and effects at regional scales: The draft PEIS and PER 

The Nature do not provide adequate direction on the need to monitor ecological conditions, 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-284 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Conservancy treatment implementation and management effectiveness relative to project goals, or 

describe the tools available to do so. LANDFIRE is a wildland fire, ecosystem, and 

fuel assessment-mapping project designed to generate consistent, comprehensive, 

multi-scale maps of vegetation, fire, and fuel characteristics for the United States. 

Tools such as LANDFIRE will be especially useful not only for analyzing and 

documenting hazardous fuels conditions, identifying ecosystems at risk, conserving 

ecosystem function, and implementing Fire Program Analysis, but it also provides a 

framework and data for monitoring the success of treatments over time, including 

changes in Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC). We recommend that the public 

investment and value of LANDFIRE be utilized to the greatest extent possible. 

Response: The BLM agrees that the LANDFIRE tool is useful and will assist BLM in 

regional-scale monitoring and effects analysis as the tool is developed and refined. See 

Monitoring in Chapter 2 of the Final PEIS for additional information on available 

monitoring tools. The most recent LANDFIRE rapid assessment map is included in the 

Final PEIS (Map 3-10) in addition to the National FRCC map in the Draft PEIS. 

EMC-0446-032 Comment: Mitigation/Monitoring: On page 2-21 of the [Draft] PEIS, monitoring for 

The Nature treatment effectiveness is mentioned. However, the only specific requirement listed is 

Conservancy for water resources and there is no requirement to monitor impacts to non-target 

species or habitats. We strongly urge that the PEIS include guidelines and 

requirements for monitoring to assess potential off-target impacts as well as to assess 

treatment effectiveness. 

Response: The Monitoring section of Chapter 2 of the PEIS is not exclusive to water 

resources. The section addresses monitoring requirements at the project level and uses 

an example of addressing monitoring for water resources to determine the 

effectiveness of buffer strips for water quality. See the Monitoring section of Chapter 2 

of the PER for a description of the BLM’s responsibility for monitoring vegetation 

treatments. 

EMC-0446-063 Comment: No reference is made to the potential for invasive species encroachment 

The Nature post-disturbance, or the need for monitoring regarding this encroachment. Given the 

Conservancy high disturbance associated with chaining this monitoring should be included as an 

SOP [Standard Operating Procedure] ([Draft] PER [page] 2-24). 

Response: Specific monitoring requirements are established during project design at 

the time the project is proposed. The need to monitor for post-disturbance 

encroachment of invasive species following vegetation treatments applies to all 

treatment methods, including chaining. The BLM Partners Against Weeds - An Action 

Plan for the BLM (USDI BLM 1996) establishes a strategy goal (page 22) to ensure 

site-specific monitoring objectives that address infestation and control of noxious weed 

species are included in activity plans. Following this guidance, site-specific project 

plans for vegetation treatments are required to include a monitoring component. In 

addition, BLM Manual 9015, Integrated Weed Management, states that a noxious 

weed risk assessment, which considers post-disturbance encroachment, must be 

completed for each project. If the potential for post-disturbance encroachment is 

identified, specific actions to mitigate this risk are proposed during the site-specific 

project design and NEPA analysis. 

EMC-0505-009 Comment: EPA believes the Final PEIS should include additional information and 

U.S. Environmental assurances regarding adequate monitoring and evaluation to determine if application 

Protection Agency rates are effective, buffers are sufficient, drift is minimized and specific goals and 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-285 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0505-018 

U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency 

endpoints are being met. In particular, the Final PEIS should discuss in the detail 

appropriate for a national programmatic level document a commitment to 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. 

Response: The BLM is dependent on the USEPA’s pesticide registration and labeling 

processes to release products that are effective and generally safe when used in the 

manner authorized by the label instructions. The BLM has neither the resources nor the 

legal mandate to independently make these determinations, nor is the BLM mandated 

to conduct herbicide efficacy or use research. When completing environmental 

evaluations for herbicide use, the BLM uses USEPA, industry, university, and other 

studies and risk assessments to help determine whether a pesticide can be used safely 

and effectively on public lands. 

The BLM applies herbicides according to label directions. Because the label directions 

for some herbicides include mitigating measures or restrictions (for example, related to 

wind drift, persistence in the soil, movement through the soil, impacts to non-target 

vegetation, or impacts to aquatic species), the BLM assumes that the USEPA has 

based these mitigating measures and restrictions on research or scientific information. 

The BLM does monitor the effects of herbicide applications on the target species along 

with non-target vegetation occurring in and adjacent to a treated area. 

The BLM pays careful attention to calibration and proper use of equipment, as well as 

applicator training, to ensure that the planned application rate is the actual application 

rate. The BLM monitors wind and temperature during application to maximize the 

effectiveness of the herbicide and to prevent herbicide movement off the target area. 

The BLM also observes soil moisture when using herbicides that are known to be 

mobile as a result of higher soil moisture. This type of monitoring tends to entail an 

observation of an indicator or a measurement, followed by a decision to treat or not 

treat at that time. It usually does not include periodic or systematic monitoring of soil 

moisture. 

The BLM does not have the resources nor the technical expertise to monitor the fate 

and/or transport of herbicides through the soil or into groundwater. Setting up a 

research level project to track the movement of small amounts of a chemical or 

compound through the soil is very complex, even when the amount applied, location of 

application, and variable environmental factors are controlled or accounted for. Such 

research is done on very small areas. Trying to monitor small amounts of any 

substance moving through the soil on a long-term basis in an extensive management 

context is technically and financially prohibitive. 

Comment: We encourage BLM to develop a formal set of criteria for routine 

demonstration or small scale testing. For example, it might not be practical to commit 

to a full scale project controlling a large expanse of weeds using insects for biological 

control or some other biologically based approach, but if this were tried on a limited 

acreage, the results of that test would inform, and perhaps improve, future efforts. 

Small investments in demonstration projects can pay off over time and improve or 

expand the understanding of how to manage vegetation and achieve the desired 

condition. 

Response: The BLM seeks input from different groups prior to making the decision to 

apply a pesticide. The BLM participates in research and demonstration projects, even 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-286 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0525-105 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0525-107 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0525-132 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0561-006 

Petroleum Association 

of Wyoming 

funding many in order to better understand how to use the different management 

options available for a particular species, site, or environment. 

Comment: BLM typically has very little current information on ecological conditions 

and the health of native plant communities across the landscape. The last 

comprehensive ecological inventories (SVIM) were conducted primarily in the late 70s 

and early 1980s. When BLM conducts its limited and narrow Fundamentals of 

Rangeland Health assessments and allotment evaluations, it typically relies on old 

data, and never re-visits the sites where [P]EIS data had been collected. Key Area sites 

are located in only the most accessible areas, and are clustered in particular areas of the 

allotments, leaving vast land areas with no monitoring information at all collected. 

BLM also fails to collect necessary data on degradation caused by livestock facilities 

and management activities. Such information is critical to understanding sources of 

flammable cheatgrass or other weed invasion, causes of roading, the inter-relationship 

and cumulative impacts of grazing facilities and roading. Current, comprehensive data 

on condition of soils vegetation, and habitats must be systematically collected. 

Likewise, BLM relies heavily on wildlife species data in databases and not current 

inventories. We fear that unless compilation and assessment of this information is 

conducted at the level of the [P]EIS/PER, data and analysis necessary to understand all 

direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the proposed actions will never be done. 

Response: The BLM acknowledges there are gaps in inventory and monitoring data 

that can be summarized at the spatial scale of this PEIS/PER (17 states). The 

monitoring data deficiencies described in the comment are focused on livestock 

grazing and are outside of the scope of this programmatic analysis. 

Comment: As part of this process, BLM must revisit its limited monitoring sites (or at 

least a subset), and must also establish a series of new ESI [ecological site inventory] 

and monitoring sites that represent the ecological condition of the lands. 

Response: Implementation of monitoring of vegetation treatments will be at the local 

field office level. The commenter is encouraged to participate in the specific NEPA 

analyses for future projects at that level with regard to establishing new ESI or 

monitoring sites. Monitoring is discussed in Chapter 2 of the PEIS and PER under 

Monitoring. 

Comment: BLM must Conduct Population Viability, Persistence, 

Extinction/Extirpation Models for species of Native Wildlife, Rare Plants, Special 

Status Species and T&E [threatened and endangered] Species Under all Alternatives. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0525-111 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. 

Comment: PAW [Petroleum Association of Wyoming] believes it is important for 

BLM to do ongoing monitoring and then adaptively make changes as warranted during 

reclamation in order for effective management to occur. Execution of a project 

monitoring plan provides the feedback necessary for the ongoing stewardship activities 

that will ultimately bring about the desired goal set. Designating resources at project 

initiation to steward restoration activities through time is vital to project success. Our 

member’s experience has shown the added expense is quickly cost justified by positive 

project results. 

Response: The BLM agrees. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-287 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0584-010 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0584-011 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0584-072 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

Comment: Unfortunately, the Draft [P]EIS does not provide adequate information on 

vegetation communities in the affected lands and their surroundings. BLM must 

collect and analyze extensive baseline information on past fire and vegetation 

conversion or manipulation projects in the affected lands in each vegetation type 

identified in the D[raft] PEIS/PER, and the effects of these treatments on wildlife 

corridors, habitat fragmentation, likelihood of human-caused fires or disturbance, etc. 

Data and maps must be compiled and assessed that indicate where all past treatments 

have been conducted. Without understanding the past dispersion and impacts of 

treatments and disturbance across the landscape, BLM can not adequately assess the 

impacts of various alternatives related to treatment and land health. Information that 

needs to be acquired and assessed includes data and maps of: 

Past disturbance events on these lands (fire- prescribed or wild, chemical treatment, 

mechanical treatment – chaining, cutting, etc.); Seedings or any other post-disturbance 

treatments that have occurred and their current condition; Condition of treatments and 

seedings, including cheatgrass and other fine fuels and weeds in interspaces; Impacts 

of all livestock facilities; Impacts of roading, and roading links to past treatments or 

livestock or other land uses. Assessment should include a valid study of the current 

ecological condition and health of soils, vegetation, important wildlife habitats and 

other important values of the affected lands, a comparison between these conditions 

and conditions at the time of the disturbance. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0525111 under PEIS Proposed Action and 

Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. 

Comment: For all lands where treatments have been identified by BLM Field offices, 

BLM must collect current information on: Vegetation species composition, its current 

ecological condition; livestock grazing regimen and standards of use; wildlife habitats 

and populations occurring here. Information on periods of rest, trespass, and other 

livestock factors must be included. Current information on ecological condition, 

presence of weeds and other exotic species, etc. on all lands within the project area 

must be collected as part of this effort. It must be the basis for decision making on 

“acres to be treated” for various purposes in the [P]EIS. For example, how many acres 

of salt desert shrub communities, Wyoming big sagebrush, or other communities have 

a significant component of cheatgrass in the understory? How many of these lands 

have already crossed thresholds, where succession is truncated? How many are at risk 

of crossing thresholds? How many acres, and what is the location, of each vegetation 

type is in good or better ecological condition? After solid, on-the-ground collection of 

new information, BLM must develop a rigorous protocol for determining all lands in 

need of “treatment”, and explain in comprehensive detail, with supporting science, 

why these lands need treatment. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0525-111 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. Pre-treatment planning and inventory for 

treatment application is accomplished at the local field office level at the time the 

project is proposed. 

Comment: We are extremely concerned that monitoring and mitigation in the DEIS 

[Draft PEIS]/PER are not adequate and do not even begin to address the large-scale 

disturbance of plant and animal community composition, function and structure that 

undertaking the large-scale treatments will affect. Monitoring. The [P]EIS fails to 

provide necessary monitoring, and decisive actions that will occur post-treatment if 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-288 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0584-076 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0584-098 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

treatment protocols, livestock rest, etc. is violated. BLM should establish specific posttreatment criteria for monitoring for livestock trespass, sound studies of soil health, 

stability and recovery, etc. 

Response: The Proposed Action is described in Chapter 1 of the PEIS under Proposed 

Action. The PEIS does not propose large-scale disturbance or large-scale treatments, 

nor are any treatments authorized through this PEIS (see Decisions to be Made and 

Scope of Analysis in Chapter 1 of the PEIS). Monitoring is discussed in Chapter 2 of 

the PEIS and PER under Monitoring. Mitigation measures are summarized in Table 2­

9 in Chapter 2 of the Final PEIS. Standard Operating Procedures are discussed in 

Table 2-8 in Chapter 2 of the Final PEIS. Post-treatment violations in the form of 

trespass or other unauthorized uses would be addressed through the applicable 

regulatory process. In the case of livestock, action would be initiated under 43 CFR 

[Code of Federal Regulations] 4150, Unauthorized Grazing Use. Implementation of 

monitoring for any given treatment will be at the local field office level as part of the 

treatment project design and NEPA analysis, including development of post-treatment 

criteria for monitoring. Project funding, regardless of the program funding source 

(Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation, Healthy Forests Initiative, Range, 

Wildlife, Noxious Weeds), includes funding for the monitoring component. 

Comment: BLM must develop a comprehensive monitoring plan with specific 

schedules, with all monitoring to be funded as part of the original “treatment” cost. 

Otherwise, timely and necessary monitoring will never occur. 

Response: Implementation of monitoring for any given treatment will be at the local 

field office level as part of the treatment project design and NEPA analysis, including 

development of post-treatment criteria for monitoring. Project funding, regardless of 

the program funding source (Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation, Healthy 

Forests Initiative, Range, Wildlife, Noxious Weeds), includes funding for the 

monitoring component. 

Comment: Livestock Trespass, Other Post-Fire Non-Compliance: As part of this 

NEPA process, BLM must review records of livestock trespass or non-compliance, 

and assess its frequency and impacts to treatment outcomes. What are the impacts of 

trespass on outcome of rehab efforts? BLM must also provide strict penalties for postfire trespass by livestock on burned areas. As taxpayers often have spent hundreds of 

thousands of dollars on post-fire rehab and other ESR [Emergency Stabilization and 

Rehabilitation] activities, accountability and effectiveness of rehab is essential. Please 

describe how trespass may harm any site recovery. For example, trespass has been a 

tremendous problem in Burley BLM lands, and documented by Miriam Austin of 

WWP [Western Watersheds Project] and others over the years. The trespassed public 

lands at Rice Canyon and in the Goose Creek watershed of Burley BLM provide a 

perfect example of BLM Post-fire failures to control livestock. 

Response: The PEIS identifies restricting livestock if necessary as a Standard 

Operating Procedure in Table 2-8 (Standard Operating Procedures for Applying 

Herbicides) of the PEIS. In many situations restricting livestock is necessary to allow 

either recovery or establishment of native perennial vegetation following treatment. If 

grazing occurs too soon, new seedlings and possibly existing plants that were stressed 

during the treatment may be damaged. As a result of this damage, the desirable 

vegetation may not be able to take advantage of the additional soil resources that were 

made available by removing the less desirable vegetation. In such a situation it is likely 

that “weeds” or other undesirable invasive vegetation will outcompete the native 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-289 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0584-116 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-008 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

vegetation and maintain a significant presence on the site. The outcome of grazing an 

area too early would occur regardless of whether the grazing is an authorized or 

unauthorized use. Therefore, the BLM believes that the PEIS adequately addresses this 

situation. The BLM did do some additional review of livestock trespass in general, as 

well as some specific situations. Although unauthorized grazing use occurs in some 

situations, it was not identified as a significant problem for most treatments or 

wildfires. Unauthorized use actions are taken if livestock are allowed to use a burn or 

treatment area. The settlement of an unauthorized use situation is dependent on the 

facts of the specific case, whether the unauthorized use is determined to be willful, or 

non-willful, and the number of animals and amount of time involved in the violation. 

Comment: Analysis of Past EFR [Emergency Fire Rehabilitation]/Rehab/Restoration 

Actions. As part of this NEPA process, BLM must assess all its post-fire rehab 

herbicide use efforts and seedings in the past 30-40 years, or however long records 

have been kept. For example, which cwg seedings in the Jarbidge were planted, when? 

With what species? What is their current condition? Following this, BLM must collect 

site-specific data on the current condition, health, wildlife, recreational and other 

values of these areas seeded post-fire. How many new fences, pipelines, troughs, etc. 

have been built using ESR funds, or federal fire funds? What impacts have they had? 

A complete analysis must be presented in this NEPA document. 

Response: See responses to Comment EMC-0584-051 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Programs, Policies, and Initiatives 

Influencing Vegetation Treatment Activities, and Comment EMC-0525–111 under 

PEIS Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. 

Comment: Nowhere, in any scientific, systematic, baseline or comprehensive way, is 

effectiveness ever examined in the DEIS [Draft PEIS]/PER or associated documents 

When I inquired of the PEIS preparers ([Brian] Amme) where effectiveness is 

examined, the response was: “in the scientific literature, and by the Weed control 

districts and other levels”, and suggested I go to state weed meetings. These state weed 

meetings do not scientifically or systematically I examine the effectiveness of 

treatment projects conducted across public lands. I have attended them. Small papers 

and reports, at times funded by chemical companies, are all they entail. If BLM is 

aware of current and accurate information compiled by any of these parties, it should 

have been presented in the DEIS [Draft PEIS], and has not been. Tremendous risk and 

uncertainty surrounds any BLM action under which BLM would claim that 

“effectiveness” was somehow examined at state weed meetings, and this information 

somehow magically incorporated into treatment of millions of acres of public lands. 

Response: The BLM uses professional judgment and expertise in designing vegetation 

treatment projects. Knowledge of the effectiveness of methods and techniques of 

vegetation control that is applied to public lands is derived from many sources 

including, but not limited to: monitoring of past projects, scientific literature, 

participation in professional societies, society meetings, workshops, university 

research, university and agricultural extension services, and other federal agencies (e.g. 

Natural Resource Conservation Service, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture), as well as the local expertise available from state and 

county agencies. There is no single scientific comprehensive study of the effectiveness 

of all vegetation treatment methods over the 17-state area this PEIS addresses. 

Development and funding of a research design to scientifically and comprehensively 

address vegetation treatment effectiveness over a 17-state area is beyond the scope of 

this PEIS. The BLM will continue to rely on professional judgment and the available 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-290 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0585-024 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-028 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-031 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-058 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

extant literature and expertise, as described above, when designing vegetation 

treatment projects and selecting methods of treatments for effectiveness. 

Comment: BLM has conducted no effectiveness monitoring, and provides no sciencebased analysis that its drastic increase in just such activity as has harmed these habitats 

in the past, will result in positive or beneficial changes for natural communities. BLM 

has refused to address the causes of any “need” for treatments. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0584-051 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Programs, Policies, and Initiatives 

Influencing Vegetation Treatment Activities. The broad adverse and beneficial effects 

of treatments are described in Chapter 4 of the PER. The need for an increase in acres 

treated to address hazardous fuels conditions has been established under direction from 

Congress and the Administration. 

Comment: If these previous treatments are now in poor condition, are infested with 

weeds, etc. it is critical to use this information in this [P]EIS. This is especially the 

case as the [P]EIS page after page makes sweeping and unsubstantiated assertions that 

disturbance or treatment actions under it Preferred or other alternatives would result in 

beneficial outcomes, and improvements in soils, watersheds, all components of the 

environment. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0584-051 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Programs, Policies, and Initiatives 

Influencing Vegetation Treatment Activities. Site-specific conditions and successes or 

failures of previous treatments are taken into account during the design of proposed 

vegetation projects at the local field office level. The broad adverse and beneficial 

effects of treatments methods on vegetation and public lands resources are described in 

Chapter 4 of the PEIS. 

Comment: Instead of presenting any data or analysis of current conditions on these 

lands where it has conducted past treatment projects, BLM has used “existing 

environmental analyses in analyzing impacts of the proposed action and alternative”. 

None of these “existing” documents ever examines the condition of the treated lands, 

or the effectiveness of treatments. 

Response: The BLM often relies on existing environmental analyses when assessing 

impacts of new projects or proposals. The BLM has relied on independent and new 

scientific data and analyses for the herbicides evaluated in this PEIS. Information from 

existing environmental analyses has been incorporated by reference where appropriate. 

See responses to Comment EMC-0584-051 under PER Vegetation Treatment 

Programs, Policies, and Methods, Programs, Policies, and Initiatives Influencing 

Vegetation Treatment Activities, Comment EMC-0585-148 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Monitoring, and Comment RMC-0222-087 under PER Effects of Vegetation 

Treatments, Vegetation regarding effectiveness monitoring. Chapter 4 of the PEIS, and 

in particular Chapter 4 of the PER, provide examples of treatment successes and 

failures based on studies done by the BLM, other agencies, and research organizations. 

Comment: BLM must provide data and studies of the effects and effectiveness of its 

past use of the chemicals currently being used and carried forward in this [P]EIS in 

real-world, wild land settings, to understand the environmental and other effects of 

their use. BLM has not done this in the DEIS [Draft PEIS]. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-291 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0585-061 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-062 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-137 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-140 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

Response: See responses to Comment EMC-0238-009 and Comment EMC-0340-006 

under PEIS Alternatives, Monitoring. 

Comment: What is the condition of the sage grouse habitats where treatments have 

occurred? Have these treatments been effective in achieving the outcomes predicted or 

claimed? This is critical to understand the effects of both herbicides and treatments on 

wild lands. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0584-051 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Programs, Policies, and Initiatives 

Influencing Vegetation Treatment Activities. The condition of specific habitats, such 

as sage-grouse habitat, is assessed at more regional or local scales in land use or 

activity level plans. This PEIS and PER assess impacts and effects of vegetation 

treatments broadly across 17 western states and are organized by ecoregion rather than 

wildlife habitat. Adverse and beneficial effects of treatment methods on wildlife 

resources, by ecoregion, are described in the Wildlife Resources section of Chapter 4 

of the PER. 

Comment: BLM claims “the use of the other non-herbicide techniques in an 

integrated pest management approach has been affirmed in all previous EIS, and the 

BLM is not proposing to make any decisions relative to the use of non-herbicide 

vegetation treatment methods” ([page] ES-2 [of the Draft PEIS]). Here BLM admits it 

has been using many of these techniques all along, yet refuses to examine their 

effectiveness, or ecological consequences, or to develop a decisionmaking framework 

to determine which treatments to use or how it will decide when to spray vs. when to 

mow, for example. 

Response: The BLM includes effectiveness monitoring as a component of all 

approved vegetation treatment projects. The BLM examines the ecological and 

environmental consequences of proposed vegetation treatments at the project-specific 

level through the NEPA process. The framework for selecting treatment methods or 

techniques is described in Chapter 2 of the PER under Planning and Management at 

the Local Level. The BLM utilizes an integrated pest management approach when 

assessing the need for treatments and when selecting an appropriate treatment method. 

Comment: BLM provides no systematically collected monitoring data that gauges the 

success, costs, or environmental impacts of BLM vegetation actions that have occurred 

to date using IPM [Integrated Pest Management]. How many acres has BLM used IPM 

or IVM [Integrated Vegetation Management] on? Where? What has been the success 

in the short, mid and long terms? What actions have been taken to control livestock 

grazing pre or post-treatment, or to limit continued disturbance or spread of weeds at 

these areas where IPM/IVM is claimed to have been conducted? 

Response: See responses to Comment EMC-0584-051 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Programs, Policies, and Initiatives 

Influencing Vegetation Treatment Activities and Comment EMC-0525-111 under 

PEIS Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. 

Comment: [Page] 2-2 [of the Draft PEIS] “rangeland management” further describes 

BLM treating 317,959 acres to prevent the spread of noxious weeds and invasive 

plants in 2004, and inventorying only 8.9 million acres. BLM also claims that funding 

and labor dictates a containment strategy. If BLM has only surveyed 8.9 million acres 

how can it possibly know how many acres need to be treated? 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-292 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0585-143 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-144 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-148 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

Response: BLM public lands are on a 3-year inventory cycle. Each field office 

assesses its public lands through various methods, including but not limited to: rapid 

assessment techniques, watershed inventories, statistical sampling, and remote sensing, 

as well as vehicle and pedestrian surveys and field observations. The 8.9 million acres 

inventoried for weeds was in Fiscal Year 2004 only. The total number of acres 

inventoried and re-inventoried for weeds is greater than 8.9 million acres. See 

Determination of Treatment Acreages in the Scope of Report section of Chapter 1 of 

the PER for a description on how acres were estimated for the PER and PEIS. 

Comment: [Page] 2-4 [of the Draft PEIS] summarizes the 1992 13 States EIS, and 

claims that BLM acts to minimize or prevent the need for veg controls, uses effective 

nonchemical control, uses herbicides only after considering effectiveness of other 

methods. Yet, the [P]EIS provides no current evaluation of herbicide or treatment 

effectiveness. So BLM has no current framework for identifying which herbicide or 

treatment, or combination, would be most effective to use in a wild land setting. 

Response: The PEIS/PER does not provide a 17-state-wide summary of effectiveness 

of treatments applied in the past. The availability of effectiveness monitoring data for 

treatment applications varies greatly among field offices. In the PEIS, it is not possible 

to summarize specific projects and their results over a 17-state area spanning over 4 

decades. Decisions on treatment(s) to apply are made at the local field office level and 

determined within an integrated pest management framework. Refer to the Proposed 

Action in the Introduction section of Chapter 1 of the PEIS. The PEIS assesses the 

impacts of four proposed herbicides on human health, ecologically sensitive species, 

and public lands resources. 

Comment: Nowhere in the current [Draft] [P]EIS which claims to base its actions and 

those of the PER on this old EIS does BLM provide information or facts that 

demonstrate where, how much acreage, and how successful actions under the old EIS 

have been, or how best to minimize herbicide use. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0585-143 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Monitoring. 

Comment: This demonstrates the great risks with BLM’s greatly expanded herbicide 

and other treatment acreages, and a great likelihood of unnecessary and undue 

degradation to lands and waters from BLM’s actions. BLM cannot get off the hook by 

claiming it never bothered to monitor the projects, or lost the results. WWP [Western 

Watersheds Project] regularly receives information from BLM District or Field Offices 

in FOIAs [Freedom of Information Act], or reviews agency project and other files as 

part of IBLA [Interior Board of Land Appeals]/OHA [Office of Hearings and Appeals] 

or other litigation, and records of past treatments do exist. Example, Jarbidge office 

BLM FOIA, producing all documents of veg treatments, ESR [Emergency 

Stabilization and Rehabilitation], etc. As part of this EIS process, BLM must 

demonstrate some accountability to the American public. It could readily review past 

ESR [emergency stabilization and rehabilitation], chaining, prescribed fire, etc. project 

36, files, and systematically monitor all, or a randomly selected subset of the sites to 

determine the effectiveness and risks of treatments. BLM must revisit treated sites in 

order to gauge the environmental effects, and to develop a valid baseline. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0585-143 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Monitoring. The BLM agrees post-treatment monitoring should occur and the results 

used to establish baseline information at the local field office level. Individual project 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-293 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0585-149 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-150 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0628-002 

Needs, Kelly 

EMC-0640-009 

Animal Welfare 

Institute 

EMC-0640-032 

Animal Welfare 

Institute 

and site-specific data are best utilized locally to be meaningful in understanding local 

vegetative conditions. The BLM Legacy Program provides a broad-level sample for 

effectiveness monitoring for treatments greater than 25 years old. The results of these 

field visits are incorporated into the PEIS and PER. 

Comment: Instead, BLM relies on unsubstantiated assertions and predictions of the 

beneficial nature and impacts of all actions it proposes. This is even more egregious, as 

BLM claims that “monitoring ensures that vegetation management is an adaptive 

process that continually builds on past mistakes”. . . . “this ensures that vegetation 

treatment processes are effective, adaptive, and based on prior experience”. Yet, BLMs 

[P]EIS provides no evidence that the agency can be trusted to monitor or learn 

anything − or be effective, adaptive or base anything on past experience. 

Response: The BLM relies on the value of monitoring, particularly effectiveness 

monitoring, in its decision-making process to undertake specific vegetation treatments. 

Comment: If BLM plans to rely on adaptive management, or claim that it is learning 

from treatments, this [P]EIS must establish specific mandated short, mid and long term 

monitoring for specific parameters of vegetation, soil, habitat health and ecological 

integrity on all treatments. 

Response: Monitoring by the BLM is implemented at the land use plan level and at 

smaller spatial scales, as funding and priority allow. See response to Comment EMC0584-076 under PEIS Alternatives, Monitoring. 

Comment: I also believe that adequate monitoring are required to determine whether 

existing treatments are effective, much less adding thousand of more acres to the 

budget. What budget has been allocated to cover monitoring the effects and results of 

the proposed treatment? No treatment should take place if no system is in place to 

evaluate whether that treatment was effective. 

Response: See responses to Comment EMC-0585-150 and Comment EMC-0585-143 

under PEIS Alternatives, Monitoring. 

Comment: Furthermore, the BLM must employ comprehensive monitoring strategies 

both pre and post treatment (including immediately post treatment) to track herbicide 

impacts and to use such data to alter or terminate the area-specific herbicide 

application program. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0584-051 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Programs, Policies, and Initiatives 

Influencing Vegetation Treatment Activities. 

Comment: With regard to impacts, the PEIS and PER failed to comprehensively 

articulate the potential impacts of both herbicidal and non-herbicidal treatment 

programs and to include and describe a comprehensive monitoring program to assess 

the impact of such programs both pre and post-treatment. This failure is particularly 

egregious considering that the BLM has been using herbicidal and non-herbicidal 

treatment programs for years, yet the PEIS did not include any description of impact 

data collected, lessons learned, mistakes made, or adjustments implemented based on 

past practices. Though the BLM attempts to disregard this critical omission by 

claiming that past monitoring efforts (pre and post treatment) were not sufficient or 

sufficiently standardized, it is incomprehensible that data on the field application of 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-294 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0640-035 

Animal Welfare 

Institute 

FXC-0074-007 

Copper Country 

Alliance 

RMC-0006-026 

Central Sierra 

Environmental 

Resource Center 

various herbicides, for example, and their impact on non-target vegetation, fish, 

wildlife, soil bacteria, and invertebrates are not available in a form that could have 

been incorporated into the PEIS. Even if the BLM could have only provided 

summaries of impacts previously encountered with the use of herbicidal or nonherbicidal vegetation treatments, such summaries would have provided the public with 

a better understanding of the potential impacts, or lack of impacts, expected under the 

proposed action. 

Response: See responses to Comment EMC-0584-051 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Programs, Policies, and Initiatives 

Influencing Vegetation Treatment Activities and Comment EMC-0525-087 under 

PEIS Environmental Consequences, How the Effects of the Alternatives Were 

Estimated. 

Comment: Finally, if the BLM implements the proposed action, it is crucial that its 

plan be based on adaptive management and that it establish stringent criteria for pre 

and post treatment monitoring to assess the impact of its treatment options on wildlife, 

fish, amphibians, protected wildlife, invertebrates, air and water quality, soils, human 

safety, and other ecosystem components. The pre-monitoring effort must evaluate the 

condition of the proposed treatment area including species (flora and fauna) 

composition, abundance, and density data so that the impact of the treatment can be 

quantitatively measured. Post-treatment monitoring must be initiated immediately after 

treatment (not 1 to 2 years after treatment) to measure how the treatment affected 

various ecosystem components. Prior to treatment the BLM should establish treatment 

specific criteria, which, if exceeded as determined by post-treatment monitoring, 

would result in either a cessation or alteration to the treatment program to prevent any 

future violation of the criteria. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0584-076 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Monitoring. 

Comment: Additionally, methods should be evaluated for their long-term 

effectiveness, including ability to remove or disable seeds and roots. 

Response: The Final PEIS/PER has an expanded section on Monitoring in Chapter 2, 

although it is presented at a broad, programmatic level. Implementation planning is 

tied to goals and objectives (i.e., desired outcomes) set at the regional/local land use 

planning level. During implementation planning, detailed effectiveness monitoring is 

developed. Invasive plant treatment programs throughout the country managed by 

various entities (federal, state, county, university, etc.) are continually evaluating the 

long-term effectiveness of treatment methods; such information is used to build sitespecific effectiveness monitoring. 

Comment: For the rare cases where herbicides may be determined to be necessary, 

project plans should include realistic exit strategy. Any chosen alternative should 

require that when herbicide treatments are used, follow-up monitoring, analysis, and 

rehabilitation are carried out until the desired stable native plant and animal 

communities are established. 

Response: Follow-up monitoring of herbicide treatment projects to determine 

treatment success and follow-up rehabilitation to meet restoration objectives are 

considered and implemented in each herbicide treatment project proposal. In the case 

of emergency stabilization and rehabilitation projects following wildland fire, followBLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-295 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0006-030 

Central Sierra 

Environmental 

Resource Center 

RMC-0069-009 

Desert Survivors 

RMC-0069-010 

Desert Survivors 

up monitoring, treatment, and rehabilitation are required for the first 3 years. Use 

closures for livestock and other animals are implemented for at least two growing 

seasons or until rehabilitation objectives are met. The only way to determine whether 

objectives have been met and reopen an area to use is through the necessary 

monitoring. 

Comment: Herbicide treatments don’t provide beneficial results unless they are 

followed up closely until the desired native vegetation community is well established. 

Even after this, annual surveys should be conducted to catch re-growth from the seed 

bank or re-introduction of the same species or other invasive species. If exotic invasive 

plants do reappear, then it will be much easier to catch them with manual removal 

when their populations are small. It should be a requirement of any herbicide plan to 

guarantee that follow-up observation and rehabilitation is planned and success is 

achieved. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0584-076 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Monitoring. Post-treatment monitoring is an essential component of any treatment 

proposal. 

Comment: Does the BLM have data from any recent controlled comprehensive 

studies of what happens to herbicides or herbicide residues after application? Do you 

have any data on the persistence of same in either groundwater, foliage or other plant 

materials, or in soil at the sites treated in the past? Such studies would have to go on 

for two, five, ten or twenty or fifty years, so we may see if the water, soil, plants or 

animals are contaminated, for how long, and in what way. Are you conducting such 

studies now? When will they be completed? Are any studies designed to test these 

subjects on BLM lands now? If so, Desert Survivors would like learn of such studies 

and see the results. 

Response: A large number of studies have been reported in the literature and in the 

PEIS about the fate of herbicides in groundwater and soil (see Soil Resource and 

Water Resources and Quality sections in Chapter 4 of the PEIS, and Sections 3.2 and 

3.3, and Appendix A of the ecological risk assessments). The herbicides that the BLM 

proposes to use are generally short-lived in soil and groundwater. The BLM is not 

funded as a research organization, and does not conduct studies on the fate of 

herbicides on BLM-administered lands; the agency relies on the research of others, 

such as the USEPA and U.S. Geological Survey. 

Comment: Without any data, the allegation that there is no danger from these 

substances remains exactly that, an allegation. And I am not referring to studies done 

by pesticide manufacturers, which have an obvious bias. I am referring to studies 

actually performed by public agencies on the ground. We need to see what happens to 

the land, its water, its plants and its animals, when these substances are applied. At a 

time when school districts, neighborhood groups and municipalities are challenging 

the California State Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”) when it applies 

pesticides to every roadside, our citizens should expect no less of the BLM on our 

public lands. 

Response: The potential risks to human health from the herbicides were carefully 

evaluated in the human health risk assessments and ecological risk assessments using 

scientific data and reasonable assumptions about how humans, plants, and animals 

may come in contact with the herbicides. Also see response to Comment RMC-0069-

009 under PEIS Alternatives, Monitoring. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-296 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0070-006 

California Regional 

Water Quality Control 

Board 

Comment: All alternatives that include pesticide applications should contain a 

detailed monitoring plan to verify that the above Basin Plan pesticide objectives are 

not violated. Your [P]EIS should display clearly what type of monitoring is planned, 

including a detailed schedule for monitoring to be conducted. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0584-076 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Monitoring. 

RMC-0080-009 

Idaho State Department 

of Agriculture 

Comment: ISDA [Idaho State Department of Agriculture] is pleased to see BLM 

address monitoring and the adaptive nature of vegetation management. We are, 

however, concerned with how BLM is going to monitor and follow-up herbicide 

treatments. On page 2-21 the [Draft] PEIS states[:] The BLM recognizes that many 

sites treated in the past lack monitoring data. In many cases monitoring was not done, 

was done sporadically without consistent documentation, or was done but the records 

were lost or destroyed. The PEIS then goes on to say that to correct these problems 

“...monitoring must be designed to determine if the treatment was effective...and to 

ensure that the treatment did not adversely impact other resources.” We have two 

concerns with these statements. One, this statement is extremely ambiguous and does 

not offer any real solutions. Too what degree is effectiveness to be monitored and 

impacts to be investigated? Two, how is BLM going to expect personnel to monitor 

three times the amount of vegetation treatments when resources are insufficient to 

monitor what they currently treat? ISDA suggests the BLM, in the PEIS, describe the 

components of an effective monitoring program (including identification of parameters 

for developing tangible objectives), or at least, require weed program supervisors to be 

trained in how to carry out an effective monitoring program. If BLM wants to make a 

change in the effectiveness of its monitoring, it must begin in the PEIS. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0584-076 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Monitoring. See also the revised text pertaining to monitoring in Chapter 2 of the Final 

PEIS under Monitoring. The BLM would monitor for the effectiveness of the 

treatment and use any of the techniques recommended in BLM Technical Report TR 

1730-1, Measuring and Monitoring. The BLM would also use the North America 

Weed Management Association standards in order to be consistent with data collection 

standards with other agencies. 

RMC-0087-007 

Central Valley 

California Regional 

Water Quality Control 

Board 

Comment: In the “Monitoring” section, it states that, “Post-treatment monitoring 

generally occurs within 2 years after treatment and, where applicable, should include a 

water monitoring program to determine the effectiveness of buffer strips and impacts, 

if any, to water quality.” If BLM applies aquatic pesticides, post-treatment monitoring 

2 years after an application will not show if there was an impact or not. To make 

monitoring data more useful, surface water monitoring must occur at least prior to an 

application as well as immediately after an application in one or more sites 

downstream of the treatment area. Our office has on file available for your viewing 

examples of monitoring plans that may serve as models for the plans that would have 

to be developed for your project. 

Response: The statement refers to monitoring of water quality impacts from terrestrial 

applications. This has been clarified in the Final PEIS. The BLM agrees that posttreatment monitoring for aquatic applications after 2 years would not be timely to 

determine impacts. Also see response to Comment RMC-0070-007 under PEIS 

Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Interrelationships and Coordination with 

Agencies. BLM monitoring criteria and requirements for aquatic treatments within the 

jurisdiction of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board will be 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-297 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0106-004 

Public Employees for 

Environmental 

Responsibility 

RMC-0106-005 

Public Employees for 

Environmental 

Responsibility 

coordinated through this agency at the time a project is proposed. 

Comment: The woeful lack of direct on-the-ground evidence of impacts from all 

previously-used herbicides is the result of 20 years of failure to implement a 

meaningful monitoring program. This is evident from the fact that virtually no 

evidence of adverse impact from 20 years of application of these herbicides to public 

lands is used, or cited, in the pages of impact analysis. 

Response: The BLM disagrees with the commentor’s statement. The BLM monitors 

herbicide treatments according to the monitoring requirements identified and 

developed for the specific project through site-specific NEPA analysis. The 

commenter presents no information that monitoring has not occurred in the past for 

herbicide projects. Herbicides have specific half-lives and degradation rates that do not 

result in accumulation or persistence in the environment for more than a few years for 

a few herbicides, and less time for most herbicides. Thus, herbicides applied several 

years in the past no longer exist in any tangible form or persist only in negligible or 

trace amounts in the present. Persistence in the environment, even for a few years, is 

dictated by a number of variables including rate of application, number of times 

applied in one area, soil clay content, ability of target vegetation to fully absorb the 

herbicide by its mode of action, and available moisture, among others. Over the last 20 

years the BLM has seen no evidence of adverse effects to public lands from proper 

applications of herbicides, cumulatively or otherwise. 

Comment: PEER [Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility] recommends 

that instead of authorizing a new program of herbicidal treatment, a thorough 

inventory be made of all of the problem areas presently targeted to establish current 

conditions of pesticide contamination of land and water, including the occurrence and 

nature of degradates of both active and inert ingredients of the pesticides used to date 

by the BLM. Small test areas (less than 10 acres) should then be established to 

thoroughly examine the effects of all herbicides proposed to be used on vegetation, 

soils, and aquatic and terrestrial wildlife (target and non-target species). Data are 

especially deficient for soil biota and for the behavior of herbicides in the soil column 

above the water table (unsaturated zone), and should be emphasized in a rigorous 

study. No herbicidal treatment program should be implemented until this study is 

completed (probably requiring at least 5 years) and only if justified by this study. 

Herbicidal treatments to “improve” rangeland should be part of this study. In the 

interim carefully monitored non-herbicidal methods should be used to address the 

problems of invasive species. 

Response: The PEIS is not authorizing a new program of herbicidal treatment. 

Vegetation treatments by the BLM using herbicides have been ongoing for several 

decades. In developing this PEIS, risk assessments for human health and ecological 

risk have been undertaken for the four herbicides proposed for use and for an 

additional nine herbicides already approved for use on public lands, based on extensive 

toxicological literature searches conducted in conjunction with the risk studies. The 

BLM has conducted these risk analyses in addition to the studies and research 

undertaken by USEPA to register the active ingredients under the Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. To the extent practicable, all active and inert 

ingredients of the herbicides considered in the PEIS have been addressed in this 

analysis. The BLM evaluated the nature of degradates in Appendix D of the Final 

PEIS. Incomplete and unavailable information is addressed in Chapter 4 under 

Incomplete and Unavailable Information. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-298 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0106-008 

Public Employees for 

Environmental 

Responsibility 

RMC-0106-009 

Public Employees for 

Environmental 

Responsibility 

RMC-0106-016 

Public Employees for 

Environmental 

Responsibility 

RMC-0106-017 

Public Employees for 

Environmental 

Responsibility 

Comment: Even at that, to eliminate from discussion the environmental impacts of 

two decades of herbicidal treatments of public lands for range improvement is 

irresponsible. It is stated in the 1991 FEIS for vegetation treatment in 13 western states 

(p. 1-37) that “Many rangeland treatments would have studies established in them to 

monitor treatment effects on vegetation as well as on other resources such as wildlife 

or water quality...” 

Response: All vegetation treatments completed since the 1991 FEIS would have 

completed site-specific level analysis and appropriate field office monitoring data to 

evaluate their level of effectiveness. These data are not summarized in this PEIS. 

Comment: All monitoring data from those years must be cited or incorporated by 

reference to accessible documents. If the BLM has no useful impact data from those 20 

years to apply to the present analysis, it must say so. PEER [Public Employees for 

Environmental Responsibility] suspects this is the case as the BLM has failed to 

respond to repeated FOIAs [Freedom of Information Act’s] and two appeals seeking 

monitoring results from the 199 1-2001 vegetation treatment program in 13 western 

states. The ROD [Record of Decision] for the 1991 EIS required monitoring to assess 

effectiveness of the herbicidal applications and their environmental impacts. So, where 

are the data? 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0106-008 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Monitoring. Monitoring data for specific projects resides at the field office where the 

project was proposed and implemented. The 1991 ROD established that monitoring 

would occur. The ROD did not establish that monitoring data would be summarized in 

a subsequent analysis of herbicide effects. The PEIS does not summarize these data. 

The cost to collate 20 years of complex monitoring data across 17 states would be 

exorbitant. 

Comment: [Page] 2-21 [of the Draft PEIS]. The requirement to establish intervals and 

standards for monitoring and evaluation has clearly not been implemented in the past. 

For example, the monitoring program for the Northwest Area FEIS, 1985, p. 184-185 

and Western Oregon Program FEIS, 1989, p. 237-238 call for only extremely limited 

monitoring of surface water quality. Assessing the effects of herbicide applications 

requires full inventory of the state of the area to be treated before treatment. Ecosystem 

effects can only be assessed by comparison with a control area in which vegetation and 

ecosystem functions have not been degraded. The D[raft] PEIS should lay out a 

monitoring protocol that is scientifically and legally defensible, and tie it to actions 

required upon determination that specific thresholds of adverse effects have been 

reached. These procedures and findings should be mandatory, and they must include 

adequate monitoring of groundwater. 

Response: Current monitoring standards are based upon relevant guidance in BLM 

manuals and handbooks, in addition to local, state, and federal regulatory standards 

applicable to the project or area to be treated (e.g., groundwater) and subsequently 

monitored. Monitoring activities outlined in previous EISs may no longer conform to 

current standards. In all cases, current standards and protocols for monitoring are 

followed. 

Comment: Past experience shows the inadequacy of the statement that monitoring 

results “...should be made available to interested parties.” Make this mandatory and 

specify reporting interval. If the costs of an adequate program are prohibitive, only 

Alternative C is appropriate. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-299 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0106-059 

Public Employees for 

Environmental 

Responsibility 

RMC-0130-005 

Craig, Diane 

Response: The BLM already has legal mandates in the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act (1976) and the Public Rangelands Improvement Act (1978) to 

inventory and report on a continuing basis the range condition and trend in that 

condition. The BLM also provides monitoring data and results to interested parties and 

the public through a number of venues, including the NEPA process for specific 

actions. Nothing in the PEIS analysis can make reporting monitoring results any more 

mandatory. In cases where information is not provided as requested by interested 

parties, the public has relief through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to 

obtain such data. 

Comment: [On] p. 4-199 [of the Draft PEIS]. “Determining the exact [or any!] status 

of soil conditions for any given area is difficult because of the lack of inventory and 

monitoring data.” (emphasis added). This, sadly, is the unfortunate truth. 20 years of 

herbicidal treatment of public lands have been undertaken with no record of the status 

of the land and no monitoring of the impacts to soil resources. This record is hardly the 

basis for justifying open-ended continuation of the same procedures. 

Response: Order 3 soil inventories and land health assessments have been conducted 

on millions of acres of federal lands. However, these inventory and monitoring 

activities are not generally intended to measure the impacts of herbicide use. 

Nevertheless, extensive studies have been conducted on the environmental and health 

risks associated with each of the herbicides proposed for use in the PEIS. There is no 

“open-ended” use of herbicides implied by the PEIS. Use is restricted to specific 

herbicides applied by qualified applicators according to strict use guidelines. No 

herbicide use will be conducted without further environmental analysis at the local 

project scale. 

Comment: I also wonder how the BLM intends to monitor such a program and what 

they have in mind when it eradicates vast populations that nature placed in these areas 

to live in harmony and balance. Is the BLM responsible for providing emergency 

healthcare to the wildlife populations it intends to exterminate with this senseless act? 

The BLM as states “monitoring ensures that vegetation management is an adaptive 

process that continually build upon past successes and learns from past mistakes” my 

question here is how can the BLM evaluate such successes and mistakes when it 

recognizes “that many sites treated in the past lack monitoring data. In many cases, 

project monitoring was not done, was done sporadically without consistent 

documentation, or was done but the records were lost or destroyed.” 

Response: The BLM acknowledges gaps in monitoring information from past 

activities, as discussed in the Monitoring section in Chapter 2 of the PEIS. As 

identified in the PEIS, the reasons for gaps are many and varied and span some 40 

years or more. Standards and requirements for documentation in the past (e.g., dating 

from the 1960s) were less stringent than standards considered in subsequent decades, 

and are not reflective of standards for documentation in use today. Record keeping 

likewise is not consistent from office to office over a multiple decade time frame. The 

BLM also acknowledges the importance of and need for monitoring. In general, 

monitoring records are available at BLM field offices and are used in the design of 

vegetation treatment projects, as well as to support current and future vegetation 

allocation decisions in land use plans and appropriate permitted uses. When 

monitoring data are lacking, the BLM relies on professional judgment (field 

experience) for predicting the effects of treatment actions at the local level. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-300 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0144-010 

Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department 

RMC-0208-004 

California Oak 

Foundation 

RMC-0214-004 

Natural Resources 

Defense Council and 

National Wildlife 

Federation 

RMC-0214-033 

Natural Resources 

Defense Council and 

National Wildlife 

Federation 

Comment: Another item of great concern was an inadequate discussion, analysis and 

evaluation of post-treatment management. A great deal of time, effort and funds will 

be allocated to the treatment program. Post management practices and activities will be 

critical in maintaining the effectiveness and longevity of the treatments. We 

recommend that proper post management practices be made a requirement for all 

proposed treatments activities. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0584-051 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Programs, Policies, and Initiatives 

Influencing Vegetation Treatment Activities. The BLM agrees that post-treatment 

practices should include actions to maintain the effectiveness and longevity of any 

particular treatment. In this regard, post-treatment monitoring plays an important role 

in determining the most appropriate post-treatment maintenance practices. 

Comment: The Draft PEIS fails to consider the potential effects of increased herbicide 

use on oak woodland ecosystems. Because oak woodlands in California are home to 

numerous endangered, threatened, and protected species, the failure to adequately 

assess the impacts to oak woodlands constitutes a failure to assess the impacts on these 

special-status species. 

Response: The PEIS did not focus on impacts to special status species based on 

habitat type, but looked at risks based on guild. It was assumed in the ecological risk 

assessments and Biological Assessment that risks to special status birds, for example, 

would be similar regardless of habitat type. These risks include impacts to the animals’ 

welfare, in addition to risks associated with modification or loss of habitat. 

Comment: Prior to undertaking any programmatic or specific initiative, BLM must 

substantiate its predicted effects with a record of site-specific analysis and monitoring 

that ensures that the act of vegetative eradication does not bring about significant 

adverse impacts alone or together with similar projects—a standard that the current 

proposal woefully fails to achieve. 

Response: Site-specific analyses and monitoring records are available at the BLM 

field office or district level, and these data and analyses are factored into the purpose 

and need for any future treatments. The BLM proposes to use various treatment 

methods to control and manipulate vegetation to meet desired goals and objectives as 

expressed in land use plans, not conduct a program of vegetative eradication. In 

situations where an invasive species or noxious weed is targeted over broad areas, the 

proposed project would include post-treatment revegetation and stabilization 

objectives. The premise that vegetation treatments designed to reduce hazardous fuels 

and the potential for catastrophic fire or to restore and benefit habitat would result in 

adverse significant impacts is unsubstantiated. 

Comment: The lack of monitoring ensures this proposal will not succeed. The current 

D[raft] PEIS does not even begin to analyze the crucial role that monitoring should and 

would play in the implementation of any sound and responsible vegetative 

management program. Past history has clearly revealed that the BLM does not have 

the institutional resources to properly manage and employ a monitoring program that 

can correctly assess what is actually occurring on the agency’s rangelands. There is 

even noticeable agreement within BLM that the agency does not have the means to 

successfully monitor rangeland conditions. We again cite the suppressed analysis 

formulated by BLM scientists for BLM’s proposed new grazing regulations in regards 

to monitoring efforts on the BLM lands. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-301 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0214-036 

Natural Resources 

Defense Council and 

National Wildlife 

Federation 

RMC-0217-011 

Sierra Club Utah 

Chapter 

Response: All pesticide use authorizations require reporting of applications and 

follow-up monitoring, as appropriate, to determine efficacy of the treatment. It is 

beyond the scope of this PEIS to examine the overall monitoring program 

requirements of the various BLM resource programs. See response to Comment RMC0038-009 under PEIS Alternatives, Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management 

regarding institutional resources. 

Comment: This state of affairs is readily apparent from the D[raft] PEIS itself: it does 

not provide any statistical or quantitative information obtained over the past 20 years 

of BLM vegetative management. A 1991 BLM vegetation treatment FEIS [Final EIS] 

stated that “rangeland treatments would have studies established in them to monitor 

treatment effects on vegetation as well as on other resources such as wildlife or water 

quality ...” (p. 1-37). There is no evidence that BLM has followed up with any 

subsequent monitoring data from that EIS, nor is such data evident in the D[raft] PEIS. 

It is our contention that the lack of data in the D[raft] PEIS is proof that the BLM 

simply lacks the institutional capabilities to monitor long term effects on the range. 

Given that the BLM cannot comprehensively assess what is occurring in the present, 

proposing to expand the use of herbicides and vegetative treatments is simply 

inconsistent with the agency’s obligation to monitor the effects of these treatments. 

Response: The 1991 [Final] EIS statement quoted is found in the Implementation 

Section of the document under “Monitoring.” In that document, the BLM identified 

the monitoring strategies it would follow after vegetation treatment projects were 

proposed and implemented. The current PEIS commits to similar monitoring strategies 

for projects proposed in the future. See the Monitoring section in Chapter 2 of the 

Final PEIS and PER. The 1991 EIS does not make a commitment to summarize all 

field data gathered during treatment monitoring for any disclosed future period of time. 

Vegetation treatment and use effects are typically monitored by the BLM on an 

allotment and watershed basis on public lands throughout the West. Data obtained 

during monitoring are then factored into current and future forage allocation decisions 

with full public involvement, for livestock, wildlife, and wild horses, at the local field 

office level. These vegetation allocations depend on the agency knowing and 

understanding the condition of the range based on the monitoring data it has collected. 

On a broader scale, the BLM is increasingly using remote sensing for collection of 

inventory and monitoring data to supplement the collection of field data. As these 

remote sensing techniques are validated on the ground, increased reliability on broad 

and mid-scale assessments becomes possible, which provides a better context for 

regional and locally collected data. 

Comment: It appears the BLM merely plans to continue treatments that have failed in 

the past and undoubtedly continue to fail in the future. The BLM claims to have treated 

hundreds of thousands of acres annually but cannot even stem the increase of a single 

invasive and extremely undesirable plant. The PER states that treatments will be base 

on the success of past restoration treatments or treatments conducted under similar 

conditions or recommendations by local experts ([Draft] PER [page] 2-8). Yet there is 

not discussion of successful past restoration treatments. This is a huge failure in 

looking at treatment options. 

Response: The claim that BLM vegetation treatments have failed in the past and are 

likely to fail in the future is unsubstantiated. Success of restoration treatments are 

documented at the level of the local field office. The BLM Legacy Program, as 

discussed in Chapter 2 of the PEIS and PER under Monitoring, is currently conducting 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-302 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0217-012 

Sierra Club Utah 

Chapter 

RMC-0218-036 

Blue Mountains 

Biodiversity Project, 

League of Wilderness 

Defenders 

RMC-0221-025 

Center for Biological 

Diversity 

reviews of vegetation projects completed over 25 years ago, involving the original 

project designers, to compile lessons learned from these past efforts. Overall, the 

projects reviewed have demonstrated success in meeting the original objectives for 

which the projects were designed. Also see response to Comment RMC-0222-087 

under PER Effects of Vegetation Treatments, Vegetation. 

Comment: The PEIS should be able to identify past treatments that have been 

effective in reducing non-native plants and noxious weeds. The PEIS does not identify 

the number of acres that have been returned to the potential natural community 

through the use of chemicals, mechanical, manual or biological treatment techniques. 

After decades of such efforts surely the BLM could identify such places that the public 

could visit. The BLM should be able to show on maps those acres which have been 

rehabilitated using chemical treatments. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0584-051 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Programs, Policies, and Initiatives 

Influencing Vegetation Treatment Activities. 

Comment: Purpose and Need. No discussion of past experience w[ith] using these 

herbicides – were they effective in controlling invasive weeds? In improving riparian 

habitat quality? In reducing fire severity? How was effectiveness measured? What 

didn’t work? What ecological human health impacts resulted from their use? What 

impacts could not be measured but could still have taken place? What monitoring was 

done? How long did herbicide residues stay in soils? Were herbicides detected in 

ground or surface water? Were there repeated herbicide applications? Cumulative 

effects? 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0584-051 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Programs, Policies, and Initiatives 

Influencing Vegetation Treatment Activities. 

Comment: The BLM has consistently failed to undertake meaningful, detailed 

surveys of BLM managed lands and to provide comprehensive inventories the public 

resources it is charged with managing. Even in the areas where the BLM has some 

data, it has failed keep those data current. As a result, the BLM has insufficient, 

outdated, and inadequate inventory data of many of the resources on public lands in 

violation of FLPMA [Federal Land Policy and Management Act]. As a result, the 

BLM’s management decisions are not based on a strong foundation of accurate, 

detailed information regarding these public lands as Congress intended. 

Response: The BLM is in full compliance with the FLPMA regarding inventory of 

public lands resources. The BLM is currently midway through a 10-year 

congressionally-funded initiative begun in 2000 for revising its land use planning base, 

including resource allocations. In compliance with Section 201 of FLPMA, inventories 

and data are being systematically undertaken and updated to support the land use plan 

revisions and new planning decisions. Each Approved Resource Management Plan is 

supported by a foundation of accurate and detailed information on the public lands to 

which the land use plans pertain. The planning initiative is being conducted with full 

public involvement, and the public has the opportunity to review the supporting data 

during the planning process. It is beyond the scope of the PEIS to summarize all 

current and ongoing inventory and monitoring efforts across all BLM-administered 

public lands. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-303 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0221-072 

Center for Biological 

Diversity 

RMC-0222-021 

Salvo, Mark 

(Sagebrush Sea 

Campaign), Cox, 

Caroline (Northwest 

Coalition for 

Alternatives to 

Pesticides), and 

O’Brien, Mary 

RMC-0222-070 

Salvo, Mark 

(Sagebrush Sea 

Campaign), Cox, 

Caroline (Northwest 

Coalition for 

Alternatives to 

Pesticides), and 

O’Brien, Mary 

RMC-0228-008 

Metropolitan Water 

District of Southern 

California 

Comment: The D[raft] PEIS fails to outline any comprehensive monitoring strategy 

for determining the impacts of the proposed action. Monitoring is an integral part of 

determining the impacts of an activity on a resource. Objective, quantifiable 

monitoring is essential for effective management (Christensen et al. 1996). Monitoring 

must be done frequently and properly, and in the absence of consistent monitoring, 

management activities should not be permitted. If the BLM goes forward with the 

proposed project on any basis, monitoring must be conducted before, during, and after 

herbicide treatments. Resources including soils, plant communities, rare, threatened 

and endangered species, water quality, and management compliance should all be 

regularly and consistently checked by the BLM. All results should be publicly 

available, and reports summarizing those results should be prepared. 

Response: Monitoring is discussed in Chapter 2 of the PEIS and PER under 

Monitoring. Individual monitoring plans are developed at the time a project is 

proposed and are based on the site-specific conditions present at the project area. 

Monitoring for herbicide use follows applicable label guidelines, standards set forth in 

the BLM Manual 9011 – Chemical Pesticide Use, and state and local requirements for 

air and water quality. In the case of threatened and endangered species, monitoring 

requirements would be established through the applicable biological opinion, under a 

determination of effect. 

Comment: Importantly, the DEIS [Draft PEIS] fails to analyze the results, on its own 

lands, of where a combination of chemical and non-chemical methods, including 

passive restoration have been used (see Appendix H [provided as an attachment with 

the comment] for such an example on Jenny Creek in the Cascade-Siskiyou National 

Monument), compared to results of where herbicide use alone has been used. If the 

DEIS [Draft PEIS] had analyzed the Restoration Alternative, it would have been 

forced to use its own experiences in comparing herbicide use combined with passive 

restoration, seeding with native species, and/or other treatments. 

Response: The types of studies and analysis referred to comprise specific research to 

determine the relative effectiveness of different techniques in site-specific controlled 

settings and are beyond the scope of the programmatic analysis. Also see response to 

Comment EMC-0584-051 under PER Vegetation Treatment Programs, Policies, and 

Methods, Programs, Policies, and Initiatives Influencing Vegetation Treatment 

Activities. In regard to analysis of the “Restoration Alternative,” see response to 

Comment RMC-0222-013 under PEIS Alternatives, Alternative E - No Use of 

Sulfonylurea and other Acetolactate Synthase-inhibiting Active Ingredients. 

Comment: The D[raft[] PEIS provides zero assurance that any particular monitoring 

will occur in the future and only says that the results of any monitoring that happens to 

be done “should” (not “shall”) be made available to “interested parties” ([page] 2-11 [ 

of the Draft PEIS]). 

Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0106-017 and Comment EMC-0584-076 

under PEIS Alternatives, Monitoring. 

Comment: Monitoring to evaluate the impacts on water quality is briefly discussed in 

Chapter 2. The Draft PEIS states that water quality monitoring should be conducted 

within 2 years after herbicide treatment to determine the effectiveness of buffer strips 

and the impact on water quality. For moving bodies of surface water, such as the 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-304 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Colorado River, anything less than immediate monitoring after the application would 

be inadequate to evaluate the effects on surface water sources. The monitoring plan 

should include sampling immediately after and at timed intervals after each application 

for surface water sources. Ground water sources should be monitored for an extended 

period to account for the time for water percolation and infiltration into the 

groundwater aquifer. Aquifer hydrology should be evaluated to determine the proper 

locations and depths for groundwater sampling. Metropolitan [Water District of 

Southern California] recommends that a more comprehensive water quality monitoring 

plan be developed. 

Response: Monitoring the effectiveness of a buffer strip in protecting water quality is 

a difficult undertaking. A number of variables must first be understood. If the buffer is 

designed to keep herbicides from reaching a stream via a surface water pathway, then 

sampling must occur when there is an event that causes the pathway to function, like 

rainfall, snowmelt, etc. There have been many attempts to monitor actual event-driven 

processes, most of which do not work because of the instrumentation involved (e.g. 

continuous sampling) and the unpredictability of events. Groundwater sampling can 

provide reasonable results if the monitoring is well-designed. This kind of monitoring 

requires a high degree of planning, meticulous execution (i.e., well construction), and 

careful sampling and quality control procedures. 

RMC-0233-004 Comment: We strongly recommend that pre-treatment surveys and monitoring also be 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife emphasized in the final PEIS/PER, in addition to post-treatment surveys and 

Service Region 6 monitoring, in order to adequately determine treatment effectiveness and impacts on 

California/Nevada other resources. 

Operations Office 

Response: The text in the Monitoring sections of Chapter 1 of the Final PEIS and PER 

has been revised to reflect the need for pre-treatment monitoring. We have also 

included this information under the Standard Operating Procedure and Guidelines 

table in Chapter 2 of the PEIS (Table 2-8) and PER (Table 2-5). 

Alternatives, Coordination and Education 

EMC-0011-003 Comment: As it is, I had to discontinue my regular use of Crystal Cove State Park 

Kiernan, Barbara when I discovered – after years of ignorant bliss – that they apply pesticides, on a 

regular basis, to control “invasive” weeds. A practice that was not posted and that 

employees at the entrance booths were unaware of – when I inquired prior to entering 

the Park. 

Response: The BLM is not responsible for the administration of Crystal Cove State 

Park. BLM coordination with the public is discussed in Chapter 2 of the PEIS under 

Coordination and Education. In addition, posting of treated areas is a Standard 

Operating Procedure for the BLM. 

EMC-0092-003 Comment: Educating the public is critical. Most of us don’t even think about how our 

Larson, Lyn activities exacerbate this problem. Posting signs describing the problem and asking 

that people clean off their shoes, dust their clothes for seeds, don’t bushwhack, drive 

their bloody off-road vehicles only in designated areas, etc., might help somewhat. 

(Waldo Lake in OR is doing a good job in this regard.) 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0220-006 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Coordination and Education. Posting of signs, observing strict reentry intervals, and 

other Standard Operating Procedures were identified in Table 2-8 of Chapter 2 of the 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-305 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0096-004 

White, Sally 

EMC-0142-002 

Mintz, Mary 

EMC-0214-013 

Vollmer, Jennifer 

(BASF) 

EMC-0220-006 

Friends of the Inyo 

EMC-0242-003 

Boettcher, Robert 

PEIS. 

Comment: Education of the public that uses these resources is very possible. There 

are more people than ever available for volunteer work. Students from middle school 

through high school and beyond find it very fulfilling to participate in the removal of 

invasive plant species in conjunction with a service project. Start them looking at the 

lands they so treasure as a stewardship on a personal level while they are young and it 

will pay off in the future. Check with the Park Service, particularly Zion National Park 

in Utah, to see how they have been handling similar problems. 

Response: The BLM and other federal, state, and local agencies actively recruit and 

use schoolchildren and other volunteers to help with vegetation removal. Volunteer 

opportunities with the BLM can be found at: http://www.blm.gov/volunteer/, while 

information useful to teachers and students can be found at: 

http://www.blm.gov/education/LearningLandscapes/explorers/lifetime/invasive.html. 

Comment: Do you even post everywhere when and how and what you are using so 

the unsuspecting visitor can decide whether or not they want to visit the park? 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0011-003 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Coordination and Education. 

Comment: Social and Economic Values Bullet “Provide public educational programs 

on the herbicides proposed for local use to minimize fears based on lack of 

information.” Along with education about the herbicide it is paramount to education 

the public on the need for the vegetation treatment and why the herbicide is a part of 

the best choice treatment. 

Response: Comment noted. The bullet in Table 2-8 of Chapter 2 of the PEIS has been 

revised to read: “To minimize fears based on lack of information, provide public 

educational information on the need for vegetation treatments and the use of 

herbicides in an Integrated Pest Management program for projects proposing local 

use of herbicides.” 

Comment: It is our understanding that under this current PEIS, site-specific analysis 

at the Field Office level will still be required until any on-the-ground activity takes 

places. We encourage the BLM to conduct aggressive outreach to communities 

potentially affected by any application of synthetic herbicide. Pets, children, livestock, 

endangered species, and non-target species will suffer unless the owners of public 

lands – especially those who inhabit the rural West – know what is being planned for 

their backyard. The negative impacts on local organic, conventional and subsistence 

agricultural must also be locally discussed, studied and disclosed. 

Response: The BLM coordinates with the public on vegetation treatment projects and 

notifies potentially affected parties of treatment activities that occur on public lands. 

Comment: Most people are not aware of how weeds can be spread. A media 

campaign to make people aware of how they can help would be money well spent. I 

am sure you are aware of all the ways to transport weed seed so focus that in the 

media. 

Response: The BLM works closely with the media to inform the public on the threat 

of weeds. Activities include national weed awareness week campaigns, production of 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-306 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0267-001 

Medbery, Angela 

EMC-0267-004 

Medbery, Angela 

EMC-0267-008 

Medbery, Angela 

EMC-0306-019 

Klamath River Keeper 

Program and Klamath 

Forest Alliance 

videos, newsletters, and other public information materials, meetings with the public, 

and volunteer activities. Additional information on how to make the public more aware 

of the weed problem can be found at: 

http://www.blm.gov/education/LearningLandscapes/explorers/lifetime/invasive.html. 

Comment: No matter what scenario is adopted I would like to see the following items: 

A most important step in weed control must be a strong preventative approach. Signs 

at trailheads indicating the need to eliminate weed seeds from transportation, wheels, 

hooves, boots, propellers or whatever. Washing stations might also be provided. A 

place to shake down tents, sleeping gear and other baggage that may have come from 

prior trips in infested areas. A strong proactive education program should be instituted 

to educate the public to recognize weed species and report their occurrences. 

Response: The BLM has a strong public education program that includes many of 

these suggestions, including, but not limited to, signs, brochures, weed identification 

booklets, weed occurrence reporting forms, public service announcements, quarantine 

areas, washing stations, weed-free hay stations for guides and outfitters, as well as K12 educational materials for public schools, informational websites, and national, 

regional, and local weed campaigns. 

Comment: Prompt response by land managers and applicators should be given to the 

concerns of citizens regularly visiting or touristing, living within or bordering the 

property designated for weed control 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0092-003 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Coordination and Education. 

Comment: Entrances (both vehicular and walkways) need to be preposted before and 

posted after any use of chemicals in the contiguous property. 

Response: The BLM agrees that posting before and after a spray project is important 

to neighboring land owners and the public in general. A discussion on posting is found 

under Coordination and Education in Chapter 2 of the PEIS and PER. Standard 

Operating Procedures related to posting are also found in Chapter 2 of the PEIS in 

Table 2-8 and in Table 2-5 in the PER. In addition, areas of high public use (i.e., 

recreation sites, campgrounds, etc.) are posted prior to treatments with re-entry times 

posted. In cases where BLM projects are far from local communities, the local BLM 

office would contact local landowners and interested parties. Information on BLM 

spray projects would also be available at the local BLM field office. 

Comment: To achieve effectiveness, all BLM Programs/Projects must include strong 

participation from all related stakeholders, emphasizing landowners, residents, 

businesses, managers, resource users, non government organizations, other community 

groups, schools/academia, and tribes. Strategies need include these stakeholders in 

planning, assessment, education, implementation, monitoring, and in gaining financial 

support. Treatments tools must be safe for the environment and humans. 

Response: The BLM agrees. See Interrelationships and Coordination with Agencies 

and Consultation in Chapter 1, and Coordination and Education in Chapter 2 of the 

PEIS regarding BLM cooperation with local partners. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-307 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0533-019 

EMC-0548-036 

Colorado Farm Bureau 

Utah Farm Bureau 

Federation 

EMC-0584-111 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-180 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

RMC-0049-004 

Wilson, Robert E. 

(University of Nevada 

Cooperative Extension) 

RMC-0049-027 

Wilson, Robert E. 

(University of Nevada 

Cooperative Extension) 

RMC-0129-001 

Noble, E.A. 

Comment: The [P]EIS should address coordination with adjacent landowners and 

other federal agencies. Noxious and invasive weeds do not respect land ownership or 

land management boundaries. Responses to controlling or eradicating these harmful 

weeds should likewise know no boundaries. Coordination with adjacent landowners is 

essential if noxious and invasive plants are to be effectively controlled. 

Response: The BLM agrees with this comment. See response to Comment EMC0295-002 under PEIS Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Interrelationships and 

Coordination with Agencies. Chapter 1 of the PEIS, under Interrelationships and 

Coordination with Agencies, discusses BLM relationships with adjacent landowners. 

Coordination and collaboration is required at the local level for any vegetation 

management project, including weed management, to be effective, as discussed under 

Coordination and Education in Chapter 2 of the PEIS. 

Comment: If BLM chooses to use chemicals, the treated lands, and surrounding areas, 

must be posted with signs in advance that warn the recreational public of chemical use 

and possible exposure. BLM’s disastrous use of Oust demonstrates the uncertainty 

associated with use of chemicals in wild land settings, where wind erosion or water 

runoff may transport chemicals to unintended areas with unintended consequences. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0267-008 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Coordination and Education. 

Comment: BLM falsely claims that “signage” is used. This is simply not the case in 

wild land settings. We have never encountered a sign, despite dozens of encounters 

with sprayed vegetation on BLM lands. WWP [Western Watersheds Project] has never 

observed BLM signing sprayed areas. [Page] B-25 [of Appendix B of the Draft PEIS] 

claims that it is used on areas “directly sprayed”. 

Response: See the Coordination and Education section in Chapter 2 of the Final PEIS 

and PER for information on signage provided for treatment projects. 

Comment: Another area not well addressed within this document is the need for 

collaboration between landowners. In my experience, this is the major effort that most 

managers miss, and is the most essential for a successful vegetation management 

effort. CWMA’s (Cooperative Weed Management Areas) and the documented success 

of the demonstration weed management program that I initiated in east/central Nevada 

both show the difference from the status quo of most invasive weed programs. That 

collaboration needs to be an emphasis of this EIS. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0295-002 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Interrelationships and Coordination with Agencies. 

Comment: Page 2-21 [of the Draft PEIS] The section of Coordination and Education 

needs to be strengthened substantially. As it currently is written, it will not accomplish 

the goal of proactive invasive plant management. 

Response: See responses to Comment EMC-0533-019 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Coordination and Education, and Comment EMC-0295-002 under PEIS Proposed 

Action and Purpose and Need, Interrelationships and Coordination with Agencies. 

Comment: Thousands of people with sensitivity to herbicides-pesticides life in rural 

areas to escape private spraying in urban areas. How do you expect to notify these 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-308 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0210-048 

MCS Task Force of 

New Mexico 

RMC-0210-049 

MCS Task Force of 

New Mexico 

RMC-0210-050 

MCS Task Force of 

New Mexico 

RMC-0210-051 

MCS Task Force of 

New Mexico 

people who often have fewer contacts with radio-TV-newspaper-phone than the 

average person? 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0267-008 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Coordination and Education. 

Comment: If herbicides are applied, the public must be notified in advance through 

newspaper articles, public service announcements, meetings, websites, and other 

means. A list of people wanting to be individually notified of herbicide use should be 

maintained by the BLM and these individuals contacted by letter, phone, or email 

(their choice) of proposed applications. The BLM should inform the public of the 

opportunity to be added to the notification list. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0267-008 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Coordination and Education. 

Comment: The PEIS acknowledges that it is critical for BLM to notify potentially 

affected parties of treatment activities that occur on public lands ([Draft] PEIS [page] 

2-22), but it is likely the number of potentially affected parties is much greater than 

what is assumed. Chemically sensitive individuals, for example, can react adversely to 

drift or volatilization of pesticides applied miles away. Thus, the BLM needs to expand 

the range and number of people it notifies of herbicide applications. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0267-008 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Coordination and Education. Also see the section on Herbicide Treatment Standard 

Operating Procedures and Guidelines in Chapter 2 of the PEIS for a discussion of 

procedures and mitigation to manage and reduce herbicide drift. 

Comment: If herbicides are applied, signs should be posted at trailheads, along 

roadways or other right-of-ways, access points, and any other places that are needed to 

sufficiently warn members of the public of the presence of herbicides before entering 

an area. Signs should remain in place for at least 2 months after an application. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0267-008 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Coordination and Education. The BLM will follow the label for the appropriate reentry times after applying any herbicide. The length of time for signs to remain posted 

is based on the labeled re-entry time and appropriate mitigation for public safety, as 

identified through the project NEPA analysis at the local field office level. 

Comment: BLM should not presume to know when re-entry into an area that has been 

applied with herbicides is safe (“BLM takes care ... to post the area with warnings 

about when re-entry con occur safely,” [Draft] PEIS [Appendix B page] B-35). Even 

dried herbicides vaporize into the air for long periods after applications, and what is a 

safe re-entry time for one person may not be safe for another. Signs should just provide 

objective information and allow individuals to make their own informed choice about 

whether to enter an area. 

Response: Re-entry periods are established by the USEPA-approved label for 

workers. In the human health risk assessments (HHRAs) and Appendix B of the PEIS, 

the “worst-case” accidental spray scenario evaluated was an accidental direct exposure 

of a person to herbicide spray at the maximum application rate. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-309 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0210-052 

MCS Task Force of 

New Mexico 

RMC-0210-053 

MCS Task Force of 

New Mexico 

RMC-0210-054 

MCS Task Force of 

New Mexico 

Alternatives, Mitigation 

EMC-0584-073 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

Comment: Signs and other forms of notification should at a minimum contain the 

following information: 

Time and date(s) of application (or anticipated application) 

Site of application 

Name of pesticide product, active ingredient and EPA registration number 

Application method. 

Name and phone number of whom to contact for additional information and to 

report adverse effects resulting from the application. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0585-180 under Alternatives, 

Coordination and Education. We have provided additional information in Chapter 2 of 

the PEIS under Coordination and Education that discusses information that will be 

posted at treatment sites. 

Comment: The BLM should also designate a permanent staff person whom the public 

can contact about the agency’s pesticide and herbicide use, including past, present, or 

contemplated applications. The phone number and email address of the contact person 

should be widely publicized. 

Response: Each BLM State Office has a designated staff person that acts as the State 

Office Weed Coordinator and/or State Office Pesticide Coordinator. In addition, each 

BLM field office has a designated Field Office Weed Coordinator who coordinates all 

pesticide applications with the BLM state office. A listing of all state and Washington, 

D.C., weed coordinators is available on www.blm.gov/weeds. In addition, individual 

BLM state and field office web pages are linked from the BLM’s main website. 

Comment: If herbicides are used, the BLM should establish an Adverse Event 

Reporting System to collect reports of adverse effects resulting from herbicide use. 

This would include damage to property, wildlife, wanted vegetation, and human 

health. The existence of this system should be widely advertised, along with 

instructions for reporting adverse events. The data collected should be regularly 

reviewed and used to guide future decisions regarding vegetation management. 

Response: Under Section 682 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 

Act, pesticide registrants are required to report any adverse incidents involving their 

pesticide (other than human health) to the USEPA’s Ecological Incident Information 

System (EIIS). Other adverse incidents are reported to EIIS by state and/or federal 

agencies. USEPA’s Enforcement and Compliance History Online is a web-based tool 

that provides public access to compliance and enforcement information for 

approximately 800,000 USEPA-regulated facilities. Anyone with access to the Internet 

can use this tool. In addition, the BLM tracks other incidents internally through its 

hazardous materials program and records the effects of vegetation treatments through 

monitoring, as outlined under Monitoring in Chapter 2 of the PEIS. 

Comment: Mitigation. Large blocks of land (>10,000 acres) should be established 

within watersheds where no grazing or treatments are conducted, as reference areas for 

the outcomes/effectiveness/damage of the treatments that are proposed. Other 

mitigation includes termination of grazing disturbance on reference areas. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-310 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0584-075 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-152 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-153 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

Response: Set-asides of specific large blocks of land for reference areas in relation to 

vegetation treatments would need to be accomplished through applicable regulatory 

processes in conformance with applicable land use and implementation plans, (e.g., 

watershed management plan or habitat management plan). Establishing closures to 

grazing is a land use allocation determined through land use planning and 

implemented through regulations at 43 CFR [Code of Federal Regulations] 4100. See 

Scope of Analysis in Chapter 1 of the PEIS. This PEIS does not make nor propose land 

use allocations. 

Comment: BLM must develop adequate mitigation for activities carried out under this 

[P]EIS. For example, if BLM wants to burn or thin 10,000 acres of sage grouse habitat, 

it should be removing livestock use from 10,000 acres of suitable habitat in order to 

provide better quality nesting and wintering habitat, not allowing livestock use to 

continue on neighboring lands. 

Response: The BLM would very rarely develop a treatment project that would disturb 

a solid block of 10,000 acres. Most projects are designed to treat smaller areas and 

provide intermingled areas of untreated land to provide habitat for species that could 

temporarily be adversely affected by the vegetation treatments. Removing livestock 

from the surrounding or nearby unaffected areas would not automatically result in 

improved habitat for sage-grouse, and there is no assurance that the birds displaced or 

affected by the treatment would use the areas from which livestock were removed. 

Since the BLM would be unable to guarantee any direct benefit to the sage-grouse 

potentially impacted by the vegetation treatment, a decision of that kind would appear 

to be unreasonable and arbitrary. 

Comment: Table 2-7 [of the Draft PEIS] presents weak, non-mandatory and often 

nebulous mitigation measures. There is no guarantee that any will be applied. Example 

“where feasible” BLM will implement mitigation measures for plants described in the 

17 states EIS, or will “consider” manual spot applications. No decisionmaking 

scenario or flowchart is provided to ensure minimal use of herbicides or treatments. 

Despite the large number and many types of treatments covered in the PER − there is 

no decisionmaking framework or specific mandated mitigation measures for any 

treatment scenario. This all maximizes ecological/environmental risk and uncertainty 

of treatment outcomes in the short, mid and long term. 

Response: As discussed in Chapter 2 of the PEIS under Mitigation, mitigation 

measures are not mandated, because local offices have the site-specific knowledge and 

therefore need the flexibility to develop measures that could be more or less stringent 

based on local information. Additional decision-making guidance is provided in the 

final PEIS/PER in Chapter 2, but is still at a broad, programmatic level. During 

implementation planning tied to goals and objectives (i.e. desired outcomes) set at the 

regional/local land use planning level, detailed prioritization will be developed in order 

to effectively restore ecosystem processes specific to the plant communities in which 

the actual implementation will take place. 

Comment: Other examples: BLM claims it will “regulate’ the use of diquat, 

“regulate” the use of terrestrial herbicides in watersheds, which have characteristics 

suitable for potential surface runoff” (but only in watersheds “with fish-bearing 

streams during periods when fish are in life stages most sensitive to the herbicide(s) 

use”!). What does regulate mean? Why in the world would BLM not regulate toxic 

diquat and other herbicide use in all watersheds? 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-311 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0585-155 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-156 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-157 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-158 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

Response: An Environmental Assessment is prepared for each proposed action in the 

field. For projects involving the use of herbicides, a Pesticide Use Proposal is prepared 

that identifies how the pesticide will be applied. The BLM regulates the use of 

herbicides by complying with label requirements and other Standard Operating 

Procedures and mitigation identified in this PEIS, by complying with federal, state, 

and local laws pertaining to the use of herbicides, and by following BLM handbooks, 

manuals, and directives on herbicide use. 

Comment: Wildlife “mitigation” is even worse: BLM will: “Minimize” risks by 

applying chemicals “at the typical application rate where feasible”. When and where is 

“feasible’? What limits, or triggers, or decisionmaking framework are used to 

determine ‘feasibility”? Why is there no specific prohibition on using chemicals during 

critical periods of the year, such as when nests, eggs, nestlings, young, are present? 

What happens if BLM exceeds the “typical” application rate? 

Response: Measures to protect wildlife from herbicide treatments are discussed in 

Tables 2-8 and 2-9 and in Chapter 4 of the PEIS under Wildlife Resources, Mitigation 

for Herbicide Treatment Impacts. These measures give specific guidance on 

application rates and methods for specific chemicals, using timing restrictions, and 

avoiding applications during critical periods. To be effective, herbicide treatments 

must be applied when the likelihood of success is greatest to achieve long-term 

benefits for wildlife and their habitats. Since the young of most species of vertebrates 

may not mature for 1 or more years, avoiding applications during periods when young 

are present may preclude herbicide treatments on most, if not all, public lands. An 

assessment of the risks to wildlife from use of herbicides would be identified for 

projects at the local level, and specific Standard Operating Procedures and mitigation 

to reduce effects to wildlife (e.g., size of treatment area, type and amount of herbicide 

use, time of year of application, presence of threatened, endangered, and sensitive 

species) could be developed at that time based on public input. 

Comment: “Minimize the size of application areas where practical” ... “where 

practical, limit” ... to avoid contamination of food items. What determines 

practicality? Again here, there is no certainty that any safeguards will be applied, and 

BLM is free to deviate from claimed protections/mitigations. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0585-155 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Mitigation. 

Comment: Why is there no mitigation or mechanism to prohibit use of these 

chemicals in sensitive habitats, or during sensitive times of the year? Why is there no 

protocol to use chemicals of lesser impacts. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0585-155 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Mitigation. As noted in Table 2-8 of the PEIS, Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) 

for Applying Herbicides, the BLM will select the chemical that is least damaging to 

the environment while providing the desired results. SOPs and mitigation for use of 

herbicides in sensitive habitats are discussed in Chapter 4 of the PEIS for several 

resource areas, and in the Biological Assessment prepared in support of the PEIS. 

Comment: Nowhere does BLM mandate that any particular action occur, such as 

mandatory “no treatment” during nesting periods for migratory birds. Why is there no 

prohibition on method of application (such as aerial application) during sensitive 

periods of the year, such as migratory bird nesting? 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-312 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0585-159 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-160 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-163 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0585-155 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Mitigation. In some situations, long-term benefits of treating vegetation and 

perpetuating nesting or other critical habitat may outweigh the costs of not treating 

vegetation during the nesting period. Although nesting habitat might be saved for a 

few seasons, it could be lost over the long term if treatments outside of the nesting 

period were ineffective. 

Comment: The [Draft] [P]EIS states “where feasible” would implement mitigation for 

non-TES [threatened, endangered, and sensitive] species “unless treatments are 

specifically designed to improve habitats for these species”. BLM will always have an 

out −just claim that some nebulous benefit of some kind will result decades down the 

road − and Boom − the action can go ahead and kill or destroy nests, intact habitats, 

etc. 

Response: Besides the Standard Operating Procedures and the mitigating measures 

listed in Chapter 2 of the PEIS/PER, the BLM will follow the conservation measures 

outlined in the Biological Assessment for projects involving all special status species. 

In addition, site-specific mitigation will be developed at the local level through the 

NEPA process as interdisciplinary teams, including biologists, work together to design 

projects which will not lead to the listing of special status species. These steps are 

required by BLM policy in Manual 6840 (Special Status Species Management). Thus, 

no habitat improvement actions would move forward without consideration for effects 

on special status species. 

Comment: This provides no reassurance whatsoever, as BLM loosely applies claims 

of habitat improvement for many projects it undertakes − with no science or data used 

to demonstrate positive improvement. Why can’t BLM simply avoid chemical 

treatment during times of maximum sensitivity of native species? Why are non-TES 

[threatened, endangered, and sensitive] species given lesser uncertain protections? 

Why are buffer zones not specifically described and made mandatory? 

Response: See responses to Comment EMC-0585-154 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Herbicide Treatment Standard Operating Procedures, and Comment EMC-0585-155 

under PEIS Alternatives, Mitigation. Standard Operating Procedures and mitigation 

are designed to minimize, and hopefully avoid adverse impacts to wildlife, regardless 

of their status (TES or non-TES). Additional mitigation is identified to provide 

additional protection to TES species since the loss of only a few individuals could have 

an adverse effect on the welfare of the population. 

Comment: It is shocking that BLM proposes no adequate mitigation measures for 

visual resources. Recreational visitors to specific areas may visit them to view vibrant 

spring wildflower displays, or fall aspen leaf color, or for other purposes. Herbiciding, 

burning or otherwise treating scenic or wilderness areas using methods, or during 

periods of the year when recreational uses are maximized, and creating ugly brown or 

dead zones, should not be given blanket coverage. BLM has ACECs [Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern, SMAs [Surface Management Areas], WSAs [Wilderness 

Study Areas], Wilderness areas, and many other special use areas that require special 

management attention, and BLM’s herbicide and other treatments must comply with 

protection of scenic and aesthetic values, too. 

Response: Visual mitigation will be applied when a proposed action has been received 

and the specific details of the project have been identified. Visual Standard Operating 

Procedures will be used to reduce visual impacts. Any proposed action that would 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-313 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0585-164 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-166 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-167 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0643-044 

California Indian 

Basketweavers 

Association 

RMC-0163-005 

Skrine, Eugene 

exceed the degree of contrast for the project area will be mitigated in compliance with 

BLM Manual Handbook 8431-1. In the case of dead zones or prescribed fire, a short 

term contrast may exist. This impact would be allowed if the long term visual quality 

would be improved by the regrowth of desirable vegetation on the site. 

Comment: The mitigation table provides no specific measures for Wilderness areas, 

instead referring a reader to various sections of Chapter 4. Thus, there is no assurance 

that any mitigation/SOP [Standard Operating Procedure] will be applied. 

Response: Mitigation requirements are addressed in existing BLM guidance: BLM 

Manual 8560. 

Comment: Human health and safety mitigations are grossly inadequate. “Use the 

typical application rate”. Instead, most harmful chemicals must be prohibited in areas 

with high recreational use, abundant neighboring habitations, areas where forest 

products − especially non-traditional forest products are sought, etc. 

Response: The risk assessments show generally no risk to low risk if applied at the 

typical rate. Use of mitigation measures and label precautions along with notification 

to the public are adequate to minimize risk. 

Comment: BLM must forbid use of diuron, instead of the nebulous, uncertain 

“evaluate ... on a site by site basis’. There is no clear and specific framework for any 

evaluation provided. 

Response: The application of diuron should be evaluated on a site-by-site basis 

because the exposure potential could be different for different sites. Some sites may be 

sparsely populated and have minimal exposure pathways through which people could 

be exposed to diuron. At more heavily populated sites it may be inadvisable to use 

diuron. 

Comment: NEPA requires analysis and mitigation of effects including those which 

are aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health, whether direct, indirect, or 

cumulative. (40 CFR [Code of Federal Regulations] § 1508.8 (b)). Indian tribes 

throughout the BLM analysis area continue to suffer adverse impacts to their health 

and culture, resulting from impacts that may be social, economic, and environmental, 

due to BLM’s land management practices. The current proposal adds additional 

cumulative impacts that are not been mitigated by this DEIS [Draft PEIS]. The 

mitigation measures found on page 2-24 (Table 2-7) [of the Draft PEIS] are wholly 

inadequate to protect Native American health and cultural practices. The mitigation 

promises nothing but grants BLM full latitude to implement mitigation measures at the 

agency’s discretion. Mitigations are mere suggestions without any accountability. 

Response: As noted in Chapter 2 of the PEIS under Special Precautions (Cultural 

Resources), the BLM is required to take actions to notify tribes of proposed actions 

and minimize or avoid impacts to tribal members and their resources. As discussed in 

the same chapter under Coordination and Education, the BLM would notify tribes 

before any actions occur that could affect tribal members or their resources. Mitigation 

measures proposed in the PEIS are standards that may be used in any project, but do 

not preclude other measures once specific actions and effects are identified. 

Comment: CEQ [Council on Environmental Quality] requires consideration of 

mitigation measures, i.e., has the agency considered everything reasonably to mitigate 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-314 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0218-035 

Blue Mountains 

Biodiversity Project, 

League of Wilderness 

Defenders 

the unavoidable impacts of their action. Invasive plant prevention, the use of some 

non-herbicide treatment methods, and site restoration can reduce the environmental 

impacts of the BLM’s herbicide proposal. These practices and methods need to be 

addressed in this EIS. 

Response: The BLM has identified mitigation measures in the PEIS and Biological 

Assessment that it feels are appropriate to avoid, reduce, or compensate for significant 

impacts to resources. It anticipates that additional measures will be identified during 

public review and comment on the Draft PEIS and PER. Prevention of weeds and 

early detection and rapid response, and revegatation are discussed in Chapter 2 of the 

PEIS and PER. This information will also be included in the Final PEIS to ensure that 

the public is aware that these activities are an important component of integrated 

vegetation management. 

Comment: Mitigation measures are inadequate to avoid significant impacts from 

herbicide use. There is lots of vague direction, open to widely varying interpretation, 

such as: “Minimize the use of terrestrial herbicides, in watersheds with down-gradient 

ponds and streams if potential impacts to aquatic plants exist.” (DEIS [Draft PEIS] p2­

23) What does “minimize” mean? Minimize to what level? Mitigation measures 

presented in Table 2-7 [of the Draft PEIS] are generally lacking compulsory 

requirements or specific detailed instructions. There is a lot of loophole language such 

as “where feasible,” “consider,” “minimize,” “limit” and “regulate” rather the defining 

or requirement language such as “avoid,” “Don’t use more than X amount,” “only use 

manual spot applications,” “establish buffer zones as required by the herbicide label,” 

etc. Language such as “where feasible” and “where practical” allows managers to 

disregard those mitigations if they are not convenient. Yet this weasel-word language 

is pervasive throughout the proposed mitigations. E.g.: “minimize the size of 

applications areas, where practical, when applying 2, 4-D, bromacil, diuron, and 

Overdrive to limit impacts to wildlife...” (p 2-23, Table 2-7 [of the Draft PEIS]) And 

what does “regulate” mean in this context? – “Regulate the use of diquat in 

waterbodies that have native fish and aquatic resources.”(ibid) Clearly any Finding of 

No Significant Impact for water quality, fish, aquatic organisms, wildlife, livestock, 

wild horse and burros, wilderness values, human health, etc. cannot rely on such weak 

and vaguely-defined mitigation measures, which may not even be applied at all in 

many cases where loophole language such as “where feasible,” “where practical” or 

“evaluate,” “consider” or regulate” is used. (See all of Table 2-7, pp 2-23-25 [of the 

Draft PEIS].) 

Response: The PEIS serves to identify the project purpose and need (Chapter 1 of the 

PEIS), project alternatives (Chapter 2), baseline conditions (Chapter 3), and the 

environmental and social consequences of implementing the alternatives. Mitigation 

measures are proposed to reduce the potential impacts that could occur under the 

Preferred Alternative or other alternatives. However, required mitigation measures 

cannot be identified until the Preferred Alternative is identified in the Record of 

Decision. Some mitigation measures are broadly worded because they must apply to 

actions that could occur anywhere on public lands in the western U.S. Thus, it may be 

possible to state that only “x” amount of herbicide can be used, but if doing so results 

in the invasive species continuing to spread, it may be better in the long run, to use 

more than “x” amount of herbicide, assuming the benefits outweigh the social and 

environmental costs. These types of decisions are best made at the local level when 

developing the project and conducting the environmental analysis. In addition, an EIS 

does not have to result in a Finding of No Significant Impact. The purpose of an EIS is 

to disclose direct and indirect adverse environmental impacts associated with the 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-315 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

proposed action and alternatives and the significance of those impacts (40 CFR 

1802.16(a,b)). The EIS must include a discussion of the “means to mitigate adverse 

environmental impacts” (40 CFR 1502.16(h)). However, NEPA does not require 

federal agencies to carry out mitigation measures that would reduce or eliminate 

significant environmental impacts. Thus, an agency need not adopt mitigation 

measures contained in an EIS unless agency-specific NEPA procedures require their 

adoption or the agency commits to implementing them in the Record of Decision. 

Alternatives, Summary of Impacts by Alternatives 

EMC-0214-014 Comment: This Table [2-8 of the Draft PEIS] is misleading in adequately depicting 

Vollmer, Jennifer comparative risks. Effects appeared to be solely based on: greater treated acres = 

(BASF) greater adverse effects. There is no description of greater or lesser magnitude of the 

actual effects. Example: Effects for Alternative D appear to assume all aerial 

application will result in negative impact drift. In reality, drift from aerial application 

can be negligible or have no adverse effects, dependent on the herbicide applied and 

the area impacted by the few feet of drift, if it occurs. 

Response: It is not possible to portray all possible risk scenarios at the programmatic 

level, qualitatively or quantitatively. It is true that not all aerial applications would 

result in adverse effects from drift. However, under similar conditions (e.g., wind, 

temperature, topography, herbicide type, application equipment and method), it is 

more likely that drift would cause adverse effects under an aerial application than 

under ground-based methods, since the material would be able to travel farther before 

reaching the ground. The BLM has attempted to assume that conditions would be 

similar for applications under each alternative for comparisons given in Table 2-10 of 

Chapter 2 of the Final PEIS. 

RMC-0080-007 Comment: On page 2-33 [of the Draft PEIS] under the summary of cumulative effects 

Idaho State Department on livestock the PEIS states, “Treatments would restore native vegetation favored by 

of Agriculture livestock and make rangelands more resilient to disturbance.” ISDA [Idaho State 

Department of Agriculture] suggests that this sentence be changed to read, 

“Treatments would restore native and desirable non-native vegetation favored by 

livestock and make rangelands more resilient to disturbance.” We also ask that any 

similar phrasing in the PEIS be changed to read the same. The objective should be to 

establish desirable vegetative communities that will stabilize soils, resist invasive 

species, as well as meet multiple-use objectives (livestock, wildlife, watershed values). 

Native plant communities are certainly the most desirable but we cannot discount the 

value of certain non-native species in meeting these objectives. 

Response: The BLM agrees. We have revised Chapter 2 (Table 2-10 of the Final 

PEIS) and Chapter 4 (Livestock) of the Final EIS to reflect this distinction. 

RMC-0218-032 Comment: Reassuring statements in the “Summary and Comparison of Effects on 

\ Blue Mountains Resources by Alternatives” Table 2-8 [of the Draft PEIS] such as “There would be 

Biodiversity Project, risks to human health from vegetation treatments, but...use of less toxic herbicides 

League of Wilderness have the potential to reduce these risks” (p[age] 2-39 DEIS [Draft PEIS]) and: “New 

Defenders herbicides are proposed for use should improve treatment success while having 

minimal impacts to aquatic organisms” (p. 2-31 DEIS [Draft PEIS]) ignore admissions 

buried in the text that only “[a]pproximately 10% of all treatment areas would be 

treated with the new herbicides.” (DEIS [Draft PEIS] p. 4-20) 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-316 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Response: Both herbicides currently available to the BLM and herbicides proposed for 

use have risks to humans. Although only about 10% of acres would be treated using 

herbicides proposed for use, based on projections from BLM field offices, their use 

would help to reduce overall risks to humans associated with use of herbicides. More 

importantly, the PEIS identifies Standard Operating Procedures and mitigation to help 

reduce or avoid situations in which humans are most likely to be adversely impacted 

by an herbicide. 

Affected Environment, General Issues 

EMC-0525-003 Comment: Unless the environmental setting in which the herbicide use and treatments 

Western Watersheds would occur are fully revealed and assessed based on sound ecological and Best 

Project [Available] Science (please see Annotated Bibliography submitted with RNEA 

[Restore Native Ecosystems Alliance] and Bibliography Attached to comments), BLM 

can not develop a reasonable range of alternatives, nor apply adequate analysis of 

impacts of the proposed action under any alternative. Nor can it ensure that the public 

lands, waters and native biota will de protected from unnecessary and undue 

degradation. 

Response: The BLM has provided a description of the environmental setting in 

Chapter 3 of the PEIS and PER appropriate for a programmatic document. A range of 

alternatives was developed based on public scoping comments, as discussed in Chapter 

1 of the PEIS under Development of the Alternatives. The analysis of effects from 

using herbicides was based on information in Chapter 3, and use of Best available 

science, as discussed in Chapter 4 of the PEIS under How the Effects of the 

Alternatives Were Estimated. The Standard Operating Procedures and mitigation 

identified in Chapters 2 and 4 of the PEIS identify measures to protect resources from 

unnecessary and undue degradation. This section also notes that site-specific analyses 

would be required before implementation of a local project. 

EMC-0585-233 Comment: Further, to conduct an adequate assessment, BLM needs to provide 

Western Watersheds adequate baseline data on the conditions of the lands in the areas slated for treatment, 

Project as ecological conditions will have great impacts on the risks, outcomes and 

environmental effects of treatments. 

Response: The BLM has provided an overview of conditions on public lands in 

Chapter 3 of the PEIS and PER that is appropriate at the programmatic level of 

analysis. A more detailed assessment of land conditions would be developed for each 

project at the field office level and would be used to determine risks, outcomes, and 

environmental effects. 

RMC-0144-020 Comment: [Pages] 3-26 and 3-27 and 3-65 [of the Draft PEIS]: There are differences 

Wyoming Game and in the estimates of downy brome acreages. For example, there are estimates of 10 

Fish Department million acres, 11.4 million acres and infesting 56 million acres and growing at 14% a 

year. This should be clarified. 

Response: You are correct. The acre figures for downy brome from different cited 

sources are not consistent. The coverage of downy brome is difficult to estimate, as 

reflected in the extant literature. In addition, some of the figures cited include several 

bromus species, while others reflect only downy brome. Table 3-5 in the Final PEIS 

provides BLM estimates for all bromus species by state. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-317 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Affected Environment, Water Resources and Quality 

RMC-0144-019 Comment: [Page] 3-14 [of the Draft PEIS] statement under the Missouri Hydrologic 

Wyoming Game and Region says: “Most of the streams in western Montana flow year-around, while in 

Fish Department Wyoming only the larger rivers, such as the North Platte, flow year-around.” This 

statement is incorrect. Our Department’s Fish Division can supply pertinent 

information relative to streams that flow year-around in Wyoming. 

Response: The text of the PEIS has been changed in response to this comment. See 

the Water Resources and Water Quality section of Chapter 3. 

Affected Environment, Vegetation 

EMC-0411-003 

Schroyer, Don L. 

EMC-0411-005 

Schroyer, Don L. 

EMC-0585-034 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-036 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

RMC-0042-081 

Asher, Jerry 

Comment: How many invasive / noxious weed species have been identified on lands 

being managed by BLM? 

Response: The total number of invasive and noxious weed species that have been 

identified on BLM lands is approximately 110 species. 

Comment: How many acres are infested with invasive / noxious weed species on 

lands being managed by BLM? 

Response: The PEIS in Chapter 3 under Noxious Weeds and Other Invasive 

Vegetation states that an estimated 36 million acres of public lands are infested with 

noxious and invasive weeds. 

Comment: [The BLM failed to] compile current data (through 2005) on weeds and 

invasive species [in Table 3-5], including a much broader range of invasive species (all 

noxious weeds in project area, and all major invasive species in project area). The 

2000 data is already 5 or more years old. 

Response: The information in Table 3-5 of the Final PEIS and PER has been updated 

through 2005. However, these are only estimates of weed populations on public lands. 

We included the most common weed species/groups in the table. 

Comment: [The BLM failed to] provide any information for lands critical to the 

actions in the EIS and PER. The Table presents “0”/Zero acres of weed infestations of 

Bromus or halogeton in Nevada, despite millions of acres containing significant 

infestations of these invasive species (likely 10-20 million acres), Fite, recent field 

observations over extensive areas of northern and central Nevada. As the public lands 

of Nevada are slated for large-scale treatment under the EIS and PER, such gross 

omissions are unforgiveable and render an analysis scientifically untenable. Thus, no 

basis for any legitimate analysis is provided. 

Response: Information for several species in Nevada was inadvertently not included in 

Table 3-5. The information in Table 3-5 of the Final PEIS and PER has been updated 

through 2005. 

Comment: If the effect was negative, a profound effect of weeds usually means 

devastating or seriously damaging on vast scale. Suggest instead of “profound effect” 

using devastating, seriously damaging or irreversible degrading. Those kind of words 

more accurately reflect what has and will continue to happen on the ground. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-318 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0042-082 

Asher, Jerry 

RMC-0049-011 

Wilson, Robert E. 

(University of Nevada 

Cooperative Extension) 

RMC-0042-080 

Asher, Jerry 

EMC-0630-004 

Porter, Mark C. 

(Wallowa Resources) 

EMC-0646-236 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

Response: The text of the PEIS and PER has been changed in response to this 

comment. See the Vegetation section of Chapters 3 and 4 in both documents. 

Comment: “Noxious weeds are undesirable plants that infest either land or water 

resources, and may cause physical and economic damage...” (last para pg. 3-25 [of the 

Draft PEIS]) “Weed infestations are capable of destroying wildlife habitat; reducing 

opportunities for hunting, fishing...”. ([Draft] [P]EIS first para, pg. 3-26, [Draft] PER 

4th para. pg. 3-39) The words are capable leaves the reader wondering: “Does it 

happen? If so, is it a rare occurrence?” 

Response: Although weed infestations can and do destroy wildlife habitat, small weed 

infestations may not harm habitat, and may even provide some habitat diversity. Thus, 

it is probably best to leave the document wording as is. 

Comment: Page 3-40 Table 3-5 [of the Draft PER]. Where did these numbers 

originate from? Nevada has more that 3 million acres of land occupied by pure bromus 

species. The figure for halogeton and medusahead are equally inaccurate. I could not 

find the source in the references at the end of the book. 

Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0144-020 under PEIS Affected 

Environments, and Comments EMC-0585-036 and EMC-0585-034 under PEIS 

Affected Environments, Vegetation. 

Comment: “...competition with other species, influenced by the introduction on nonnative invasive plant species, has had a profound effect on native vegetation” (BLM 

[Draft] [P]EIS 3rd para. Pg. 3-19, and first para. Pg 4-42, and [Draft] PER 7th

 para, pg. 

4-31). Was the effect positive or negative? 

Response: The text of the PEIS and PER has been changed in response to this 

comment. See the Vegetation section of Chapters 3 and 4 in both documents. 

Comment: There is growing body of literature and many all too true stories across the 

west about the ability of these invaders to cause harm to our environment and the local 

economies that rely on them. These impacts must be addressed so that the general 

public can grasp the gravity of the situation and justify the use of herbicides, millions 

of dollars, and countless hours invested in managing them. 

Response: We have included additional information in Chapter 3 under Vegetation 

(Noxious Weeds and other Invasive Vegetation) of the Final EIS on how invasive 

species harm the environment. Although the focus of the PEIS is on how herbicides 

could harm the environment, there is discussion in Chapters 3 and 4 on the effects of 

weeds and other invasive vegetation on natural and human resources. 

Comment: Because the surveys and evaluations for the presence of invasive plants on 

BLM lands in the western US provided for the current analysis varies from district to 

district -- with some doing a good or even exemplary job, some barely getting by and 

others in-between -- no adequate determination of a range of values for presence of 

invasive plants can be made. Indeed, it isn’t made, with only lists of invasive plants 

provided to guide the decision maker and no informative description of where and 

particularly how much of the plants are currently present and how they are expected to 

spread given current knowledge. By not taking on the challenge of giving broad brush 

descriptions of this status, the DEIS [Draft PEIS] leaves the future under any of the 

alternatives subject to uninformed speculation. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-319 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Response: The BLM acknowledges there are spatial gaps in pre-treatment inventory 

and monitoring data for invasive plants. The baseline description of invasive plants in 

the 17-state area of the western U.S. that this PEIS addresses is given in Chapter 3 

under Noxious Weeds and other Invasive Vegetation in the Vegetation section. 

RMC-0042-089 Comment: Hopefully you can insert considerable information, like a few pages or a 

Asher, Jerry section, in the [P]EIS and PER about the impacts, i.e. what is the problem with weeds? 

Otherwise, how will the reader even begin to grasp why we want to use herbicides and 

treat so many acres of weeds? If lots of detail about the problem with weeds is not 

possible in the [P]EIS and PER, then perhaps a companion document could prepared 

and referenced in the [P]EIS, that would comprehensively describe the 

problem/challenges, since the [P]EIS and PER comprehensively describe the solution. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0049-028 under Affected Environment, 

Vegetation. 

RMC-0049-028 Comment: Page 3-1 [of the Draft PEIS and PER] This section needs to focus on the 

Wilson, Robert E. effect of invasive weed expansion and domination over native plant communities. As it 

(University of Nevada currently is written it only talks in a very general way about what are the current 

Cooperative Extension) estimated acreages. This is only a very small part of the picture. It does not address the 

very rapid expansion of dominated acres and the wholesale environmental changes and 

consequences as a result of the domination by a very few species of plants that are 

forming expansive monocultures. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0042-054 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action. Additional 

information on noxious weeds and other invasive vegetation has been provided in 

Chapter 3 of the Final PEIS under Noxious Weeds and other Invasive Vegetation in 

the Vegetation section. 

Affected Environment, Livestock 

RMC-0049-012 Comment: Page 3-55 Table 3-6 [of the PER] is not really relevant unless the grazing 

Wilson, Robert E. AUM’s [Animal Unit Months] are compared over time. Changes happen slowly on 

(University of Nevada much of the land managed by the BLM. What is the change in grazing pressure that 

Cooperative Extension) has occurred? 

Response: Table 3-6 in Chapter 3 of the PER under Livestock identifies the number of 

grazing permits and leases, and the amount of grazing use in AUMs by state, and is 

used in this chapter of the PER to identify how much grazing use occurs on public 

lands. This table was never intended to reflect a trend over time. To respond to the 

comment, there has been a gradual decrease in the amount of grazing use since the 

Taylor Grazing Act was passed in the mid 1930s. This decrease is reflected in both the 

number of AUMs permitted and available for use, and the number of AUMs actually 

used, and the trend continues today. The number of AUMs actually used may reflect 

greater fluctuations in response to annual growing conditions, such as drought periods 

when the amount of use is reduced. Following a drought the use temporarily increases 

with the return of more normal precipitation; however, when measured over longer 

periods of time the overall trend still reflects a gradual reduction in grazing use. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-320 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Affected Environment, Human Health and Safety 

FXC-0071-015 Comment: I also object that a comparison of some cancer rates on pages 3-70 

Campbell, Bruce mentions African-American and Caucasian rates, but does not mention the burgeoning 

Latino population which is the main demographic group coming into contact with 

toxic materials such as herbicides. 

Response: The source document for cancer rates did not break out Latinos from other 

races. However, the National Cancer Institute reports that cancer rates are lower for 

Hispanics than for Caucasians and African-Americans (see 

http://surveillance.cancer.gov/statistics/types/lifetime_risk.html). 

Environmental Consequences, How the Effects of the Alternatives were Estimated, General Issues 

EMC-0018-004 Comment: As a California resident and user of public lands I am concerned about 

Shaw, T. Gray irreparable damage from exposure to these chemicals, both to myself and to the public 

lands I enjoy. Non-target exposure negatively impacts water quality, soil productivity, 

native vegetation and wildlife (terrestrial and aquatic), native peoples (during plant 

gathering), and workers (handlers), not to mention recreationalists and members of the 

public who use and live near these lands. 

Response: The risk assessment specifically evaluated exposures to Native People, 

workers, and recreational users of the land, and considered a variety of exposure 

pathways. The risk assessment helped to identify which herbicides could pose 

potential health risks under these circumstances, and therefore should be restricted. 

EMC-0026-003 Comment: The herbicides that are proposed have negative impacts to the environment 

Salmon, De Anne and human health. This is a non-disputable fact despite the statement by the BLM that 

the risks are worth the benefits. Our water quality and soil productivity may be 

reduced to unsafe levels. 

Response: As discussed in Chapter 4 of the PEIS, herbicide use could adversely 

impact natural resources and human health. However, that BLM conducted extensive 

ecological and human health risk assessments to evaluate these risks and identify 

Standard Operating Procedures and mitigation measures to reduce the risk of adverse 

effects from the use of herbicides. In addition, it should be noted that ecosystem 

degradation from wildfires and the spread of invasive vegetation also adversely impact 

natural resources and human health and that without vegetation management these 

adverse affects would only increase. 

EMC-0056-002 Comment: Tripling the amount of herbicide used may not solve some of the 

Cole, Brian problems, and it would be harmful for people using the land. The BLM should be 

trying to protect the land, and keep it safe and usable for the public. By using more 

toxic herbicides, the health of BLM land users is compromised. As well, the health of 

the environment would decline as well. The herbicides would wash into streams and 

kill fish. Vegetation not meant to be sprayed could be killed. Please consider and 

understand that increasing the amount of herbicide applied would not only cause health 

problems, and damage to the environment, but it may not necessary prevent fires, or 

kill invasive weeds. 

Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0003-005 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Revegetation and Comment EMC-0026-

003 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, How the Effects of the Alternatives 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-321 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0066-004 

Conrick, Teresa 

EMC-0066-005 

EMC-0069-007 

Conrick, Teresa 

Murphy, Jennifer 

EMC-0069-004 

Murphy, Jennifer 

EMC-0115-005 

Steele , Mark 

Were Estimated. 

Comment: As a California resident and user of public lands I worry about the 

irreparable damage these chemicals will do to the natural surroundings and public 

lands I enjoy, as well as the health hazards these chemicals pose to my family. These 

ill-conceived spray plans will negatively impact water quality, soils productivity, 

native vegetation and wildlife (terrestrial and aquatic), native peoples (during cultural 

plant gathering practices), workers (those applying these hazardous chemicals), not to 

mention recreationalists and members of the public who use and live near these lands. 

Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0003-005 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Revegetation, and Comment EMC-0026-

003 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, How the Effects of the Alternatives 

Were Estimated. 

Comment: Public land management should be based on long-term ecological health, 

the best science available, and should err on the side of safety and conservation. I am 

troubled that massive amounts of extremely toxic poisons are being justified using 

peoples fear of catastrophic wildfires and invasion of invasive species. Non-herbicide 

vegetation treatment options are available! The proposed actions appear to meet 

financial needs of chemical companies and other large corporate interests, rather than 

for support ecological integrity and public interests. I worry about the long-term costs 

of all these pesticide applications, particularly those to the environment, the natural 

area, and the people who live near and use BLM public lands and natural areas. 

Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0003-005 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Revegetation, and Comment EMC-0026-

003 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, How the Effects of the Alternatives 

Were Estimated. 

Comment: These chemicals will do irreparable damage to the natural surroundings 

and public lands I enjoy. These ill-conceived spray plans will negatively impact water 

quality, soils productivity, native vegetation and wildlife (terrestrial and aquatic), 

native peoples (during cultural plant gathering practices), workers (those applying 

these hazardous chemicals), not to mention members of the public who use and live 

near these lands. These plans are unnecessary and unsafe for both human and 

environmental health. 

Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0003-005 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Revegetation, and Comment EMC-0026-

003 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, How the Effects of the Alternatives 

Were Estimated. 

Comment: One million acres of herbicide spraying is tremendous. I will agree that 2­

4, D and its sisters are pretty benign as far as herbicides go, but the large amount of 

lands and the sheer volume of 500,000 to 2 million gallons of herbicide being used in 

land treatment is an issue unto itself. How such widespread spraying affects insects, 

birds, wildlife, groundwater, permittees who will lose their grazing areas for a period 

of years afterwards, and the list goes on, will most likely be addressed by those with 

more authority than I, but I only point out the sheer volume of everything involved in 

this pushes it to the top. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-322 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0140-011 

Small, Jack W. and 

Joyce C. 

EMC-0161-007 

EMC-0271-005 

Richards, Vivien 

Takemori, Claire 

EMC-0181-003 

Artley, Richard 

EMC-0246-001 

Abe, Jane 

Response: The use of herbicides on public lands requires that the BLM utilize only 

those herbicides that have been evaluated, analyzed, and approved by the USEPA. 

These procedures include both human health and ecological risk analysis, which 

consider potential impacts on insects, birds, livestock and wildlife. For those 

herbicides being considered for rangeland applications, tests are run to determine 

potential impacts on the grazing livestock, and if necessary, grazing restrictions are 

implemented on the final label. These grazing restrictions typically last less than 4 

weeks, and only occur under the specific conditions identified on the herbicide label. 

Those herbicides registered for general applications on rangeland would be selective 

for the management of broadleaved species, with little or no impact on the desirable 

grass community at the proposed use rates. In situations where the undesirable 

vegetation is a broadleaved species, the application of these herbicides would typically 

reduce the competition of the target species, both for nutrients and space, allowing the 

desirable vegetation—grasses—to have a greater chance to grow. 

Comment: In this day of on-line access to all manner of scientific information, it 

should not be a problem to spend a few hours on Google checking out what is known 

of the effects of chemicals you plan to use. It would be helpful to down load some of it 

and make it available to those who don’t yet have a computer. 

Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0003-005 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Revegetation, and Comment EMC-0026-

003 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, How the Effects of the Alternatives 

Were Estimated. 

Comment: These ill-conceived spray plans will negatively impact water quality, soils 

productivity, native vegetation and wildlife (terrestrial and aquatic), native peoples 

(during cultural plant gathering practices), workers (those applying these hazardous 

chemicals), not to mention recreationalists and members of the public who use and live 

near these lands. 

Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0003-005 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Revegetation, and Comment EMC-0026-

003 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, How the Effects of the Alternatives 

Were Estimated. 

Comment: Has the BLM not received the word yet that manufactured herbicides and 

pesticides are extremely toxic and dangerous? In addition, these toxic chemicals retain 

their toxicity for long periods. If you would like a more scientific view of this 

dangerous stuff, I have at least a dozen scientific articles on it that I could send you. 

One of my articles even proves that the increases in cancer and birth defects in 

America is due to manmade chemical application... primarily pesticides. 

Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0003-005 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Revegetation, and Comment EMC-0026-

003 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, How the Effects of the Alternatives 

Were Estimated. 

Comment: I am shocked at the proposed use of pesticides on government lands for 

weed control. These substances are poisons. Has no one thought about their potential 

effects on soil organisms and wild life, to say nothing of the other flora in the area? It 

is naive to think that chemicals that are powerful enough to kill “noxious” species 

would do no harm to the “preferred.” It is time to take another look at these ideas. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-323 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0266-003 

Toro, Ida 

EMC-0306-007 

Klamath RiverKeeper 

Program and Klamath 

Forest Alliance 

EMC-0314-004 

Alliance for the Wild 

Rockies 

EMC-0324-003 

Rachel Carson Council 

There will be no going back, after such action is taken. 

Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0003-005 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Revegetation, and Comment EMC-0026-

003 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, How the Effects of the Alternatives 

Were Estimated. 

Comment: How detrimental will these applications be to the populace in the areas 

sprayed? Does anyone at BLM really know or care. Generally, these facts are usually 

found out after the fact when the damage has already been done. What about the water, 

i.e., creeks, streams, rivers, lakes, etc. - Poisoned. What of the wildlife that live within 

those waters? What of the birds? How will this affect them? 

Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0003-005 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Revegetation, and Comment EMC-0026-

003 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, How the Effects of the Alternatives 

Were Estimated. 

Comment: Negative impacts from toxic spray plan will include direct, indirect and 

cumulative effects to the environment and human health. Water quality and soil 

productivity will be reduced to unsafe levels. Non-targeted vegetation, and wildlife 

(terrestrial and aquatic) will all suffer greatly from the proposed toxic dousing. Native 

peoples would be specifically exposed to risk during cultural plant gathering practices. 

Workers applying these hazardous chemicals would be particularly at risk. 

Recreationalists and other members of the public could also be subject to exposure. 

The BLM inappropriately states that the risks are worth the benefits. 

Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0003-005 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Revegetation, and Comment EMC-0026-

003 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, How the Effects of the Alternatives 

Were Estimated. 

Comment: Under several laws and regulations the BLM must use objective science in 

evaluating the effects of herbicide use: 

* The Endangered Species Act at 16 USC [United States Code] 1536(a)(2) requires 

you use the best available scientific and commercial data in assessing the impacts on 

species; 

* NEPA regulation 40 CFR [Code of Federal Regulations] 1502.22 delineates various 

actions you must take when you find data gaps while evaluating the impacts of actions; 

* The Data Quality Act (DQA) requires you to use objective (e.g. peer reviewed, no 

financial CoI [conflict of interest]) data in any document that you disseminate to the 

public (e.g., EIS'); 

* When evaluating impacts, in the 9th Circuit at least, the Cuddy Mountain decision 

(137 F 3d at 1207) requires that you be more specific than the use of generalized 

claims without specifics and cite to authority. 

Response: See responses to Comments RMC-0221-061 and Comment RMC-0211-

013 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis. 

Comment: We question whether the specific conditions in Alaska have been given 

sufficient consideration. These include reduced numbers of organisms to metabolize 

the chemicals and the greater fragility of the ecosystems there -- that could lead to 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-324 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0324-019 

Rachel Carson Council 

EMC-0336-002 

Tipps, Betsy L. 

EMC-0338-004 

Dow AgroSciences 

longer persistence of the chemicals and more profound impacts on non-target 

populations. 

Response: The resource conditions in Alaska were identified in Chapter 3 of the PEIS 

and PER, and effects of treatments on Alaska resources were discussed in Chapter 4 of 

the PEIS and PER. As noted for Comment EMC-0108-002 under PEIS Appendix G, 

Tribal and Agency Consultation, the BLM would only use small amounts of herbicides 

in Alaska, if at all, and would mainly limit treatments to small areas, along ROWs, and 

disturbed sites. 

Comment: The chemicals tebuthiuron, picloram, glyphosate are all broad-spectrum 

herbicides capable of killing many different types of vegetation. Such actions can be 

harmful to insects, birds, fish and of course to people. Birds depend on vegetation for 

food and habitat and on insects for food. Fish depend on vegetation for food, habitat 

and for temperature regulation in the form of shading of riparian areas. Where 

beneficial insects, butterflies, and migratory birds feed, and or establish populations, 

these chemicals should not be routinely used. Fish can be harmed when temperature 

increases follow loss of shade-producing vegetation. Additional research needs to take 

place on the effect of these chemicals on bacteria, fungi, aquatic algae and grasses. 

Response: The BLM evaluated exposure and risk to birds, fish, invertebrates and other 

ecological receptors, and discussed indirect effects to salmonids. See Chapter 4 of the 

PEIS under the relevant resource sections. 

Comment: While studies to date may indicate that these products are “safe”, Google 

searches of bromacil, chlorsulfuron, diquat, diuron, fluridone, hexazinone, tebuthiuron, 

picloram, and triclopyr did not produce unequivocal scientific evidence that these 

chemicals are perpetually safe at any amount, much less the amounts you propose; are 

perpetually safe when used once, much less year after year; and that they will not have 

long-term, cumulative negative effects on human health, the development of children’s 

neurological and immune systems, air quality, water quality, soil quality, and wildlife 

health and abundance. Some of these chemicals have already been shown to cause 

reproductive and developmental harm, and it is likely that among the group currently 

proposed or those that may be added under the provisions of the agreement are known 

to be or will be discovered as carcinogens and/or neurotoxins. 

Response: All chemicals can cause harm. It is the exposure/dose that determines their 

risk to humans, plants, and animals. The purpose of the BLM risk assessments was to 

use application-specific and environmental fate and transport properties to determine 

exposure/dose and risk. The large majority of the exposure scenarios show no risk or 

low risk to human and ecological receptors at typical application rates. Most of the 

herbicides proposed for use by the BLM degrade relatively rapidly (days to weeks) and 

thus are unlikely to persist in the environment. 

Comment: It is important to note the exclusion of risks associate with non-chemical 

alternatives mentioned. There is no mention of the risks to workers using mechanical, 

fire or other methods to control invasive plants particularly in Alternative C: No Use of 

Herbicides. This ignores the dangers to workers using these methods such as the 

inhalation of vehicle exhaust or smoke from prescribed fires, risks associated with fire 

escape, physical injuries from over-exertion or injuries as a resulting from operation of 

heavy equipment. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-325 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0354-002 

Huls, Mark 

EMC-0386-003 

Varvares, Chris 

EMC-0446-024 

The Nature 

Conservancy 

EMC-0505-019 

John Day-Snake 

Resource Advisory 

Council 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0566-004 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Non-herbicide Effects Analysis. 

Comment: Although new chemical technology has obviously produced herbicides 

less toxic than those of the past, there can be no argument that those proposed and in 

use in many places today are still lethal to the biochemical processes of man, nature 

and beast. It surprises me that there would be any support for such an action among 

ranchers who run the risk of birth deformities and cancer in their livestock from such 

an exposure. The problem with genetic mutation and cancers is that these results from 

chemical exposures, which have been proven in several studies, are long term effects 

and therefore are without the immediate reaction and blame of something that 

produces side effects immediately. 

Response: The large majority of the exposure scenarios indicate that there is no risk or 

low risk to livestock associated with using the herbicides evaluated in the PEIS at 

typical application rates; see Tables 4-25 and 4-26 in Chapter 4 of the PEIS. See 

responses to Comment EMC-0336-002 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, 

How the Effects of the Alternatives Were Estimated and Comment EMC-0197-003 

under PEIS Environmental Consequences, Human Health and Safety. 

Comment: Recognize the cost, both of applying the herbicides directly, and their 

short- and long-term effects on the environment. 

Response: The short- and long-term costs and benefits of applying herbicides are 

discussed in Chapter 4 of the PEIS. More detailed information on the costs to humans, 

plants, and animals, is given in Appendixes B and C of the PEIS. 

Comment: Some of the background information used in the Draft EIS on the 

environmental fates of the herbicides imazapic, 2,4-D, glyphosate, imazapyr, triclopyr, 

clopyralid, hexazinone, picloram and fosamine ammonium is cited from the 

Conservancy’s Weed Methods Control Handbook ([Draft] PEIS pages 4-8, 15, 16, 17, 

18, 19, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 39, 46). While we appreciate the reference to our work, 

this Conservancy handbook is not a report of original research and study results, but is 

instead a compilation and review of available scientific literature. Therefore, we 

strongly recommend that BLM PEIS’ authors find and cite from those original 

scientific sources instead of referencing our handbook. 

Response: The references to the Weed Control Handbook were reviewed and changed 

in response to this comment, as appropriate. Where the original article was not 

obtained, a “cited in” citation is used. Where the handbook did not have an internal 

reference, the handbook was used as the citation. 

Comment: While the risk assessments discussed in the Appendixes A, B, and C 

include information on background, methodologies, analysis, use and predicted 

impacts and outcomes, they do not address incidents. Applicants are required to report 

such occurrences. For example, in Appendix C the risk assessment for sulfometuronmethyl, with respect to non-target plants, indicates that risk quotients for typical and 

rare, threatened or endangered (RTE) terrestrial plants were all well below the plant 

Level of Concern (LOC), indicating that wind erosion is not likely to pose a risk to 

non-target terrestrial plants (appendix C [of the Draft PEIS], page C-74). However, a 

few years ago, BLM’s application of this herbicide to control cheat grass in a burned 

area of south central Idaho resulted in off-target movement by wind blown dust and 

farmers in the area reported a high degree of crop loss that they attributed to this 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-326 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0512-002 

Hells Canyon 

Preservation Council 

EMC-0512-003 

Hells Canyon 

Preservation Council 

EMC-0525-023 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

herbicide. Investigations by the Idaho Department of Agriculture support this 

contention. It is clearly desirable to avoid off-target effects and the [P]EIS should 

include a discussion of risks from incidents for this and other herbicides. 

Response: The ecological risk assessments (ERAs) provide information reported to 

USEPA on accidents and spills, including reports of spills and their effects on the 

environment (see Section 2.3, Herbicide Incident Reports, in the ERAs, which are 

found on the CD that accompanies the PEIS). Additional information on the risks 

associated with spills is provided in Chapter 4 and Appendixes B and C of the PEIS. 

The BLM also modeled for the effects of herbicide drift on non-target vegetation and 

other resources, including humans, fish, and wildlife, and provided the results in the 

PEIS and ERAs. 

Comment: We are very concerned about this proposal to use herbicides on such a 

broad scale which will affect large areas in the West. The “one size fits all” approach is 

inappropriate considering the diversity of the habitat you intend to treat. The EIS fails 

to disclose the impacts of herbicide use on amphibians, fish populations or sage 

grouse. Other “special status” species may be negatively impacted from this large scale 

use of herbicides. HCPC [Hells Canyon Preservation Council] strongly suggests you 

redo EIS’s for each different ecosystem and address each individual impact on specific 

resources in each habitat type. 

Response: The PEIS and PER used several different approaches for analyzing 

impacts, depending on the types of data that were available and appropriate method of 

analysis. Thus, some effects were assessed based on state boundaries, while others, 

such as wildlife habitat, were assessed based on ecoregions. As defined in Webster’s 

Dictionary, “an ecosystem is the complex of a community and its environment 

functioning as an ecological unit in nature.” Thus, there are thousands of ecosystems in 

the West, and it would be impossible to analyze all ecosystems in a programmatic 

document, if at all. The PEIS does disclose impacts to fish, amphibians, and sagegrouse in the Fish and Other Aquatic Organisms and Wildlife Resources sections of 

Chapter 4. 

Comment: The toxicity of the herbicides proposed for use are not well understood or 

fully disclosed in the [P]EIS. There are significant data gaps and lack of adequate risk 

assessment for several herbicides proposed for use. Without clear and complete 

knowledge of the impacts to amphibians, insects, native plants, fish, and other wildlife 

this action is not acceptable to the public. Non-target species should not be put in 

danger by BLM’s use of herbicides. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0640-036 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Wildlife Resources. Data collected and analyzed during the risk 

assessment are provided for each herbicide in ecological risk assessments (ERAs) 

prepared by the BLM (and available on the CD included with the PEIS) and by the 

Forest Service (http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/risk.shtml). The risks to 

amphibians, insects, native plants, fish, and other wildlife is discussed in the ERAs, 

and also in Chapter 4 and Appendixes B and C of the PEIS. 

Comment: Some of this information is already assembled, but the Weed [P]EIS/PER 

preparers have ignored it. In fact, the recent Conservation Assessment for Greater Sage 

Grouse (Connelly et al. 2004) provided GIS maps and information on BLM lands and 

landscape-level fragmentation factors that could be readily built upon by BLM in a 

Supplemental Weed [P]EIS. The data used in this mapping included information, for 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-327 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0525-076 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0525-079 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0525-087 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0525-089 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

example, cheatgrass presence in understories, livestock facilities, and many other 

factors fragmenting species habitats. Instead of providing necessary information and 

mapping based on the information provided by the individual field offices, which 

BLM claims is driving this process, the [P]EIS provides limited and near-meaningless 

mapping at such a scale that it can not be properly related to the proposed actions. 

Response: The level of mapping provided in the PEIS and PER is appropriate for a 

programmatic-level document. Mapping elements used to describe sage-grouse habitat 

conditions may not be appropriate for other resource areas discussed in the PEIS and 

PER. In addition, the focus of the PEIS and PER is not on factors causing 

fragmentation and invasive species issues, but on the methods used to control invasive 

species. Also see response to Comment EMC-0585-051 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Determination of Treatment Acreages. 

Comment: The [Draft] [P]EIS/PER fails to examine such current population attributes 

in relation to areas slated for Treatment, and assess outcomes of treatments on many 

high priority species. 

Response: The PEIS, PER, and Biological Assessment discuss likely effects from 

treatment activities on species of concern. In addition, the ecological risk assessments 

prepared for herbicides used by the BLM deal extensively at the programmatic level 

with the risks to species of concern associated with herbicide use. As noted in Chapter 

2 of the PEIS under Special Precautions, Special Status Species, the BLM would 

evaluate risks to sensitive species and their populations at the local level for each 

treatment project. 

Comment: Sadly, the series of Alternatives (Proposed and Preferred Actions) cast 

aside reasonable analysis of the impacts of the massive intervention and treatment 

disturbance put forth in the [P]EIS/PER on these species, and the viability of habitats 

that will be drastically fragmented under the [P]EIS actions. 

Response: The analysis of the alternatives is found in Chapter 4 of the PEIS. The 

Proposed Action and Purpose and Need are identified in Chapter 1 of the PEIS. The 

PEIS proposes no actions that would drastically fragment viability of habitats for avian 

and other sensitive species. Analysis of herbicide use on sensitive species is presented 

under Wildlife Resources in Chapter 4 of the PEIS. Effects of non-chemical treatments 

on wildlife sensitive species are discussed under Wildlife Resources in the PER. 

Comment: The [P]EIS treatments (chaining, fire, chopping, herbiciding, and 

“biological control” livestock grazing) are identical to past activities that have caused 

the conversions that are dooming native species. The [P]EIS has failed to both provide 

a baseline of information on past acreages converted, the habitat fragmentation that has 

resulted, and the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of its proposed greatly 

expanded treatments on resulting new conversion. 

Response: The baseline conditions of public land resources are described in Chapters 

3 of the PEIS and PER. Cumulative effects are described in Chapter 4 of the PEIS 

under Cumulative Effects. 

Comment: Nowhere does the [P]EIS and PER provide any protocol, analysis, 

mitigation, SOP [Standard Operating Procedure] or other provisions or analyses that 

would retain large tracts of any vegetation type, ensure seed-producing pine, or 

promote growth of native grasses and forbs. In fact, as the [P]EIS fails to address 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-328 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0525-144 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0553-013 

Callihan, Robert H. 

livestock disturbance impacts and effects on outcomes of any treatments, and fails to 

provide science-based limitations on post-treatment livestock grazing and trampling 

use, there is no certainty that native grasses and forbs will not deteriorate further. This 

is especially the case as the very treatments identified may weaken or kill native 

grasses and forbs, as well as microbiotic soil crusts. 

Response: An important objective of vegetation treatments is to promote the growth 

of desirable and healthy vegetation, including seed-producing vegetation. Given that 

80% of treatments would be 1,000 acres or less, large tracts of land would remain 

untreated. The impacts of livestock on vegetation and other resources are discussed in 

Chapter 4 of the PER under Biological Treatments for each resource area, and also in 

the Analysis of Cumulative Effects in Chapter 4 of the PEIS. A discussion of the 

effects of treatments on soil, including microbiotic soil crusts, is included in the Soil 

Resources section of Chapter 4 of the PEIS and PER. 

Comment: What are the impacts of treatments, and likelihood of success under 

drought conditions? How would the effects of a passive treatment (reduction in, or 

removal of livestock) compared to invasive disturbance treatments as proposed under 

the EIS? 

Response: It is likely that the impacts of treatments, and their success or failure, would 

be influenced by extremes in weather (e.g., drought, periods of heavy rainfall), 

although it is difficult to predict treatment outcomes based on weather at the 

programmatic level. For example, more vegetation may be killed or harmed under 

drought conditions, but restoration success may also be lower than it would be during 

periods with above-average rainfall. The primary objective of the PEIS and PER was 

to evaluate the effects of treatments. However, a discussion of the adverse and 

beneficial effects of passive treatments is provided in Chapter 2 of the PER under 

Vegetation Treatment Standard Operating Procedures and Guidelines. 

Comment: Technical errors and omissions mentioned here reflect this draft’s 

insufficient involvement of personnel having an adequate grasp of weed science in all 

of its ramifications. Calling weed management “vegetation management” is fine, but 

changes neither the nature of the problems nor the science needed to address them. My 

principal recommendation regarding the BLM’s weed management activity is that the 

agency acknowledge that it is dealing with a specialty, not simply a few elements of 

that specialty. Proper acknowledgment will warrant more than token involvement of 

true weed specialists. It takes more than assigning a title to be a specialist. To be well 

qualified for BLM purposes, weed specialists should have not only experience but also 

a formal education focused on weed science and technology, including range and 

forest science. Such personnel are needed not only for development of documents such 

as this but also for directing related field work. They are the personnel most likely to 

have not only adequate preparation, but also a basic professional interest and 

motivation so focused on weed technology that its application will be sound. That 

basic motivation is not a minor consideration, and it’s not obtained by simply 

retraining or reassigning personnel from another profession. 

Response: The development of the PEIS reflects the interdisciplinary involvement of a 

broad range of professional resource specialists, including weed scientists. The PEIS is 

not a weed management document. The PEIS is an analytical document addressing the 

use of herbicides on vegetation and public land resources. Invasive species and 

noxious weeds are included under vegetation. BLM standards for qualifications for 

resource specialist positions are guided by Office of Personnel Management standards, 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-329 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0584-084 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0584-109 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0584-110 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-010 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-014 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

and are outside the scope of this analysis. 

Comment: Actions under the Alternatives of the [P]EIS/PER will bring about 

widespread soil erosion and relocation in wind and water. In order to understand the 

impacts of the actions, the current condition of all lands (soils, veg, microbiotic crusts, 

etc.) must be thoroughly assessed. The [P]EIS fails to assess effects of multiple or 

overlapping treatments. For example, how will herbicide runoff be accelerated in 

burned landscapes? This also relates to air quality problems, and possible increased air 

or water pollution on top of other pollutants. 

Response: See responses to Comment EMC-0584-071 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Cumulative Effects Analysis, and Comment EMC-0585-010 under 

PEIS Environmental Consequences, How the Effects of the Alternatives Were 

Estimated. 

Comment: Risk Assessments: BLM must conduct assessments of the risks of seeding 

failure/loss, increased depletion, weed invasions, under various post-treatment grazing 

strategies and across a broad range of alternatives. What are the risks of seeding 

weakening and depletion if grazing is allowed to resume too soon? 

Response: Each vegetation treatment project has site-specific NEPA analysis 

conducted at the time the project is proposed. Issues such as treatment success are 

evaluated within the context of the proposal. 

Comment: Minimal Use of Chemicals: BLM must strive to minimize use of 

chemicals in wild land settings. An increasing segment of the public has health 

problems related to chemical sensitivities. Chemicals may leach into water, blow on 

eroding soils into other sites. Wind erosion is far more significant in post-fire 

environments, as dark bare soil surfaces heat up, with the result of funnel-cloud 

erosion/dustdevils blowing soils away. Cancer, respiratory problems and many other 

human health effects of herbicides and other treatment chemicals are well-known. 

Response: The BLM would strive to minimize herbicide use, as noted in Chapter 2 of 

the PEIS and PER under Site Selection and Treatment Priorities. Also see response to 

Comment RMC-0214-011 under PEIS Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, 

Organization of the Vegetation Treatments Assessments. 

Comment: While BLM superficially examines a few risks of herbicides, nowhere are 

the risks of treatments, or combined treatment and herbicide use examined. 

Response: The PEIS, PER, and ecological and human health risk assessments provide 

extensive coverage of the risks of herbicides to natural and human resources. The risk 

assessments evaluated several tank mixes (applications of a mixture of several 

herbicides). However, an analysis of potential combinations of herbicides and other 

treatment methods is impractical at the programmatic level, as there could potentially 

be hundreds of combinations of treatments. This analysis is best done at the local level 

for each project. 

Comment: Although BLM entitles the [P]EIS “Vegetation Treatments on BLM lands 

in 17 western states”, it fails to assess the environmental impacts of vegetation 

treatments and take a hard look at a reasonable range of alternatives related to the 

massive array of treatments proposed. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-330 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0585-023 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-060 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-089 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

Response: The Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action is described in Chapter 1 of 

the PEIS. The PEIS does not propose a massive array of treatments. The PEIS 

assesses the human health and ecological risk from the use of herbicides on public land 

resources. The BLM has determined the range of alternatives analyzed is reasonable 

and appropriate to the Proposed Action and Purpose and Need. Effects of other nonchemical treatment methods are described in the PER. The environmental impacts of a 

vegetation treatment are assessed at the time the treatment is proposed through sitespecific NEPA analysis. 

Comment: BLM must use best available science and provide a basis for the claimed 

purpose and need. BLM must provide baseline information on the numbers of acres 

treated/manipulated in the past, the environmental effects of these treatments, and the 

current condition of these treated lands. The proposed vegetation treatments and 

herbicides have been purposefully employed by BLM and the Forest Service for a 

significant period of time. They have caused harmful, often irreversible changes to 

habitats for species such as sage grouse and pygmy rabbit (MDFW [Montana 

Department of Fish and Wildlife] 1995, Braun 1998, Connelly et al. 2000, Connelly et 

al. 2004). The very treatments described in the PER have led to large-scale habitat 

declines. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0584-051 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Programs, Policies, and Initiatives 

Influencing Vegetation Treatment Activities. The BLM has utilized the best available 

science in its assessment of the herbicides identified in the Proposed Action and 

Purpose and Need of Chapter 1 of the PEIS. See Appendixes B through D of the PEIS 

for a summary of the scientific methodology used in the analysis of herbicides. 

Comment: BLM must conduct analysis and provide data that shows: What is the 

current ecological condition of lands subject to past treatments, or proposed for 

treatment under the DEIS [Draft PEIS]? How might chemical, carrier, breakdown 

product impacts be magnified in degraded environments of bare disturbed soils, 

devegetated wild land springs, etc.? 

Response: The PEIS discussed the current condition of public lands at the 

programmatic level based on surveys conducted by the BLM (see Wetland and 

Riparian Areas, Vegetation, and Wildlife Resources sections of Chapter 3). The 

ecological risk assessments considered soil, slope, vegetation type, and other factors 

when determining risks from the use of herbicides under different field conditions. 

These assessments would be used by local field offices to predict the effectiveness of 

herbicide treatments on degraded lands. 

Comment: These are also the areas where most of the pesticide spraying related to 

grasshopper, Mormon cricket and other pest control occurs. So, the same lands are 

more likely to be subjected to multiple classes and types of pesticides − and their 

carriers, contaminants and breakdown products. Congress recently allocated funds for 

a large-scale increase in insect spraying on the same lands where this EIS contemplates 

massive increases in herbiciding and disturbance treatments. Plus, these are the lands 

closest to areas where private land owners may be applying a vast array of chemicals −

for everything from weeds to insect infestations to fungicides − both terrestrially or 

aerially, so impacts of drift or off-site transport - either from BLM to private lands, or 

vice versa, and multiple chemical and breakdown and carrier exposure is most likely to 

happen. In arid lands subject to brief periods of favorable plant growth, many of the 

herbicide/pesticide treatments may be compressed into a short time frame occurring on 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-331 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0585-094 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-099 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

both BLM and private lands at the same time. Thus, risks of overlapping chemical 

exposure, including from degradates, must be assessed. 

Response: Based on BLM Pesticide Use Reports for 2004 and 2005, the BLM treated 

58,838 acres using the following pesticides: carbaryl (22,905 acres), deltamithrin 

(694), MCH (60), verbenone (33), acetaphate (3), benomyl (3), chlorothalonil (6), 

dithane (3), esfenvalerate (66), iprodione (3), malathion (503), metaxyl (3), permethrin 

(3), propaconizole (6), triophante-methyl (3), and diflubenzuron (34,544). The focus of 

the PEIS is on how the BLM manages vegetation using herbicides. The BLM would 

follow label directions and Standard Operating Procedures and mitigation identified in 

Chapter 2 of the PEIS to avoid or minimize the likelihood of herbicides applied by the 

BLM on public lands being carried to non-target lands. The BLM would also 

coordinate with other pesticide applicators near the treatment area to reduce the 

likelihood of multiple treatments on public or non-public lands. See responses to 

Comment RMC-0106-048 under PEIS Appendix C, Ecological Risk Assessment, and 

Comment EMC-0505-009 under PEIS Alternatives, Monitoring. 

Comment: Chemicals applied in burned or otherwise disturbed environments or 

environments where soils have been disturbed or altered by grazing are much more 

likely to erode in wind or water, and end up killing non-target organisms, polluting 

wildlife water sources, infiltrating domestic water supplies, etc. Thus, any Risk 

Assessment can not be conducted using “normal” situations as a baseline. It must 

consider the significant environmental disturbance that will result from treatments, or 

in the case of ESR [Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation], in the post-fire 

environment, occurring on top of ongoing chronic disturbances of livestock grazing, 

OHV [off-highway vehicle] activity, or other human-caused abuses. 

Response: The BLM’s GLEAMS models used in the herbicide ecological risk 

assessments (ERAs) used fate and transport conditions to represent conditions of 

erodible soils expected after fire. The ERAs are available for review on the CD that 

accompanies the Final PEIS. As discussed in Chapter 4 of the PEIS and PER under 

Soil Resources and in the Cumulative Effects Analysis, livestock grazing, OHV [offhighway vehicle] use, and even BLM vegetation treatments can cause erosion. As 

proposed by the BLM in the PEIS and PER, passive (e.g., reduce livestock and OHV 

use) and active (e.g., use herbicides and prescribed fire) treatments would be used to 

control weeds and other invasive vegetation and reduce hazardous fuels. Although 

these treatments could lead to short-term loss of soil, it is anticipated that BLMadministered lands would improve with time, as would soil stability as native 

vegetation revegetates the treatment site. 

Comment: Land in proximity to UI [urban interfaces] or with weed problems (where 

[P]EIS claims many activities are to occur) typically have more roading and OHV [offhighway vehicle] use, more livestock use, and typically, in more disturbed lands 

related to livestock projects or other human activities, and thus are in the poorest 

condition and subject to accelerated erosional or runoff events. This is more likely to 

deliver pollutants into ground and surface waters as soils and vegetation are disturbed. 

Throughout this process, BLM must conduct analyses and risk assessments based on 

worst-case rugged wild land scenarios. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0585-094 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, How the Effects of the Alternatives Were Estimated. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-332 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0591-002 

Johnson, Robert 

EMC-0597(a)-008 

Beeland, DeLene 

EMC-0641-019 

Idaho Conservation 

League 

Comment: I request that input which challenges the use of herbicides registered by the 

EPA have their claims subject to the “Daubert standard” which the courts use. The US 

Supreme Court ruled in Daubert vs Merrill Dow Pharmaceutical that opposing claims 

must meet the scientific method. http://www.daubertontheweb.com/. In the Daubert 

case a number of academically qualified individuals “re-analyzed” existing peer 

reviewed research and professed their analysis revealed danger to the medicine in 

question. Despite their academic backgrounds, the court rejected their claims as not 

scientifically sound. Regarding herbicides, groups such as the Northwest Coalition for 

Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP) will re-analyze peer reviewed studies and claim 

health concerns. However NCAP has failed to submit their re-analysis to peer review. 

The US Supreme Court has ruled such non-peer reviewed “re-analysis” is not to be 

considered. I request that the BLM reject non-peer reviewed re-analysis of the 

herbicides it is considering under Alternative B. 

Response: The BLM will accept all information presented by reviewers and the public 

and give appropriate consideration to the information’s validity based on its scientific 

defensibility with regard to peer review, professional expertise, and professional 

judgment. 

Comment: What are the bioaccumulative effects? When these poisons reach our 

watersheds – which they will – what are the effects on fishes and amphibians – and 

ultimately on water quality? On soil quality? On the beetles and burrowing animals 

ecosystems depend upon for soil production? On birds? Twenty years from now, will 

trails have to be closed to hikers because of accumulated poisons in the soil that can’t 

be contained and are jettisoned into the air by a disturbance as small as a boot-print? If 

BLM insists on retaining its public lands grazing program, will humans eventually eat 

the cows that ate grasses coated in herbicides? Fifty years from now will we have 

altered the food web once more because top predators such as wolves, bears and 

cougars will hold the accumulated health effects of herbicides in their bodies and their 

young? 

Response: Bioaccumulation was evaluated for the piscivorous (fish-eating) bird (bald 

eagle). The risk assessment found either no risk or low risk to this indicator species. 

The amount of time that herbicides proposed for use by the BLM persist in the 

environment is generally short—days to weeks (see response to Comment RMC-0069-

009 under PEIS Alternatives, Monitoring). The BLM also evaluated risk to hikers and 

found either no (non-diquat herbicides) or low risk (diquat). However, hikers would 

not likely be exposed to diquat, as it is an aquatic herbicide. 

Comment: We have serious concerns about the adverse impacts of aerial herbicide 

application on aquatic environments, particularly over smaller streams and intermittent 

channels. We do not believe that the minimum 100-foot buffer zones between water 

bodies are adequately protective. Furthermore, we feel unsure about how the BLM 

might prevent contamination to streams via wind drift, even with buffer zones, 

particularly since the elevation of spraying will vary. Although we recognize that aerial 

and broadcast applications may be appropriate in some areas, we strongly encourage 

the BLM to consider adopting an alternative that does not involve using aerial 

applications in regions containing wetlands or small streams and other shallow water 

bodies. The BLM should also refrain from utilizing aerial applications in regions 

containing critical habitat for threatened and endangered fish species. Amphibians are 

also extremely sensitive to herbicides, even at relatively low levels. The PEIS needs to 

analyze potential impacts to amphibians and associated species from the use of these 

herbicides. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-333 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0643-006 

California Indian 

Basketweavers 

Association 

EMC-0643-007 

California Indian 

Basketweavers 

Association 

Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0006-034 and Comment RMC-0228-007 

under PEIS Alternatives, Herbicide Treatment Standard Operating Procedures. 

Avoidance of the use of herbicides near amphibian-bearing waters was an important 

component of Alternative E (see Chapter 2 of the PEIS). To protect amphibians and 

reptiles, and fish species of concern, the BLM would follow guidance in the Biological 

Assessment prepared in support of the PEIS. This document, along with Chapter 2 of 

the PEIS, lists numerous mitigation and conservation measures that would be 

implemented to reduce risks to the animals, including not broadcast spraying in 

habitats with special status species. 

Comment: The BLM is embarking, in this EIS, upon a new path that essentially 

would institutionalize a policy with the potential for irreversible long term, serious, 

adverse impacts to the environment. The use of chemical poisons to kill plants at this 

scale on public lands is unprecedented. It has been known for half a century that 

pesticides have unintended adverse effects on human health and the environment— 

such as increased risks for cancer, neurological disorders, reproductive disorders, 

endocrine and immune system dysfunction; impaired surface and ground water, and 

harm to fish and wildlife. Public lands play an essential role providing largely 

unpolluted refugia ensuring the survival of countless numbers of species of plants and 

wildlife. 

Response: As discussed in Chapter 4 of the PEIS, herbicides do have adverse effects 

on humans and the environment, although the effects of herbicides proposed for use by 

the BLM are generally none to low. Risks to human health and fish and wildlife are 

discussed in detail in Appendixes B and C of the PEIS and in the human health risk 

assessment (HHRA) and ecological risk assessments (ERAs) prepared in support of 

the PEIS (see HHRA and ERAs on the CD that accompanies the PEIS). However, as 

discussed in the Introduction (Chapter 1 of the PEIS), the increase in weeds, invasive 

vegetation, and hazardous fuels also threaten the health and welfare of humans and fish 

and wildlife and are adversely impacting the “naturalness” of public lands. 

Comment: Separate from this, the BLM has failed in this DEIS [Draft PEIS] to 

document with scientific evidence that the use of herbicides will result in improving 

ecosystem health or restoring lands. In fact, there is much evidence in the scientific 

literature that suggests that the use of herbicides results in simplifying ecosystems and 

further reducing biological diversity, eliminating native species and setting the stage 

for worse invasions of weeds. We insist that the BLM follow up on these issues and 

address them in a substantive manner, with full documentation and with references 

footnoted, in the final EIS, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act. 

Response: Scientific literature on herbicide use is found under References in Chapter 

6 of the PEIS. The BLM is not attempting to make the case that use of herbicides 

results in the improvement of ecosystem health or restoration of land. Herbicides are 

one tool utilized for vegetation treatments in an integrated pest management 

framework, to attain improved ecosystem function. Experience and scientific literature 

support the idea that vegetation treatment and manipulation to meet desired goals and 

objectives have positive and beneficial outcomes in attaining desired outcomes, such 

as improved ecosystem function. The BLM also recognizes that herbicides have risks 

associated with their use. The impacts (beneficial and adverse) and risks of herbicide 

use are analyzed and disclosed in the PEIS. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-334 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0643-024 

California Indian 

Basketweavers 

Association 

EMC-0643-045 

California Indian 

Basketweavers 

Association 

EMC-0646-083 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

Comment: The [P]EIS must analyze the direct, indirect, and cumulative 

environmental, health and cultural impacts of the chemical products as they will 

actually be used, as mixtures, in the field and at environmentally relevant 

concentrations. (See Attachment 3). Further, common sense dictates that pesticide 

products in full formulation that have not been tested for their environmental impacts 

should not be permitted for use on the public’s lands unless there are overriding, 

emergency situations in which their use is absolutely essential. Pesticides should be 

used only as a “last resort” in integrated pest management programs, as affirmed by 

former Secretary of Agriculture Anne Venneman (U.S. GAO [Government 

Accounting Office] 2001 cited in CIBA’s [California Indian Basketweavers 

Association’s] comments, 2002). As alternative methods of prevention and control 

such as were recommended by CIBA in the Restore Native Ecosystems Alternative 

have not been implemented by the BLM, it is clear that pesticides are not a “last 

resort” method. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0623-017 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis. As stated in Chapter 2 of the Final PEIS 

under Site Selection Priorities in the Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management 

section, the BLM would first take actions to prevent or minimize the need for 

vegetation controls where feasible; then use effective nonchemical methods of 

vegetation control where feasible; and finally use herbicides only after considering the 

effectiveness of all potential methods and their impacts on the environment. 

Comment: The DEIS [Draft PEIS] even concludes that risks to Native people and 

others “would be greatest under the Preferred Alternative.” Risks to wildlife, air 

quality, and water quality are also the highest under the Preferred Alternative. The 

DEIS [Draft PEIS] also finds, “However, as the long term objective of treatment is to 

restore native plant communities and habitats, including those of traditional 

importance to Native Peoples, the greatest benefits would accrue under the Preferred 

Alternative.”(page 4-221, also see p 2-34 Table 2-8 [of Chapter 2 of the Draft PEIS]). 

There is no explanation as to how these binaries are weighed one against another. 

Response: The Preferred Alternative analyzes the most acres of proposed herbicide 

use out of all the alternatives presented. Since herbicides would be applied to more 

acres, there is greater risk from the use of herbicides overall. Also, since more acres 

would be treated under this alternative, more acres would be potentially restored, 

reducing the need for future applications, and providing greater benefits over the long 

term as compared to the other alternatives. 

Comment: This indirect effect associated with surfactants, carrying toxic substances 

through cell walls to cause effect, is in need of thorough evaluation. Data exists 

showing the ability of surfactants to carry toxic substances through plant surfaces, and 

a growing body of data showing similar transport through animal cell walls. This is a 

serious issue, and as Marc et al state, “our results question the safety of glyphosate and 

Roundup on human health”. The BLM must consider such warnings in its NEPA 

analysis but has failed in the draft PEIS. 

Response: The BLM has prepared a new Appendix D for the Final PEIS to address 

endocrine disrupting chemicals and other inert ingredients that may be associated with 

glyphosate and other herbicides used or proposed for use by the BLM. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-335 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0646-111 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

EMC-0646-232 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

EMC-0646-234 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

EMC-0646-235 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

Comment: Results from every research project and data review needs to be 

thoroughly analyzed, through peer review and independent analysis, unlike USDA 

2003. There has never been a time when the need for critical, objective analysis has 

been more important than with the issues surrounding endocrine effects. This is 

especially true when one considers that new pathways of communication and 

functional overlap between the various endocrine systems are still being discovered 

(WHO 2002). 

Response: See responses to Comment EMC-0646-021 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis and Comment EMC-0646-053 under 

Environmental Consequences, Non-herbicide Effects Analysis. 

Comment: Also missing is even a rudimentary analysis of how differences in climate, 

soil, topography and other factors will impact what treatments may be used and how 

efficacious they will be. 

Response: Chapter 4 of the PEIS discusses how soil, rainfall, and other natural and 

social factors would influence, and be influenced by treatment methods. The 

ecological risks assessments used soil type, slope, weather, vegetation, and other 

factors in models to predict risks for each herbicide. The reader should consult the 

individual risk assessments found on the CD that accompanies the PEIS for more 

information. An analysis of site-specific factors that could influence treatment success 

and impacts would be conducted for each project at the local level. 

Comment: The Draft PEIS fails to inform the decision maker by making several very 

serious lapses in the description of the environmental consequences of the proposed 

program. The primary assumption is that for a programmatic EIS the BLM is absolved 

from analysis of the relative need for any of the means of control. The BLM can and 

must come up with, at the very least, pie charts and graphs that illustrate the proportion 

of each treatment option that may be anticipated to be used. This is not an impossible 

task, or if it is, why it is impossible should be described in the EIS. How can a decision 

maker be informed without this basic information? 

Response: The estimated number of acres to be treated using herbicides for each 

alternative is given in Table 2-6 in the PEIS, and for all treatments in Chapter 4 of the 

Draft PER under Vegetation. However, to assist the reader with analysis of the 

alternatives, we have provided an estimate of the number of acres to be treated using 

other treatment methods in the section on Determination of Treatment Acreages in the 

Final PEIS. 

Comment: The BLM fails to provide fundamental information for project analysis 

related to noxious weed and invasive weed treatments. How much extra spraying will 

be involved to treat noxious weeds? What portion of the annual BLM budget will go 

towards which weed treatment methods? It what areas will which herbicides be 

considered? Are there areas or situations where certain chemicals will not be 

considered acceptable? Where is the analysis of the extra spraying proposed for weeds 

regarding impacts and effects to watershed, vegetation, and wildlife? 

Response: Much of the information on treatments used in the PEIS and PER was 

obtained from local field offices during a data request in 2002. It is difficult to 

determine how much spraying will be focused specifically on weeds. Local offices 

may have identified weed control as the purpose of a spray program, or they may have 

mentioned that the purpose is to reduce hazardous fuels, improve wildlife habitat, or 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-336 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

assist with revegetation, which may or may not involve the treatment of weeds. An 

estimate of the costs of treatments per acre is given for each alternative in Chapter 4 of 

the PEIS under Social and Economic Values. For purposes of the PEIS, the BLM 

assumed that treatments and herbicide use could occur anywhere, but, as discussed in 

Chapter 4 of the PEIS under Vegetation, most treatments would occur in the 

Temperate Desert and Subtropical Steppe ecoregions. It was not practical, however, to 

identify the locations of specific projects in the PEIS; the locations will be identified 

during analysis at the local level. The risk assessments evaluated numerous treatment 

scenarios based on soil type, rainfall, habitat type (wetland or upland), vegetation type, 

proximity to humans or species of concern, and other factors. The results of risk 

assessments were used to identify situations in which use of one or more herbicides 

would not be acceptable; these situations were also identified in Chapter 4 of the PEIS 

and in the Biological Assessment. An assessment of the impacts of herbicide 

treatments on natural and human resources is provided in Chapter 4 of the PEIS. 

EMC-0646-245 Comment: The agency must use high quality information and accurate scientific 

Californians for analysis, 40 C.F.R. [Code of Federal Regulations] 1500.1(b), and must disclose “any 

Alternatives to Toxics responsible opposing view.” Id. 1502.9(b). The [P]EIS must disclose and analyze 

opposing opinions. Center For Biological Diversity v. United States Forest Service, 

349 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2003). Thus far the BLM has failed to disclose opposing 

scientific opinion regarding toxicity of herbicide formulations, potential impacts of 

herbicide applications, and potential alternatives, thus violating this NEPA 

requirement. 

Response: The PEIS discloses and analyzes extant scientific data, not opinions, on 

herbicide use and its effects. These data are included under resource sections in 

Chapter 4 of the PEIS. In addition, a comparison of the adverse and beneficial effects 

(and opposing opinions) of herbicide use is provided in Chapter 4 of the PER. 

Scientific toxicity of herbicides was evaluated using quantitative risk analyses, based 

on scientific methodologies consistent with USEPA guidance. Both peer and non-peer 

reviewed literature submitted during the NEPA process was reviewed and considered 

in the PEIS analysis. The PEIS is not a forum for airing opposing opinions, but an 

analytical tool to weigh scientific information that will result in a decision on which 

herbicides are appropriate for use on public lands. To the extent scientific data, not 

opinion, were submitted relative to the decision to be made, it was considered in the 

analysis. 

FL-0006-005 Comment: I am concerned that these plans are unnecessary and unsafe for both 

human and environmental health. Public land management should be based on longterm ecological health, the best science available, and should err on the side of safety 

and conservation. 

Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0003-005 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Revegetation, and Comment EMC-0026-

003 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, How the Effects of the Alternatives 

Were Estimated. 

FXC-0019-001 Comment: On p. 3 of 9 in the (FAQ) section, the following statement misleads the 

Degan, Janet public: “Expected benefits (from these treatments of vegetation and soil) would 

include: reduced wildland fire risk, improved vegetation condition, improved fish and 

wildlife habitat, and improved watershed function.” In truth, instead of benefits, there 

would be health and safety dangers created by poisoning the vegetation, poisoning the 

fish and wildlife habitat, and poisoning the water supply within the treated watersheds. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-337 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0006-037 

Central Sierra 

Environmental 

Resource Center 

RMC-0049-003 

Wilson, Robert E. 

(University of Nevada 

Cooperative Extension) 

Response: As discussed in Chapter 4 of the PEIS and PER, proposed vegetation 

treatments would have both adverse and beneficial effects. These effects include the 

potential for herbicides to harm the environment and human health. However, by not 

treating vegetation, weeds and other invasive vegetation, and wildfires that result from 

high levels of hazardous fuels, could exclude or eliminate more desirable vegetation 

from fish and wildlife habitat, and cause extensive erosion that could harm watersheds. 

Comment: The environmental scope of this PEIS is too large, and it should be broken 

down by eco-region. There is too much environmental variation across eco-regions 

covered by the 17 western states. This plan should be broken down by eco-region. If 

nothing else, because this is a programmatic EIS, an NEPA level environmental 

assessment should be required for each specific site or project. 

Response: The analysis of risks to resources from herbicides was based on risk 

assessment protocols that did not lend themselves well to analysis by ecoregions. In 

addition, some other resources were better analyzed based on state jurisdiction (air 

quality) or hydrologic region (water). Analysis of habitat effects for wildlife was done 

by ecoregion in the PEIS. An analysis of effects by ecoregions was done for more 

resources in the PER, including plants and wildlife. 

Comment: As a whole, the document does not adequately (1) describe the ecological 

impacts that are certain to occur if all the federal, state, and private landowners in the 

Western U.S. do not do a better job of addressing the problem that we are all facing. 

(2) Nor does it look at solutions as part of an ecological process. Instead, the approach 

seems to be to simply reflect the removal of undesirable species and does not reflect 

much thought into what happens after that. By addressing vegetation management in 

terms of ecological or biological sequences that look into the future achieves a much 

more comprehensive and sustainable result. An approach outlined by Dr. Roger Sheley 

and described by him as Ecologically-Based Rangeland Weed Management is one 

science based approach to ecological manipulation. This concept touches on numerous 

areas of vegetation Manipulation, and is the basis for much of the newer science about 

invasive weed management in all the areas addressed by this [P]EIS. 

Response: The PEIS analyzes the impacts of herbicide use under the different 

alternatives based on known BLM activities; cumulative impacts are based on known 

activities by the BLM and other federal land management agencies. The BLM cannot 

analyze unknown activities on other federal lands or on state or private lands. BLM 

handbooks, manuals, and policies incorporate an integrated approach to vegetation 

management. Using an integrated pest management or integrated vegetation 

management approach provides the local field office the ability to evaluate and select 

the method or combination of methods that will meet local vegetation management 

objectives. The Department of Interior adopted and endorses Integrated Pest 

Management (IPM) as defined in 7USC (United States Code) 136r-1: IPM is a 

science-based, decision-making process and a sustainable approach to manage pests by 

combining biological, cultural, physical, and chemical tools in a way that minimizes 

economic, health, and environmental risks. Another term used in addressing vegetation 

only is Integrated Vegetation Management (IVM). IVM is an ecosystem-based 

strategy for controlling unwanted vegetation using the most appropriate, 

environmentally sound, and cost effective combination of biological, chemical, 

cultural, manual, or mechanical methods. In IPM programs, herbicides are considered 

transition tools that enable the manager to manage vegetation and replace them with 

desirable, competitive vegetation. BLM Manual 9011 recommends selecting the least 

toxic low-residual herbicide that is effective against the target vegetation and applying 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-338 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0049-026 

Wilson, Robert E. 

(University of Nevada 

Cooperative Extension) 

RMC-0049-029 

Wilson, Robert E. 

(University of Nevada 

Cooperative Extension) 

RMC-0072-007 

Zimmermann, Adele E. 

RMC-0106-003 

Public Employees for 

Environmental 

Responsibility 

RMC-0170-005 

Carson Forest Watch 

it in a judicious manner. 

Comment: At the very least, this [P]EIS should analyze the effect of invasive weed 

domination if a less aggressive management effort is maintained over the long term. 

Response: The No Action Alternative and alternatives C, D, and E provide a range of 

alternatives that assess less aggressive responses to invasive species. See Chapter 4 of 

the PEIS for the analysis of these alternatives. 

Comment: Section 4-1[of the PEIS]. This section needs to specifically address the 

environmental consequences of invasive weed domination. It needs to discuss fully the 

environmental consequences of extensive monocultures of alien plant species and the 

resulting reduction of native flora and fauna that cannot survive in this newly forming 

environment. It also needs to address better the environmental consequences of 

herbicides on the plant communities where they are used. The consequences will be 

different for different classes of herbicides. 

Response: The environmental consequences of invasive species are discussed under 

Alternative C for each resource area in Chapter 4 of the PEIS. Under Alternative C, the 

BLM would not be able to use herbicides, and thus the spread of weeds would likely 

be greater under this alternative than under the other alternatives. The PER discusses 

the effects of weeds on natural and social resources. In addition, the BLM has 

expanded the discussion of the spread and consequence of invasive weeds in the Final 

PEIS and PER, as well as expanding the discussion on herbicides is included in 

Chapter 2 of the Final PEIS and PER. Also see response to Comment EMC-0585-062 

under Alternatives, Monitoring. 

Comment: No Environmental Impact Statement can reliably predict the cumulative 

and long-term effects of wide-scale application of any chemical; relatively toxic, such 

as the proposed herbicides; or relatively benign, such as the fire retardant dropped on 

forest fires. Therefore any EIS, however well researched, is inadequate and any action 

based on such a Statement is illegal. 

Response: The BLM does not agree with the comment. Most herbicides have a safe 

threshold of use. See response to Comment EMC-0646-048 under PEIS 

Environmental Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis. 

Comment: The D[raft] PEIS reiterates in numerous places that the information 

available is insufficient to support direct analysis of potential impacts. But then 

proceeds to obscure these deficiencies in so-called state-of-the-art risk analyses based 

on multiple assumptions, surrogate species, and guesswork. All the while, 

unmistakable evidence of harm to non-target plants, wildlife, aquatic life, and humans 

from the specific herbicides proposed to be used dribbles through. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0640-036 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Wildlife Resources. 

Comment: Our Western States’ long-term drought needs to be analyzed in this DEIS 

[Draft PEIS] – low water levels, dry soils, loss of vegetation, warm temps, etc. all must 

be evaluated in this DEIS [Draft PEIS] – as it directly affects the condition of our soils 

and watersheds. Also, drought will affect any analysis of effects of herbicides – less 

ability of soil & water to dilute chemicals, absorption rates, etc. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-339 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0191-006 

Ertz, Brian 

RMC-0191-016 

Ertz, Brian 

RMC-0200-008 

Lindsay, Dianne 

Response: Prior to any application of an herbicide, local environmental conditions are 

taken into account. Risk analyses conducted for the herbicides under the GLEAMS 

and CALPUFF modeling covered a variety of environmental variables, including 

rainfall and soils. See Appendix C of the PEIS under Concentration Models of the 

PEIS for a description of the modeling methods used in the development of this 

analysis. 

Comment: The potential harms of the Preferred Alternative are not adequately 

considered given the Biological Assessments as well as the Risk Assessments 

compiled for the proposed new herbicides. 

Response: The PEIS summarized information provided in the risk assessments and 

Biological Assessment (BA), and provided information from numerous other sources 

(see References). However, the reader is encouraged to review the risk assessments, 

BA, and other appendixes and supporting information provided with the PEIS and 

PER to have a better understanding of the risks and benefits of using herbicides and 

other treatment methods. 

Comment: The BLM is using this Vegetation Treatment PEIS to attempt to administer 

the Preferred Alternative which would triple the amount of toxic herbicides to be used 

across urban interfaces and public lands. All considerations of the impacts of such 

action given the Biological Assessments [BAs] and Ecological Risk Assessments 

[ERAs] are conducted as if human beings, ecosystems, and RTE [rare, threatened, and 

endangered] species exist in clean isolate environments free of any exposure to toxicity 

other than the given compound which the specific BA or ERA addresses. This 

environment no longer exists. As the science demonstrates above, degradates persist, 

Organic Wastewater Contaminants are found in waters all over the country, the risks of 

interactions and reasonable assessments regarding levels of these contaminants was not 

conducted nor considered by the agency in this PEIS. The BLM has failed to give a 

reasonable assessment of the risks associated with the Preferred Alternative’s 

“ambitious” tripling of herbicide treatments to include at least 10 new formulations in 

addition to the eight previously approved for current levels of administration. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0106-048 under PEIS Appendix C, 

Ecological Risk Assessment concerning degradates, and responses to Comment EMC0585-199 and Comment RMC-0191-012 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, 

Herbicide Effects Analysis concerning other contaminants. 

Comment: The PEIS/PER fails to include the most up to date and broad research in 

regard to human and animal health. Petrochemicals behaving like estrogens are having 

a serious affect on people and wildlife. This kind of result may not show up in your 

research because it may affect the next generation more than the one exposed. It is not 

addressing the possible long term affects on our children and later generations. 

(References are available by request). 

Response: No reliable data was found on the endocrine disrupting effects of the 10 

BLM herbicides bromacil, chlorsulfuron, dicamba, diflufenzopyr, diuron, fluridone, 

fosamine, imazapic, oust, and tebuthiuron. Typical endocrine disruptors, such as 

nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPE), were not found in these BLM active ingredients or 

inerts. The BLM has prepared a new Appendix D for the Final PEIS to address 

endocrine disrupting chemicals and other inert ingredients that may be associated with 

glyphosate and other herbicides used, or proposed for use, by the BLM. Also see 

response to Comment EMC-0267-005 under PEIS Alternatives, Herbicide Active 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-340 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Ingredients Evaluated under the Proposed Alternatives. 

RMC-0221-006 

Center for Biological 

Diversity 

RMC-0221-011 

Center for Biological 

Diversity 

Comment: In this case, the BLM cannot rely on general assessments of the impacts of 

herbicides provided in the D[raft] PEIS without assessing the risks to all the 

components of the ecosystem in which the site-specific action will take place. Such 

risks include, but not limited to, potential impacts to rare, threatened and endangered 

species, and air and water quality. The BLM cannot authorize any herbicide vegetation 

treatments where the condition of the land and the extent of the resources have not 

been adequately assessed. An understanding of the ecological and hydrological 

functions of a specific area and the plant and animal communities that exist there is 

integral to interpreting how herbicides will affect and be effective on that landscape. 

Site-specific analysis must be conducted using short- and long-term scenarios before 

any herbicide treatments can be approved. 

Response: The PEIS is a programmatic analysis assessing the human health and 

ecological risks of herbicide use as well as impacts on public lands resources, 

including sensitive species. Human health and ecological risk assessments for the 

herbicides proposed under this PEIS are found in Appendixes A and B of the PEIS. 

See Chapter 4 of the PEIS for analysis of potential impacts to threatened and 

endangered species, and air and water quality. In addition, the BLM has developed a 

Biological Assessment that accompanies the PEIS analysis for consultation under the 

Endangered Species Act. Proposals for vegetation treatments derive from the needs 

identified in land use plans and other resource-specific or integrated activity plans, 

which are based on an understanding of the ecological and hydrological functions of 

the area to which they apply. See NEPA Requirements of the Program in Chapter 1 of 

the PEIS for a description of the step-down process for NEPA under which analysis 

occurs at differing scales. Site-specific analysis occurs later in time when individual 

projects are proposed. The BLM can authorize herbicide vegetation treatments in 

compliance with applicable regulations, statutes, and executive orders. In every case, 

site-specific analysis is conducted before any herbicide treatments are approved. 

Comment: The identification and analysis of the environmental impacts of the 

proposed project is a huge undertaking not the least of which is the identification and 

analysis of the impacts of the proposed project on hundreds, if not thousands, of native 

species. Nonetheless, it is an undertaking that is mandated by NEPA and the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA). Because the D[raft] PEIS prepared by BLM is legally 

inadequate, the agency cannot properly rely on this document in approving the 

proposed project. 

Response: The PEIS meets the requirements of both NEPA and the ESA. Under the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the BLM is required to disclose the 

impacts associated with a proposed action and compare those impacts with reasonable 

alternatives to the proposal. Under the ESA, the BLM is required to consult with 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) to ensure that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any ESA-listed species or result in the destruction or modification of 

critical habitat. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2) (2006). The BLM initiated informal 

consultation with USFWS and NMFS in November 2001 (refer to PEIS under 

Consultation in Chapter 1, and in Chapter 5, Consultation and Coordination). The 

BLM also proposed a formal initiation package, and consultations with USFWS and 

NMFS are ongoing and will be completed by the time the Record of Decision is 

signed. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-341 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0221-060 Comment: If the BLM insists on moving forward with this ill-conceived project, it 

Center for Biological must first undertake detailed analysis of each of the herbicides it is proposing to use 

Diversity and their potential impacts on the environment based on reliable, current, high-quality 

data. Given that the impacts to native plants and animals, including rare, threatened, 

and endangered species, have not been widely studied and are largely unknown, this 

task will require the BLM to do more than simply rely on previously prepared NEPA 

documents. Because the proposed action may irreparably harm native species and 

ecosystems, the BLM cannot go blindly forward – NEPA analysis must provide 

sufficient information and detail for a reasoned decision-making process. Without first 

identifying and disclosing to the public the potential adverse impacts of the proposed 

project on public lands and the native ecosystems that those lands support, the BLM 

cannot approve this project. 

Response: The BLM conducted detailed risks assessments for 10 herbicides (included 

on the CD that accompanies the Final PEIS), and used assessments recently prepared 

by the Forest Service (http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/risk.shtml) to 

analyze the risks associated with an additional 9 herbicides. These results generally 

show no risk to low risk at typical application rates. Also see responses to Comment 

RMC-0211-013 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, Herbicide Effects 

Analysis, and Comment EMC-0640-036 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, 

Wildlife Resources. The BLM also evaluated the risks to species of concern in Chapter 

4 of the PEIS, and in a Biological Assessment that was prepared in support of the PEIS 

and is available on the CD that accompanies the Final PEIS. 

Environmental Consequences, Subsequent Analysis before Projects 

EMC-0646-244 Comment: How will future decision makers take into account adaptations of native 

Californians for species to invasive plants, and how are they to deal with these the possible 

Alternatives to Toxics displacement of these other species since guidance is not provided in the programmatic 

DEIS [Draft PEIS]? 

Response: While some examples of a single native species adapting to invasive 

species have been observed, it does not mean that the invaded ecosystem can properly 

function. Any system where a diverse plant community has been replaced by a 

monoculture, regardless of whether a native species is able to exist with the 

monoculture, will not provide the inputs necessary to maintain natural ecological 

processes in the long term. 

If adaptation of native species to invasive species occurs, it will be at a much smaller 

scale than this programmatic EIS. Each case will be considered during the local NEPA 

analysis. 

Environmental Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis 

EMC-0067-002 Comment: Your research is based under tightly controlled laboratory conditions and 

Womens Global Green their use in the real world --in the field conditions --has an entirely different outcome. 

Action Network 

Response: The BLM does not do research on the effects of herbicides on plant and 

animal health, but relies on others including USEPA, herbicide manufacturers and the 

scientific literature. The USEPA uses various conservative safety factors to extrapolate 

from animal studies to humans. As discussed in Appendix C of the PEIS under Nontarget Species Exposure Characterization, use of surrogate species is often necessary to 

address the broad range of species likely to be encountered on public lands. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-342 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0139-014 

Troutman, Doug 

EMC-0142-004 

Mintz, Mary 

EMC-0155-001 

Kozlowski, James C. 

(National Society for 

Park Resources, 

National Recreation 

and Park Association) 

EMC-0176-002 

Richardson, Peter 

Comment: I see no evidence of studies of sufficient length to declare any of these 

compounds can’t have mutagenic effects in the environment. 

Response: Every pesticide is tested for mutagenicity as part of the Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act USEPA pesticide registration requirements. The 

objectives of these studies are to detect the capacity of a chemical to alter genetic 

material in mammalian cells and to evaluate the relevance of these mutagenic changes 

to mammals (i.e., carcinogenicity or other health effects). A review of the available 

mutagenicity information presented in the registration materials indicated that only 

three active ingredients (diquat, hexazinone, and metsulfuron methyl) had reported a 

positive (mutagenic) result for one of the series of required mutagenicity tests. These 

positive tests included gene mutation (mouse lymphoma cells), chromosomal 

aberration (human blood lymphocytes), and bacterial reverse mutation (Ames) assays. 

However, the evidence was not sufficient for the USEPA to classify these, or any other 

active ingredients as carcinogens. 

Comment: Have you read the EPA reports on this chemical and have you read the 

MSD [Material Safety Data] sheets on these products? 

Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0003-005 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Revegetation, and Comment EMC-0026-

003 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, How the Effects of the Alternatives 

Were Estimated. 

Comment: Given the existing registration process of herbicides and pesticides under 

FIFRA [Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act] which relies heavily on 

industry supplied safety data, in my opinion, there are too many uncertain human and 

environmental variables to necessarily assume herbicide and pesticide use policy on 

BLM lands can, or should be effectively settled within the broad parameters of a 

programmatic EIS. To do so, in my opinion, would effectively subvert the legislative 

intent of NEPA. 

Response: While there are variables, herbicides and pesticides have generally 

undergone a rigorous series of toxicity tests, especially compared to many other 

chemicals which are used in consumer products. 

Comment: Each year increasing evidence appears in the scientific literature that the 

public health is at risk as we add more new chemicals to the environment. I would 

argue that a more conservative approach than is offered in the D [Draft] [P]EIS be 

considered. You are putting our children and grandchildren at risk. 

Response: The human health risk assessments done by the BLM (see Appendix B of 

the PEIS) and Forest Service (see 

http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/risk_assessments/091702_24d.pdf) for 

herbicides proposed for use in the PEIS included safety factors. The human health risk 

assessments were based on very conservative exposure assumptions and toxicity 

values for the various herbicides. The risk calculations assumed that members of the 

public would repeatedly be exposed to spray drift, and recently-sprayed vegetation and 

waterbodies, which is unlikely. The specific dermal contact rates and ingestion rates 

used were at the upper end of the range of possibilities. The toxicity values used for the 

herbicides were derived by USEPA, and are based on a thorough review of toxicology 

literature. The toxicity values incorporate several safety factors to account for sensitive 

individuals and long-term exposure. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-343 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0267-005 

Medbery, Angela 

EMC-0308-005 

Damus, Marilyn 

EMC-0314-003 

Alliance for the Wild 

Rockies 

EMC-0316-002 

Hardebeck, Larry J. 

Comment: Implementation of any new chemical testing data that might relate to 

endocrine disruptor chemical effects or immune system effects should be reviewed. 

This new data should be used in a precautionary atmosphere for more conservative use 

of any permitted chemicals. 

Response: Endocrine disrupting effects were evaluated in Appendix D of the Final 

PEIS. Also see response to Comment EMC-0646-021 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis. 

Comment: Most of the chemicals you are planning to use do not have very thorough 

safety testing. I don’t know of any that have long records of completely safe use, and 

some are already known to cause reproductive and developmental harm. In fact, I think 

I even read that you are reserving the right to add more herbicides on later, without 

going through the [P]EIS process again. Any or all of these herbicides could be the 

next DDT that causes untold harm and diminishes our quality of life. Even if none 

prove to be as damaging as DDT, there is so much potential for harm (for example, 

look at Daconil 2787 (chlorothalonil), a lawn-care chemical that was once thought to 

be safe but has killed people who walked on the ground where it had been applied). By 

our thoughtless loss of priorities in this country, we are threatening our food, our 

water, our air, and in doing so, children’s future as well as our own. 

Response: As the federal authority to determine safety, it is the USEPA’s duty to 

evaluate and register pesticides for use. The BLM uses information from the USEPA 

and other scientific sources and constructs exposure scenarios within the label 

requirements, but typical of BLM needs. The BLM uses these exposure scenarios to 

evaluate risk in order to assess effects under NEPA. Also see response to Comment 

EMC-0505-010 under Alternatives, Herbicide Active Ingredients Evaluated under the 

Proposed Alternatives. 

Comment: First, the registration/risk assessment data ignores the vast majority of 

health endpoints (data gaps). Next, these classic toxicology methods fail to test what 

they claim they are testing: dose levels, cumulative and concurrent exposure to mixed 

chemicals and vulnerable stages of development (in that respect, classic toxicology and 

chemical RA [risk assessment] are literally(!) scientific frauds). Almost all the data 

gaps and the faulty test methods concern the long-term (chronic) effects of exposure to 

these chemicals. Finally, all such safety tests are performed by parties with massive 

(typically tens of millions to many billions of dollars of revenue depend on their 

chemical being declared safe enough to use (financial conflict of interests, CoI). Since 

in sum this is not knowledge, these registration tests are seldom published in peerreviewed journals; and to my knowledge none has ever been published in an 

independent one (i.e. a journal with adequate strictures against, and disclosure of, 

financial CoI). 

Response: See responses to Comment EMC-0308-005 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis, and Comment RMC0069-008 under PEIS 

Alternatives, Herbicide Active Ingredients Evaluated under the Proposed Alternatives. 

Comment: The safety studies on the chemicals you are proposing are not thorough 

enough to demonstrate their safety for all members of our society, and they certainly 

do not address the long-term repercussions that may occur down the road (say 20 

years), for example, cancer of various types, autoimmune disease, etc. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-344 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0340-004 

Craig, Diane 

EMC-0350-002 

Morris, Nancy 

EMC-0430-002 

Crowlie, Colleen 

EMC-0457-003 

Ryan, Eleanor (North 

American Butterfly 

Association) 

Response: See responses to Comment EMC-0244-002 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Human Health and Safety, and Comment RMC 0069-008 under PEIS 

Alternatives, Herbicide Active Ingredients Evaluated under the Proposed Alternatives. 

Comment: What I also question is where does the research on these chemicals come 

from? – how long were the studies done and on what subjects, and for what results 

were they looking for. I would hope that the vast majority of the population 

understands is that it is the chemical companies themselves that provide the 

information on these chemicals to government agencies such as the [US]EPA and it is 

their studies that are used – not biased at all is it! 

Response: Congress and the USEPA have determined the procedures for safety testing 

of pesticides. The manufacturer seeking registration must supply USEPA scientists 

with a wide range of toxicological data for review, and the USEPA then determines if 

the data meet its standards for registration. The USEPA extrapolates information from 

these studies to develop toxicity values for humans by applying various safety factors. 

Comment: The pesticide industry is one that polices itself and the test results 

regarding safety for the pesticides manufactured and used is highly questionable and 

does not truly reflect the dangers of these chemicals. One only has to look historically 

how many pesticides including some herbicides have been used on our agricultural 

fields and ranges lands and how many of these have been pulled from the market after 

many people were harmed and the environment seriously damaged. Pesticide drift 

presents a significant health issue because people and wildlife are being treated as 

guinea pigs every time they are exposed to these chemicals. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0340-004 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis. Drift was specifically evaluated in the 

BLM risk assessments; see response to Comment RMC-0210-042 under Alternatives, 

Description of the Alternatives – Alternative D. 

Comment: But still I am not happy with the thought of herbicides being used on 

public lands so I want to put my 2 cents in. In the Ecological Risk Assessment when 

explaining the very complex problem of measuring toxicity I see that you have had to 

rely on surrogate species because that is the group of animals that have been tested and 

you need factual information to fit into your formula. All I can think of is those desert 

toads that come out when it rains, and they seem to be disappearing in recent years. I 

doubt there is a laboratory animal that is similar enough to those toads that I would 

believe the surrogate species data. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0585-199 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis. 

Comment: The terrestrial insect tested in your document is the honeybee, a very 

sturdy creature. Given their listed status and the very sensitive nature of butterfly 

species, herbicides need to be tested on both adult and larva stages. Caterpillars will be 

directly eating the treated foliage, not at one remove like bees, who take only nectar. 

Cabbage butterflies are not native but abundant and easily raised. They could be a 

good test subject. 

Response: Honeybees are actually fairly sensitive insects because of their feeding 

strategy, hairy structure, and soft abdominal cuticle. While bees take nectar, they are 

exposed to sprayed horizontal flower parts. The BLM also used honeybees because of 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-345 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0575-007 

Davlantes, Nancy 

EMC-0585-059 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-102 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

the availability of toxicology information, which is mostly lacking for butterflies. 

Comment: May I suggest that these chemical companies such as Monsanto, 

experiment on contained areas that will not pollute surrounding land and lifeforms. 

They are certainly rich enough to afford doing a serious, scientific study on the affects 

of their chemical soups. And not endanger countless life forms including humans in 

the process. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0076-005 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Herbicide Active Ingredients Evaluated under the Proposed Alternatives. 

Comment: Develop a state-of-the-art human health and ecological risk assessment 

methodology. In order to adequately assess ecological risk, BLM must provide 

essential information on the conditions of the lands where treatments could occur, and 

the full range of species, including habitat specialists, that inhabit them. It must also 

assess the whole range of risks − from use of multiple chemicals on the same land to 

the impacts of breakdown products/degradates. 

Response: Ecological risk is assessed through a formal quantitative process that is 

described in Appendix C of the PEIS and should not be confused with environmental 

impact analysis. Information on conditions of lands and affected species, including 

habitat specialists, is considered and addressed in the site-specific NEPA analysis for 

any herbicide treatment project. Information derived from inventory and monitoring of 

the area proposed for treatment is factored into the need for a proposed herbicide 

project, including the need to treat with multiple chemicals over time. Breakdown and 

degradates of herbicide are addressed in the Ecological Risk Assessment discussion in 

the Final PEIS. 

Comment: BLM claims that TES [threatened, endangered, and sensitive] species may 

be at “slightly greater risk” from herbicides than non-TES species. This is not valid --­

they may be at much greater risk. Habitats for many TES species are already greatly 

fragmented (cause of perilous low levels of populations) or limited. See, for example, 

Dobkin and Sauder 2004 assessment of current status of bird and mammal species in 

the arid Intermountain west. Any increased disturbance or alteration of non-target 

vegetation or other mishap such as drift that hams remaining intact habitats may have 

far greater impacts on population and species viability. Such analysis, and the woefully 

limited, substanceless and deficient Biological Assessment do not employ Best 

Available Science. 

Response: The paragraph summarizing the effects on aquatic organisms and terrestrial 

wildlife in the Executive Summary has been modified for clarity in the Final PEIS. 

According to risk assessments, the risk level representing the risk of adverse health 

effects to individuals exposed to herbicides can range from the same to substantially 

greater for TES species, as compared to non-TES species. However, any associated 

effects at the level of the population or the species would likely be much greater for 

TES species. The Biological Assessment (BA) and Chapter 4 of the PEIS discuss the 

potential for these effects, and consider the low population numbers and fragmented 

habitats of these species. Conservation measures presented in the BA reflect the need 

for additional protection of TES species and their habitats. In addition, treatment 

programs developed at the local level will take into account TES species, with a much 

greater level of detail about where treatments will occur in relation to TES species 

populations and habitats, and additional conservation measures to protect them, as 

appropriate. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-346 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0585-178 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-185 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-188 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

Comment: [On PEIS Appendix B page] b-33 “herbicide use parameters are claimed 

to be dependent on condition of non-target veg., the soil type, depth to water table and 

presence of other water sources” The RA then refers the reader to Tables B-4 to b-9 [in 

Appendix B of the PEIS] that “summarize the veg treatment program for each of the 

herbicides. Nowhere is any info provided on the critical factors of the condition of 

non-target vegetation, soil type, depth to water table and presence of other water 

sources provided. We are aware of no methodology used by BLM to determine depth 

to water table, presence of other water sources, etc. as part of treatments. Please 

provide the methodology and protocols claimed to be used. 

Response: Each ecological risk assessment (see individual ecological risk assessments 

on the CD provided with the Final PEIS) and Appendix C (in Uncertainty Section 

under Concentration Models) of the PEIS included a discussion of the GLEAMS 

model that was used to predict the loading of herbicide to nearby surface water bodies 

and to groundwater. 

Comment: Drift models used by BLM focus on ag fields. Drift and Gleams and are 

not valid for use in topographically rugged wild land settings subject to rapid 

temperature and wind shifts, or sparse vegetation and aridity of BLM lands. The forest 

applications of these models are based on the presence of much greater shielding 

foliage than typically occurs on BLM lands. Thus, these analyses do not adequately 

assess risks associated with spray drift, or transport into water or neighboring soils in 

runoff or by winds. Water bodies may be subject to chemical contamination with 

herbicides and their degradates through application drift, soil and water runoff, and 

wind deposition of contaminated soils. 

Response: The BLM acknowledges that water bodies located in and near application 

areas may be subject to impacts due to drift, soil and water runoff, and wind-driven 

transport of soil. In fact, its approach to exposure modeling includes separate analyses 

of each of these phenomena, as well as analysis of direct application to the water body. 

The selected models are generally applicable to rugged, arid, windy, and sparsely 

vegetated lands. Each of these aspects can be considered by the models, when they are 

relevant to prediction of the exposure concentration. In fact, the modeling approaches 

employed are consistent with standard practices, and their application was approved of 

by the relevant resource agencies. 

Comment: All the modeling and assessments also fail to include the often limited 

growing season in arid lands, and the fact that “treatment” activities may be 

compressed into a short time frame – thus members of the public are more likely to be 

exposed to multiple chemical or other treatment products (such as smoke, blowing 

disturbed soils, etc.) at one time. Many BLM lands border Forest lands upslope, and 

the likelihood of multiple exposures from multiple chemicals and multiple agency 

treatments is real. 

Response: The BLM coordinates with the Forest Service and other agencies, 

organizations, and private entities with an interest in herbicide spraying to ensure that 

spray treatments are coordinated to reduce risks to humans and the environment. 

Treatment activities may be compressed into a short time frame, but herbicide 

treatments comprise only about 16% of all vegetation treatments, and treatments are 

spread nearly 261 million acres. In addition, many treatments are in remote areas, and 

treatment areas are posted to discourage the public from entering them. The human 

health and ecological risk assessments prepared by the BLM and Forest Service 

considered soil and vegetation type and rainfall patterns when modeling risks from the 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-347 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0585-190 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-192 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-197 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

use of herbicides. 

Comment: There really is no “updated” information at all on any but 6 chemicals, and 

even this “new” information is woefully deficient. BLM has improperly limited 

information on Hazard Identification, including toxicity (acute, chronic, subchronic, 

chronic/carcinogenicity, developmental, reproductive, neurotoxicity, mutagenicity, and 

metabolism of chemicals) it plans to use in greatly expanded amounts. BLM has 

improperly limited information on Dose-Response Assessments, including dietary, 

non-dietary, acuter dietary, chronic dietary, oral, dermal, inhalation. 

Response: The comment does not specify what scientific information the BLM 

omitted. The commentor’s list shows the BLM’s evaluation to be comprehensive. Drift 

was an explicit part of the exposure analysis and risk assessment. All available USEPA 

toxicity information was utilized in the human health risk assessment. The BLM also 

used Forest Service risk assessments for nine herbicides; these assessments have been 

conducted since 1998. 

Comment: The secrecy surrounding inert ingredients provides no assurance or 

legitimate way to assess impacts to the environment or receptors. Although List 3 

contains chemicals of unknown toxicity, BLM strangely jumps to the conclusion that 

this translates into “minimal risk” (see [page] B-27-28 [of Appendix B of the Draft 

PEIS). Just because something may be “unknown”. It cannot be assumed to present 

“minimal risk”! 

Response: Of the 32 inert ingredients found in herbicides evaluated by the BLM, none 

were found in categories of toxicological concern (List 1), none were found in the 

category of unknown toxicity/high priority (List 2), 5 were found in the category of 

unknown toxicity (List 3) and 27 were found in the category of minimal concern (List 

4), as discussed under Inert Ingredients, in the Dose-response Assessment section of 

Appendix B (Human Health Risk Assessment) of the PEIS. Hence, 84% of the inert 

ingredients are in the category of minimal risk, and none are in the toxicological 

concern or high priority categories. 

Comment: BLM continues to use the inappropriate ag and forest drift models (see C-3 

[of Appendix C of the Draft PEIS]) to assess wild land arid risk of exposure. BLM 

inappropriately relies on “surrogate” lab animal studies to understand effects to 

animals in wild land and water settings. (see [page] C-4 [of Appendix C of the Draft 

PEIS], discussion of TRVs [toxicity reference values]). 

Response: The Agdrift model (drift) is predominantly dependent on the physical 

properties of the herbicide being applied, the method of application, and the wind 

speed. The model does not incorporate other weather-related inputs, such as humidity, 

and is therefore applicable to a wide range of conditions. The BLM modeled arid 

environments via GLEAMS (surface runoff) under a wide range of relevant 

environmental conditions. The wind erosion model was designed to represent a 

“reasonable, but conservative” impact under the range of meteorological conditions 

tested. Conditions in Wyoming, Montana, and Oregon were modeled using a highly 

conservative incorporation/mixing depth of 1 millimeter (thinner affected soil depths 

result in elevated herbicide emissions during fugitive dust events). A range of 

important input parameters was evaluated, and the impacts to model predictions were 

documented, in order to facilitate prioritization of site-specific analysis by land 

managers, when appropriate. The use of laboratory results to assess toxicity is a 

standard approach for assessing impacts to wild populations in ecological risk 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-348 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0585-199 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-200 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-202 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-203 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

assessment. Toxicity data on wild populations is generally lacking, and confounding 

factors (e.g., diet, body weight, other stressors) present in natural habitats make 

interpretation of results difficult. 

Comment: BLM claims to apply information based on species guilds. Yet, there is no 

guild for insectivorous birds, granivorous birds, frugivorous birds, predatory birds, etc. 

– just “small, large and piscivorous birds”. A great many guilds are not represented in 

the analysis. Likewise, BLM uses small and large mammals. BLM fails to differentiate 

between insectivorous small mammals, granivorous small mammals, predatory small 

mammals, etc. 

Response: It is impractical to assess all possible guilds, although the BLM captured 

most of them using omnivorous birds and mammals. The honeybee (Apis mellifera) 

was selected as the surrogate species to represent pollinating insects. The deer mouse 

(Peromyscus maniculatus) was selected as the surrogate species to represent small 

mammalian frugivores (i.e., fruit eaters) although it is an omnivore. The mule deer 

(Odocoiieus hemionus) was selected as the surrogate species to represent large 

mammalian herbivores. The coyote (Canis latrans) was selected as the surrogate 

species to represent a large mammalian carnivore and omnivore. The American robin 

(Turdus migratorius) was selected as the surrogate species to represent small avian 

invertivore and frugivore. The Canada goose (Branta canadensis) was selected as the 

surrogate species to represent large avian herbivores. The Northern subspecies of the 

bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus alascanus) was selected as the surrogate species 

to represent large avian piscivores (fish eaters). 

Comment: [On page] C-6 [of Appendix C of the Draft PEIS]. Acute LOC [Level of 

Concern] was lowered. There was no systematic methodology to examine population 

viability on top of individual viability. 

Response: The acute Level of Concern was lowered for rare, threatened, and 

endangered species to protect for not only population, but individual viability. See 

Table C-1 (Levels of Concern) in Appendix C of the PEIS for Levels of Concern to 

plants and animals and species of concern. 

Comment: [Page] C-7 [of Appendix C of the Draft PEIS] states that a thorough 

description of uncertainties is a key component, and serves to identify weaknesses in 

this process. Why, then, does BLM throughout the DEIS [Draft PEIS] and PER ignore 

uncertainties and predict rosy outcomes? 

Response: A key part of risk assessment is to disclose uncertainties. Uncertainties can 

work both ways: they may be over conservative or under conservative. In a 

quantitative risk assessment, efforts are made to identify the most likely point estimate 

of risk with narrative statements describing where the uncertainties lie. Not all the risk 

assessment outcomes are “rosy.” Several herbicide-exposure-receptor scenarios do 

show risk, and the BLM will mitigate, restrict or delete the herbicide or the application 

rate under these scenarios. 

Comment: [Draft PEIS Appendix C, Page] C-7 reveals that the models used by BLM, 

did not estimate additional risks from adjuvants, inert ingredients, or chemical 

breakdown products/degradates. BLM claims “evaluating the potential 

additional/cumulative risks from mixtures of pesticides is substantially more difficult, 

particularly at the level of a PEIS”. Well, BLM is claiming elsewhere that the PEIS 

will adequately assess risks and impacts, and yet fails to do so here! BLM then uses a 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-349 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0585-204 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-205 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-206 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-207 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

qualitative assessment, based on labels, most of which say mixing is ok. 

Response: Uncertainty analysis is part of a risk assessment. The PEIS and human 

health and ecological risk assessments focus on the risks from the active ingredients. It 

would be difficult and extremely expensive to analyze all the breakdown products and 

degradates found in the herbicide formulations used by the BLM. Furthermore, there is 

little or no information on the risks associated with these products in the scientific and 

agency literature and in production registration documents. The human health risk 

assessments and ecological risk assessments make predictions of risk regardless of 

favorable or unfavorable outcome. Uncertainty analysis improves our perspective of 

the risk estimates, their conservatisms, and unknowns. Concerning inerts and 

degradates, see response to Comment RMC-0106-048 under PEIS Appendix C, 

Ecological Risk Assessment. 

Comment: BLM models use buffers of 100, 300 and 900 feet. In wild land areas with 

downdrafts, rugged canyons, canyon breezes, thermals, etc. much greater buffers may 

be required. Plus, as aerial application is allowed under varying wind speeds in 

different states, such uncertainties must also be assessed. 

Response: The buffers presented in the PEIS represent minimum distances based on 

drift modeling results. It is recognized that these buffers may need to be adjusted for 

site-specific conditions. 

Comment: The list of surrogate species is extremely limited ([page] C-11 [of 

Appendix C of the Draft PEIS]). Honeybee, rat, mouse, dog, rabbit, guinea pig, 

mallard, bobwhite quail, ring-necked pheasant, Japanese quail, chicken. Many of these 

species are very similar – example: avian granivores, so this list does not represent the 

“guild” approach claimed by BLM, and is full of deficiencies as described above. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0585-199 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis. 

Comment: Table C-4 [of Appendix C of the Draft PEIS] then presents “vertebrate 

surrogate species evaluated by life history”. This list is extremely limited, and does not 

cover necessary important species types, even under the guild approach. The robin, 

goose, deer mouse, mule deer, bald eagle, coyote that it includes are generalist, or 

common species and coyotes are predators but also omnivorous to some degree. 

NONE of these species is rare or declining. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0585-199 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis. The species selected for quantitative 

evaluation in the ecological risk assessments are species for which life history and 

toxicological response data are available. It is not practical, and can be illegal, for 

researchers to test chemicals using rare or declining species. 

Comment: There are no burrowing mammals (such as the pygmy rabbit or northern 

Idaho ground squirrel or kit fox)? How might herbicides and vapors of breaks down 

products affect burrowing mammals? How are vapors suspended in the air column? 

Not only may an animal consume herbicided vegetation for prolonged periods, it may 

also be subject to inhalation of chemicals, plus suddenly encounter an environment 

where essential cover from predators is being defoliated or killed. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-350 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0585-208 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-209 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-217 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

Response: Although none of the surrogate species used in the ecological risk 

assessments are strict burrowing animals, the deer mouse to some degree would be 

exposed to conditions cited above. A burrow would tend to offer protection from foliar 

herbicide spray, compared to a non-burrowing animal shelter that is directly sprayed, 

and thus risks to a burrowing animal from herbicides should generally be less than 

those for a non-burrowing animal. 

Comment: If species existing in environments that contain no surface water sources, 

and consume sprayed vegetation or dew on sprayed vegetation, how will this affect 

their water balance, or organ function? Exposure pathway scenarios do not adequately 

reflect real-life scenarios for wild animals on public lands. 

Response: Species, such as kangaroo rats, that do not consume water obtain water 

from their diet. Exposure to herbicides from consumption of foods exposed to 

herbicides was evaluated in the ecological risk assessments. Life history questions 

such as these are uncertainties and the reason safety factors are used in deriving 

toxicity reference values for interspecies extrapolation. 

Comment: The [Draft] [P]EIS drastically underplays the impacts and likelihood of 

direct spray exposure (see C-15 [of Appendix C of the Draft PEIS]). Animals that 

inhabit an area to be sprayed will be in contact with these chemicals. BLM also claims 

that “impacts outside of the intended application area are accidental exposures that are 

not typical. Yet, BLM provides no information or data showing that it has ever 

systematically monitored its own applications of chemicals applied in wild land 

settings under the many ways covered under this [P]EIS. This monitoring is required if 

BLM is to be able to make such statements. Where is the data that shows this is not 

typical, or that BLM 99% - or whatever – of the time –does not misapply chemicals? 

We are being asked to believe in a fantasy world that BLM has constructed here. 

Response: The BLM modeled a direct spray scenario for ecological receptors. Risks 

were low to none at typical application rates. The BLM also modeled herbicide drift 

scenarios, which demonstrate the potential for herbicides to drift off-target, with 

similar results. The BLM is not a research organization, but relies on the USEPA and 

other organizations for research. See response to Comment EMC-0267-002 under 

PEIS Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Federal Laws, Regulations, and Policies 

that Influence Vegetation Treatments regarding training of herbicide applicators and 

ensuring that herbicide applications are done properly. 

Comment: [Page ] C-15 [of Appendix C of the Draft PEIS] states that “there is little 

information on magnitude of transfer of herbicide from plant to animal. Well, if an 

animal walks through sprayed vegetation, it will contaminate itself with herbicide, 

inhale fumes, etc. 

Response: Wildlife may come into contact with herbicides by walking through areas 

that have previously been sprayed. However, there is little information available on 

how much herbicide is transferred to the animal through this exposure route. The BLM 

ecological risk assessments used an assumption of 1/10th

 the exposure due to a direct 

spray of the animal. This assumption was based on work by Harris and Soloman 

(1992; see citation in Appendix C [of the Draft PEIS]) which evaluated the 

dislodgeable residues of 2,4-D present on turf 1 to 24 hours after application. Other 

research (Nishioka, M.G., H.M. Burkholder, M.C. Brinkman, S.M. Gordon, and R.G. 

Lewis. 1996. Measuring transport of lawn-applied herbicide acids from turf to home: 

correlation of dislodgeable 2,4-D turf residues with carpet dust and carpet surface 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-351 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0585-218 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-219 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-223 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-224 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

residues. Environmental Science and Technology 30:3313-3320) has indicated that the 

dislodgeable residues of 2,4-D and dicamba may be as low as 0.1% to 0.3% of the 

application levels on turf. 

Comment: [Page] C-16 [of Appendix C of the Draft PEIS]. Again, drift models here 

(as previously discussed) do not represent real world arid land scenarios. 

Response: The results generated by the Agdrift model are predominantly dependent 

on the physical properties of the herbicide being applied, the method of application, 

and the wind speed. The model does not incorporate other weather-related inputs, such 

as humidity, and is therefore applicable to a wide range of conditions. The wind 

erosion model was designed to represent a “reasonable, but conservative” impact 

under the range of the meteorological conditions tested. Conditions in Wyoming, 

Montana, and Oregon were modeled using a highly conservative incorporation/mixing 

depth of 1 millimeter (thinner affected soil depths result in elevated herbicide 

emissions during fugitive dust events). 

Comment: Water is much more scarce and concentrated − often limited small springs 

and seeps, puddles, or small streams, and many of these may be receiving significant 

in-flow from large surrounding areas during runoff events. Such scenarios (very small 

water bodies, often receiving concentrated inflow/runoff from large areas) are not 

represented in the models used by BLM. Plus, BLM has ignores the fact that many of 

its treatments are likely to occur in lands where livestock use is most concentrated −

which are often sites nearest water or flatter areas bordering draws. So herbicide 

application directly to degraded zones of livestock concentration is much more likely 

to result in herbicide and breakdown product contamination of, and concentration in, 

ground and surface waters. 

Response: The parameters described in the comment reflect the base watershed that 

was evaluated in the GLEAMS model used in the risk assessments. These parameters 

were selected for the modeling of inerts in order to provide consistency between the 

models for inerts and active ingredients. This assessment was done to compare 

predicted exposure concentrations between an inert additive and the active ingredient. 

The conditions selected for modeling by GLEAMS are reasonable worst-case 

conditions, as they are the ones predicted to lead to high runoff and loading to nearby 

surface waters. 

Comment: [Appendix C, page] C-19 [of the Draft PEIS]. BLM’s model does not take 

into account a combination of high risk events. 

Response: The BLM modeled an accidental spill scenario in the human health risk 

assessments and ecological risk assessments, which is a worst-case scenario and would 

simulate a high-risk event. 

Comment: Calculations of ambient water concentrations may not reflect wild land 

scarce-water settings. The [P]EIS provides no information on the size of the ponds or 

steams and topographical and vegetation components used in modeling. 

Response: The sizes of the ponds and stream are presented in the Appendix C of the 

PEIS under Non-target Species Exposure Characterization. The ecological risk 

assessments (ERAs) considered two types of generic aquatic habitat: 1) a small pond 

(1⁄4-acre pond of 1 meter [m] depth, resulting in a volume of 1,011,715 liters); and 2) a 

small stream representative of Pacific Northwest low-order streams that provide 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-352 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0585-225 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-226 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-227 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

habitat for critical life-stages of anadromous salmonids. The stream size was 

established at 2 m wide and 0.2 m deep with a mean water velocity of approximately 

0.3 meters per second, resulting in a base flow discharge of 0.12 cubic meters per 

second (cms). Details on the vegetative components used in the modeling are found in 

the two modeling appendixes of the ERAs (for GLEAMS and AgDrift) and in the Air 

Quality Modeling for BLM Vegetation Treatment Methods document (for 

CALPUFF). The BLM believes that these assumptions are reasonable, but 

conservative, worst-case ones representative of arid western lands. In addition, the 

importance of these input parameters to predicted risk has been explored in order to 

help the land manager identify situations that may result in higher impacts and that 

should be subject to additional, site-specific analysis. 

Comment: [Page] C-20 [of Appendix C the Draft PEIS]. Wind erosion. BLM states 

“dry conditions and wind may also allow transport of herbicide in fugitive dust’. This 

does not consider degraded site conditions and the level of site disturbance, as would 

be typical of many sites where herbicides may be applied. This is especially critical in 

understanding the fate of chemicals in post-burn ESR environments where large black 

burn surfaces essentially generate their own weather and winds. Plus, the modeling 

examines only small acreages (1,000) see [page] C-21 [of Appendix C of the Draft 

PEIS], yet BLM in post-burn environment may apply chemicals such as Oust over tens 

of thousands of acres. Erosion models also do not appear to take into account OHV 

[off-highway vehicle] use, cattle or sheep trampling of soils. 

Response: The BLM has attempted to evaluate migration of herbicides from 

application sites in three different ways (drift, runoff, and blown dust). Each of these 

approaches has been done in a conservative albeit general fashion. Every attempt was 

made to select worst-case model inputs. Notably, for the dust model, it was assumed 

that all of the applied herbicide was associated with a very thin (1-mm) soil layer. This 

assumption maximized the potential prediction of rapid and complete herbicide 

transport. Similarly, the soils were assumed to be both disturbed (i.e., no vegetation 

cover) and very fine in texture in order to maximize predicted migration. Finally, a 

range of important input parameters was evaluated, and the impacts to model 

predictions were documented in order to facilitate prioritization of site-specific 

analysis by land managers when appropriate. 

Comment: [The] BLM describes “overdrive” being a combination of chemicals, and 

no toxicity data available, so BLM extrapolates to another mixture. [Pages] C-28 and 

C-29 [of Appendix C of the Draft PEIS] show adverse impacts of tebuthiuron and 

other chemicals BLM proposes to use. 

Response: Overdrive® is assessed via its constituent active ingredients, dicamba and 

diflufenzopyr, and toxicity data are provided in the human health risk assessment 

(HHRA) and ecological risk assessment (ERA). When Overdrive toxicity data were 

available, these toxicity values were used in the ERA. The ERA and HHRA do predict 

risks for certain active ingredient exposure/receptor scenarios, but they are generally 

low for typical applications. 

Comment: BLM’s Table C-15 [in Appendix C of the Draft PEIS] “Risk levels used to 

describe typical herbicide effects according to exposure scenario and ecological 

receptor groups” only provides information for 11 chemicals. The inadequacy of the 

drift models used by BLM is shown by the large numbers of zeroes in off-site drift, 

surface runoff, wind erosion. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-353 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0585-228 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-229 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0590-029 

Western Slope 

Environmental 

Resource Council 

Response: Appendix C of the PEIS only presents the tables generated during BLM’s 

ecological risk assessment. Table C-15 presents the risk levels for the herbicides for 

which BLM conducted risk assessments. The herbicides covered in the Forest Service 

ecological risk assessments are not included in this table. Risk levels generated by the 

Forest Service ecological risk assessments are presented in Chapter 4 of the PEIS (see 

Table 4-13). The nature of the model selected to predict drift impacts as well as its 

mode of application are entirely consistent with current practice in the field (e.g., 

USEPA analysis during herbicide registration). This analysis of drift impacts is 

consistent with the review and approval of the proposed modeling approach by the 

USEPA and other agencies. The “large number of zeros” arise from anticipated site 

conditions as well as the level of toxicity documented for the herbicides. It should be 

noted that not all scenarios were found to be risk free. The BLM believes that these 

findings are consistent with the best available science. 

Comment: Wind erosion effects are not shown for aquatic species. This does not even 

evaluate any assessment of impacts to water bodies. As scarce isolated desert springs, 

seeps potholes, puddles tinajas, etc. may serve as critical water sources for terrestrial 

fauna, this is critical. Plus, many rare desert aquatic species exist in environments of 

limited water that may be subject to input of runoff or windblown soils from large land 

areas, and subsequent evaporation events that concentrate chemicals. 

Response: The more conservative direct spray and off-site drift scenarios were 

assumed to address any potential impacts to aquatic resources from wind erosion. 

These evaluations included impacts to rare species within a small waterbody. In 

addition, the ecological risk assessment protocols were designed to evaluate and 

document the importance of several aspects of both the environment and mode of 

application to help land managers identify those situations such as desert springs in 

which elevated risks might be expected. This was done to help identify mitigation 

measures (e.g., set-backs or avoidance altogether) as well as the potential need for sitespecific risk analysis. 

Comment: The surface runoff calculations are not representative of the real world of 

often degraded and desertified arid lands where BLM’s treatments and herbiciding will 

occur. 

Response: The surface runoff calculations represent a wide range of conditions. The 

GLEAMS modeling (discussed in Appendix C of the PEIS under Concentration 

Models) presents reasonable worst-case situations that would most favor migration 

leaching into surface water, which may not occur under the arid conditions typical of 

BLM lands. 

Comment: We are also concerned that the synergistic effects of combining herbicides 

is very poorly understood and not well-addressed in the analyses presented in the DEIS 

[Draft PEIS] and PER. The EPA does not require pesticides to be studied for 

synergistic effects for registration of these chemicals, however they are known to 

occur. Often these effects are exploited in the development of herbicide products for 

field application (see study on the synergistic effects of diflufenzopyr with dicamba. 

With the multitude of chemicals being used in environmental settings, the potential for 

unknown toxic effects on organisms resulting from synergistic mixtures of chemicals 

is very real. Herbicides interact cumulatively and synergistically in aquatic and 

terrestrial environments, and such effects are likely responsible for the decline is 

species abundance, as evidenced by studies on the decline of frogs and toads over the 

past twenty years. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-354 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0606-009 

Johnson, Kathy 

EMC-0619-002 

Bellovary, Christopher 

EMC-0619-003 

Bellovary, Christopher 

EMC-0623-017 

Defenders of Wildlife 

Response: The BLM analyzed dicamba together with diflufenzopyr. Also see 

responses to Comment RMC-0221-070 under PEIS Alternatives, Herbicide Active 

Ingredients Evaluated under the Proposed Alternatives, and Comment RMC-0159-008 

under PEIS Alternatives, Herbicide Active Ingredients Evaluated under the Proposed 

Alternatives. 

Comment: The food chain starts at the herbal level , (vegetation). What studies have 

been done to show that the critters’, (especially endangered/protected) DNA are not 

being altered in the least! ?? 

Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0055-006 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Social and Economic Values, and EMC-0007-001 under PEIS 

Environmental Consequences, Human Health and Safety. 

Comment: While I am glad to see the BLM taking the expansion of invasive species 

on public lands as a quite serious concern, the use of any untested herbicides appears 

to be an ultra vires action, that is outside of the BLM’s discretional authority. Article 

III courts give administrative agencies great deference when it comes to scientific 

matters within their range of expertise, but there is no scientific data to rely upon with 

untested herbicides. The result is that courts would give no deference to the agency 

decision, as this would be by definition an arbitrary and capricious action. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0308-005 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis. The BLM does not use untested herbicides. 

Comment: I fully agree that of the herbicides that look promising based on successful 

laboratory results should be tested under field conditions before final approval is given. 

That said, when you lack the results of laboratory testing to rely on, you do not have 

sufficient data on which to make an educated prediction of the results. To proceed with 

the aerial application of these herbicides anyway is irrational, would needlessly risk the 

biological diversity within these areas that are necessary for their productivity, and 

would be at least as likely to increase the spread of invasive species as it would be to 

contain them. Such an unscientific approach to the management of our public lands 

would be a clear breach of the BLM’s legal duty to protect the public lands for current 

and future generations. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0218-043 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management. The USEPA requires field testing of 

herbicides as part of the registration process to ensure that the chemicals are effective 

and safe to the environment. 

Comment: Evaluate the toxicity of each actual herbicide being used, not just the 

active ingredients. Recent research has found that the herbicide Roundup is extremely 

deadly to tadpoles, with the culprit being not the glyphosate, but the surfactant added 

to it. BLM must follow best management practices with respect to each formulation, 

not just each active ingredient. Furthermore, BLM must evaluate any combinations of 

chemicals for potential for synergistic impacts. 

Response: BLM evaluated representative mixtures of herbicides (tank mixes) and also 

evaluated inert compounds in the BLM risk assessments. The BLM conducted 

additional analysis of degradates and the potential for proposed herbicides to act as 

endocrine disruptors for the Final EIS (see Appendix D). Inert ingredients found in 

BLM herbicides have little or no toxicity (see Degradates, Inert Ingredients, 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-355 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0623-019 

Defenders of Wildlife 

EMC-0640-007 

Animal Welfare 

Institute 

EMC-0640-008 

Animal Welfare 

Institute 

EMC-0640-037 

Animal Welfare 

Institute 

Adjuvants, and Tank Mixtures in Appendix C of the PEIS; also see response to 

Comment RMC-0173-008 under PEIS Alternatives, Herbicide Active Ingredients 

Evaluated under the Proposed Alternatives). As noted in Appendix C, BLM land 

managers have control over the selection of adjuvants, active ingredients, and tank 

mixtures, and can select herbicide formulations to reduce risk to humans and the 

environment. See response to Comment RMC-0221-070 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Herbicide Active Ingredients Evaluated under the Proposed Alternatives for 

synergistic impacts. 

Comment: Defenders of Wildlife maintains that the Environmental Protection Agency 

registration guidelines, which the BLM has signaled its intention to follow in adopting 

future chemical formulations, are not sufficiently protective of wildlife. We urge that 

the BLM follow regulations under the Endangered Species Act when evaluating new 

active ingredients, and implement best management practices as directed by these 

regulations. 

Response: The BLM must generally follow the guidance of the USEPA in the use of 

registered herbicides, as USEPA is the authorized agency. The Endangered Species 

Act does not specify risk assessment procedures. BLM endeavored to evaluate risk to 

rare, threatened and endangered species by using additional conservatisms (e.g. more 

conservative levels of concern) above and beyond USEPA’s guidance. 

Comment: The fact that the BLM lumped amphibians in with fish in assessing the 

potential impact of herbicide use is problematic, especially given the fact that 

amphibians are known to be particularly sensitive to toxins. 

Response: Fish and amphibians are both sensitive and share an aquatic environment, 

although there are obvious differences (e.g., adult amphibians leave the water). Both 

species are exposed via dermal and respiratory mechanisms and have a more 

permeable dermis. Both reproduce in the aquatic environment and amphibians spend 

all of their life cycle in or near water. Unfortunately, there is limited controlled 

toxicological data for the effects of herbicides on amphibians. Also see response to 

Comment EMC-0643-077 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, Wildlife 

Resources for a discussion of a study showing the similarities between fish and 

amphibians. 

Comment: Using surrogate species (mice, rats, dogs, and others) to assess herbicide 

impacts on a variety of wild species as well as the proposed widespread use of 

herbicides may result in unknown or unexpected impacts of potential significance. 

Consequently, the BLM should employ the precautionary principle and avoid, to the 

maximum extent possible, the use of herbicides and only use herbicides where there is 

compelling and valid scientific evidence that the potential for adverse impacts are none 

to small. 

Response: Generally, the risks to non-plant ecological receptors at typical application 

rates are none to small. Uncertainty due to interspecies extrapolation is addressed in 

Comment EMC-0643-036 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, Wildlife 

Resources. 

Comment: In addition to the significant cruelty and suffering associated with these 

live animal tests (including lethal dose, dermal, eye, and other tests) and the fact that 

there are non-animal tests available that could and should be used to test such poisons, 

the test results themselves provide no indication of the potential impact of the 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-356 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0640-038 

Animal Welfare 

Institute 

herbicide on wildlife or the environment when applied in the field. First, testing a 

herbicide in a laboratory environment on mice, rats, guinea pigs, rabbits, or dogs 

provides no evidence of how the herbicide will react in a field environment given the 

potential for the herbicide to be altered by environmental conditions (i.e. sunlight, heat, 

cold, naturally occurring elements in the soil, natural toxins). Second, for the same 

reasons, the amount of herbicide determined to be toxic to a rat or a dog in a laboratory 

environment may not accurately predict the amount of toxin fatal to a wild animals as 

the physical condition of wild animals (i.e. immune function, body condition, presence 

or absence of injury or disease, stress level, etc.) may be very different than the 

condition of laboratory animals. For example, while a certain amount of herbicide may 

kill 50 percent of laboratory mice, the amount necessary to kill one or more wild mice 

may be much lower because the physical condition of the wild mouse because he/she 

lives in the wild may be compromised compared to a mouse living in a laboratory 

environment. Similarly, a wild fox that has to engage in a day-to-day struggle to find 

food and avoid predators to survive in the wild may have a very different reaction to a 

direct or indirect exposure to a herbicide compared to a dog forced to consume the 

poison in a laboratory environment. Third, the use of surrogate species to predict the 

impact of herbicides on a wide-ranging variety of wild species is both scientifically 

invalid and doomed to significant errors in understanding the potential impact of 

herbicides in a natural environment. The toxicity studies referred to in the PEIS and 

Ecological Risk Assessment report used mice, rats, guinea pigs, rabbits, dogs, some 

fish species, some bird species, and perhaps a few addition common species. To 

suggest that these species can act as surrogates for the variety of wild species (i.e. deer, 

pronghorn, turkey, waterfowl, song birds, furbearers, raptors, bears, mountain lions, 

wild horses and burros) that may be exposed, directly or indirectly, to herbicides 

applied for vegetation treatment in 17 western states is ridiculous. As a consequence, 

the BLM must admit that its assessment of the potential impacts of herbicides on wild 

species is completely speculative because it is based on no critical evidence or data. 

Response: All data used in this PEIS concerning toxic effects on animals were derived 

from published sources. There are differences in extrapolating from the laboratory to 

the wild animal. Using published data derived from laboratory animals provides the 

controlled experimental design that is not possible with wild animals. Uncertainty 

factors are used to address extrapolations such as this; see response to Comment EMC0643-036 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, Wildlife Resources. To evaluate 

risks to humans, the results of animal toxicity testing are essential, since it is obviously 

impossible to conduct studies on humans. The extrapolation of animal toxicity data to 

humans involves the use of various safety factors. 

Comment: Of particular concern is BLM’s decision to use fish as a surrogate to 

understand the impact of herbicides on amphibians. Considering the documented 

sensitivity of amphibians to slight changes in environmental conditions, to natural 

toxins, and to human-produced toxins including products intentionally and 

unintentionally released into aquatic ecosystems, suggesting that the herbicidal impacts 

on fish will mimic the impacts to amphibians is blatantly wrong and scientifically 

reckless. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0640-007 under Environmental 

Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-357 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0643-011 

California Indian 

Basketweavers 

Association 

EMC-0643-018 

California Indian 

Basketweavers 

Association 

EMC-0643-021 

California Indian 

Basketweavers 

Association 

EMC-0643-026 

California Indian 

Basketweavers 

Association 

Comment: Although the DEIS [Draft PEIS] includes or references volumes of 

literature in support of the risk analysis for the chemicals, we find consistent data gaps 

that were avoided during this analysis, in those that preceded this one, and in those 

upon which this analysis are based. These data gaps are summarized here: 

• Failure to fully analyze the environmental impacts of the chemicals as they are 

actually applied in the field, as a formulation or mixture 

• Failure to fully analyze the environmental impacts of the degradates and 

secondary metabolites of the chemicals 

• Failure to include data for endocrine disruption at environmentally relevant 

(dilute) exposures as a toxicological endpoint 

• Failure to analyze the ecological effects to ecosystems from use of herbicides to 

manipulate vegetation. Ecological references by citation and footnote are almost 

completely lacking in the EIS. 40 CFR [Code of Federal Regulations] § 1502.24. 

The analysis must not be limited to toxicological effects analysis. 

• Failure to document with citation and footnote proof that herbicides will achieve 

the desired results for restoration of natural plant communities and fire regimes 

Response: The BLM evaluated mixtures (tank mixes) and inert compounds in the risk 

assessments. In response to public comments the BLM has provided more information 

on degradates and endocrine effects in Appendix D in the Final PEIS. Also see 

responses to Comment RMC-0200-008 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, 

How the Effects of the Alternatives Were Estimated, and Comment RMC-0106-048 

under PEIS Appendix C, Ecological Risk Assessment. It is not clear what the 

commentor means by ecological effects, but the methodology used is in compliance 

with all USEPA ecological risk assessment methodology and guidance. Chapter 4 of 

the PEIS includes a discussion of the risks and benefits of using herbicides to restore 

natural plant communities and to control invasive vegetation. Additional information is 

provided in the PER in Chapter 4. The information sources are referenced in Chapter 4 

and in the Reference chapter. 

Comment: Risk assessments must analyze the herbicide products as they are actually 

applied in the field—in other words, as the full formulation, as it is supplied by the 

manufacturer, purchased off the shelf, and also as they will be combined with any 

other added products such as the surfactant, colorant, buffering agent, or other 

additives. Each product as it is applied in the field is a mixture. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0643-011 and 0646-058 under PEIS, 

Environmental Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis. 

Comment: The methodology used to inform the current risk assessment process in the 

DEIS [Draft PEIS] does not incorporate the latest science that is known concerning 

environmental risks from pesticides. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0640-036 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Wildlife Resources. 

Comment: The BLM analyses contain little to no information about the 

environmental effects of the degradates of the herbicides proposed. Research has 

shown that degradates are prevalent in ground water and are frequently detected more 

often than their parent compounds. An extensive review of the literature (in Kolpin et 

al. 2004) found that 30% of the degradates found in groundwater were more toxic than 

the parent compound. Kolpin et al. state: “[S]imply stating that relatively few 

detections of herbicide parent compounds were observed in ground water provides a 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-358 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0643-030 

California Indian 

Basketweavers 

Association 

EMC-0643-032 

California Indian 

Basketweavers 

Association 

EMC-0643-037 

California Indian 

Basketweavers 

Association 

false impression that little chemical transport to ground water is occurring from 

herbicide applications at the land surface.” The [P]EIS must analyze the 

environmental and health impacts of the degradates and metabolites of the chemicals 

proposed for use, in the context of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relative to 

human health, water, cultural impacts to Indian people, and to wildlife. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0106-048 under PEIS Appendix C, 

Ecological Risk Assessment. 

Comment: Do present risk assessment methods capture these risks? No, according to 

the authors of a recent review of the mechanisms of estrogenic endocrine disruptor 

chemicals (EEDCs). Welshons et al. (2003) concluded that: “Information about the 

mechanism of action of EEDCs, together with information concerning mechanisms of 

hormone action, predict that current risk assessment assumptions can lead to a 

dramatic underestimation of responses (and thus risk) associated with exposure to low 

doses of EEDCs, particularly during development when the effects of very small 

changes in hormonal activity are permanent.” 

Response: The BLM risk assessments used the authoritative toxicity factors from the 

USEPA’s Office of Pesticides and other information provided by the USEPA, and a 

comprehensive literature search. See response to Comment RMC-0200-008 under 

PEIS Environmental Consequences, How the Effects of the Alternatives Were 

Estimated on endocrine disruptors. 

Comment: While the EPA has failed to meet the timeline mandated by the statutes of 

FQPA [Food Quality Protection Act], the BLM is not exempt from utilizing existing 

and readily available information to inform its risk analyses in order to meet NEPA 

standards for scientific integrity. 40 C.F.R. 1500.1 (b), 1502.24. Hermaphroditic 

wildlife, or animals with ambiguous gender or deformed secondary sex characteristics 

have now been documented among frogs, fish, river otters, polar bears, and alligators; 

endocrine disruptor chemicals have also been implicated in skewed human sex ratios 

and low fertility rates. The scientific literature is filled with documentation of these 

effects, to such a degree that it cannot be ignored. Yet, the BLM risk assessment does 

not even raise the topic of endocrine disruptor chemicals. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0643-030 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis. 

Comment: The DEIS [Draft PEIS] inappropriately limited ecological risk assessment 

to the six “new” herbicides proposed for use by the BLM and relied upon a set of data 

that was inappropriately dominated by industry funded studies, and makes conclusions 

ma. The DEIS [Draft PEIS] justifies no further analysis of eight chemicals by stating: 

“These herbicides have been evaluated in a previous BLM EIS (USDI BLM 1991), as 

well as more recently in an invasive plant EIS prepared by the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service (Forest Service; USDA Forest Service 2004).” (D[raft] 

PEIS, Vol. 2, Appendix C; p. C-1). The most current of these analyses, the Forest 

Service’s 2005, Region 5 Invasive Species EIS, is based on chemical literature review 

evaluations made by contractor SERA (Syracuse Environmental Research Associates). 

These reviews by SERA do not incorporate the latest, published information 

concerning the ecological and environmental effects of the chemicals. The reviews are 

found to rely predominantly on old industry registrant studies that are not peer 

reviewed and unpublished. We ask BLM to reject all such literature if it is not 

published in a peer reviewed journal. The final SERA reports themselves were peerBLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-359 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0643-038 

California Indian 

Basketweavers 

Association 

EMC-0643-039 

California Indian 

Basketweavers 

Association 

EMC-0643-060 

California Indian 

Basketweavers 

Association 

reviewed to test methods and assumptions, but the data reports upon which the SERA 

reports have been drawn from have largely not been published or peer reviewed. These 

SERA reports are the foundation of the BLM’s health risk assessment for these eight 

chemicals, yet they are both out of date, incomplete, and over biased towards industry 

generated studies. 

Response: Both the Forest Service and BLM relied on product registration documents 

because these are often the most complete sources of information and because there is 

limited information in the technical literature. Both the BLM and Forest Service 

reviewed registration documents and conducted database searches to identify sources 

of published information on herbicide effects (see Appendix A of the BLM ecological 

risk assessments included on the CD that accompanies the Final PEIS). Concerning 

using USEPA registration data, see response to Comment RMC-0069-008 under PEIS 

Alternatives, Herbicide Active Ingredients Evaluated under the Proposed Alternatives. 

The risk assessment methods used by the BLM and Forest Service were similar and 

are compared in the Impacts Assessment Methodology in the Vegetation section of 

Chapter 4 of the PEIS, and also in several other resource sections of Chapter 4. 

Comment: We believe that BLM’s acceptance of industry sources that demonstrate 

lack of harm, and exclusion of current sources found in mainstream, academic and 

peer-reviewed scientific journals that document harmful effects, suggests a biased 

analysis and fails to provide a reliable foundation for decision making as required 

under NEPA. 

Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0076-005 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Herbicide Active Ingredients Evaluated under the Proposed Alternatives; Comment 

EMC-0585-008 under PEIS Alternatives, Monitoring, and Comment EMC-0340-004 

under PEIS Environmental Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis. 

Comment: Open literature from unbiased, academic and peer reviewed journals 

appears to be almost completely lacking. In some instances, new information that is 

readily available and highly topical has been ignored. This is especially true relative to 

impacts to frogs and other amphibians. Given the current downward trend among 

amphibian populations globally, it is unconscionable for the BLM to ignore the latest 

science relative to this issue. The widespread use of poisons in agriculture today 

creates a greater obligation on public lands to provide unpolluted refugia for wildlife. 

Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0076-005 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Herbicide Active Ingredients Evaluated under the Proposed Alternatives, Comment 

EMC-0585-008 under PEIS Alternatives, Monitoring, and Comment EMC-0340-004 

under PEIS Environmental Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis for a discussion 

of sources of information. As noted for response to Comment EMC-0643-077 under 

PEIS Environmental Consequences, Wildlife Resources, the BLM provided additional 

information on the risks to amphibians from the use of herbicides in Chapter 4 of the 

Final PEIS under Wildlife Resources. 

Comment: Inaccurate characterization of “less toxic” herbicides. The [P]EIS makes a 

recurring generalization throughout the document, namely that “the herbicides 

proposed for use by the BLM are less harmful to non-target vegetation, fish and 

wildlife, and humans than most currently-available herbicides used by the BLM, and 

any future herbicides used by the BLM would also likely have low risk.” (e.g., p. 

[page] 4-221, Herbicide DEIS [Draft PEIS]). This statement is not factually correct. 

“Less toxic” is a relative term: relative to what? Several of the proposed “new” 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-360 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0643-065 

California Indian 

Basketweavers 

Association 

EMC-0643-066 

California Indian 

Basketweavers 

Association 

herbicides, in the ALS [acetolactate synthase] group, are exponentially more toxic to 

plants than any of the herbicides currently in use. 

Response: The four new chemicals (not including sulfometuron methyl) evaluated in 

the PEIS generally have low toxicity to non-target species. Oust® has higher toxicity to 

non-target plants, but is currently available for use by the BLM and was re-evaluated 

based on concerns from the field. 

Comment: For these “new” chemicals, more precaution is needed, because a large 

body of scientific literature has not yet accumulated over years of study by academic 

and independent scientists that fully demonstrates their true environmental impacts. It 

should be noted that in all cases, these harmful characteristics have not been captured 

under the EPA mandated testing that the chemicals undergo in order to be registered 

for use under FIFRA [Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act]. Even 

atrazine, banned in most European countries, was recently re-registered by the EPA in 

the U.S. in spite of volumes of literature showing it to be a cancer causing chemical, an 

endocrine disruptor, and a probable link in the global decline of amphibians (Hayes et 

al. 2002, 2003, 2005). And as noted in our discussion about 2,4-D, above, the EPA 

itself has acknowledged that it has failed to require testing data on the actual chemicals 

as they are applied in the field. These deficiencies do not exempt the BLM from its 

duties under NEPA to address this issue and to make decisions that are protective of 

the environment. 

Response: Under the BLM Preferred Alternative and Alternatives D and E, atrazine 

would not be allowed for use on BLM-administered lands unless new human health 

and ecological risk assessments were conducted to show that it is safe for use (see 

Description of the Alternatives in Chapter 2 of the PEIS). According to FIFRA, the 

USEPA is responsible for registering pesticides, not the BLM. The BLM relies on the 

USEPA for safety testing. The BLM did a comprehensive literature survey on the 

toxicological effects for all the new herbicides, as documented in the ecological risk 

assessments (ERAs) for each herbicide (ERAs are available on the CD that 

accompanies the Final PEIS). 

Comment: Clearly, a lack of sufficient, targeted study does not equate to a lack of 

harm. A lack of studies rather suggests the need to take a precautionary approach and 

to act conservatively. The list of existing studies for each toxicological endpoint should 

be listed in table style for each chemical, and not tucked away in an appendix in digital 

format, that is not easily accessible either to the public or decision makers. Studies 

demonstrating ecological harm should be listed also. It is not appropriate for BLM to 

limit analysis to toxicological endpoints mirroring EPA registration format. The 

agency “shall make explicit reference by footnote to the scientific and other sources 

relied upon for conclusions in the statement.” 40 CFR [Code of Federal Regulations] 

§ 1502.24. 

Response: See responses to Comment EMC-0643-065 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis, Comment RMC-0173-008 under PEIS 

Alternatives, Herbicide Active Ingredients Evaluated under the Proposed Alternatives, 

and Comment RMC-0221-067 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, Herbicide 

Effects Analysis. The human health and ecological risk assessments are long, complex 

documents that do not lend themselves well to being incorporated verbatim into the 

PEIS. Thus, these documents are included on a CD that accompanies the PEIS for 

those individuals that would like more detailed information on the literature, methods, 

toxicological endpoints, and other information used in preparing the risk assessments. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-361 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0646-011 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

EMC-0646-016 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

Comment: A glaring deficiency found in the PEIS is it’s lack of analysis of potential 

negative effects from all toxic substances proposed for use in this program. The 

substances in need of analysis include all components of the final tank mixture that is 

then applied into the environment. All inerts, adjuvants and active ingredients. The 

analysis should also include any known degradates and contaminants that could cause 

negative impacts. The BLM has instead chosen to give cursory analysis to certain 

active ingredients (AIs), while piggybacking on limited analysis used by the Forest 

Service for others, and refusing to perform any analysis whatsoever for potential 

effects from the use of the hundreds of toxic substances BLM introduces into the 

environment as inerts, adjuvants and degradates. These comments will illustrate the 

need for adequate analysis to be performed on all components of the final mixture of 

pesticides, adjuvants and diluents. 

Response: All active ingredients and inert compounds were evaluated in the PEIS risk 

assessments for the 10 herbicides analyzed by the BLM; see response to Comment 

RMC-0173-008 under PEIS Alternatives, Herbicide Active Ingredients Evaluated 

under the Proposed Alternatives. The BLM has conducted additional analysis of 

degradates and the potential for herbicides to be endocrine disruptors for the Final 

PEIS; see responses to Comment RMC-0106-048 under PEIS Appendix C, Ecological 

Risk Assessment, and Comment RMC-0200-008 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, How the Effects of the Alternatives Were Estimated. The risk 

assessments were exhaustive evaluations of the risks of using herbicides proposed by 

the BLM; also see response to Comment EMC-0640-036 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Wildlife Resources on the development of the risk assessments. The 

information from the risk assessments is then used to identify risks to natural and 

social resources in Chapter 4 of the PEIS. 

Comment: This rationale is false and can be upheld as such. To state that there has 

been no research in the last 15 years on either 2,4-D, clopyralid, dicamba, glyphosate, 

hexazinone, imazapyr, metsulfuron methyl, picloram, and triclopyr, that would warrant 

further concern, is simply wrong, and wrong by a wide margin. There are countless 

studies, all readily available through Toxline and PubMed, or other search engines, and 

many within the last few years, that show a need for great concern with the use of 

products containing these active ingredients. Case in point. The BLM risk assessment 

of these chemicals was 1988 or 1991. One of the above compounds, 2,4-D, is a 

commonly listed endocrine disruptor (ED). Alkylphenol ethoxylates, surfactants 

commonly used by the BLM in herbicide mixtures, are also EDs. Endocrine disruptors 

were unknown as a health problem until 1991, with the greatest advances in 

identification, and understanding, of the effects and pathways involved, occurring in 

the past seven years. This fact alone invalidates the assessment claims stated above in 

EIS [Draft PEIS page] 1-3. If, as stated, there was a “comprehensive literature search” 

of “new human health and ecological health risks”, some very important data was 

overlooked. Without taking such evidence into consideration, BLM has failed in its 

analysis. 

Response: The literature review referenced was for human health. It was not stated 

that no new research has been conducted; rather, it was stated that the toxicity values 

used in risk assessments have not changed substantially since 1991. Table 5-22 of the 

human health risk assessment (HHRA; available on the CD that accompanies the 

PEIS) compares the dose-response values used for 2,4-D and other currently-available 

pesticides to the most recent dose-response information (as of 2003). The toxicity data 

used for 2,4-D in the 1988 California Vegetation Management Final EIS were the 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-362 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

same as the data currently provided on the Integrated Risk Information System. 

Therefore, potential risks from 2,4-D, if calculated today, would be similar to those 

calculated in 1988. An uncertainty evaluation was carried out in the HHRA (and 

summarized in Appendix B of the PEIS under Evaluation of Currently-available 

Herbicide Active Ingredients) for all currently-available herbicides to determine 

whether the earlier HHRAs were still appropriate. Dose-response values, receptors, 

and exposure pathways were considered. The conclusions of a current risk assessment 

would not change for any of the previously evaluated herbicides, with the possible 

exception of simazine, an herbicide that has not been used by BLM since at least 1997. 

2,4-D is not listed in agency lists as an ED compound, although the USEPA plans to 

perform ED screening on 2,4-D. Also see response to Comment EMC-0646-102 under 

PEIS Environmental Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis. 

EMC-0646-017 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

Comment: Even greater disregard is paid to adjuvants, inert ingredients, and known 

degradates; the effects of diluents have been ignored entirely. This area of discussion is 

particularly important in part due to the inconsistent approach to its analysis taken by 

BLM. Appendix C [of the Draft PEIS] describes a list of herbicides and adjuvants to 

be used, but for most names only the active ingredient where, for a few, a formulation 

containing the active ingredient is named. Any number of inert ingredients and 

adjuvants can be associated with and used depending on the formulation employed. 

The formulations used should be identified so that the full range of inerts, diluents and 

degradates can be analyzed and so that it can be assured that no chemical, to the extent 

possible, will be used in the program, and thus no significant potential adverse impact 

will have been overlooked. Without a confirmed list of chemicals that may be used, 

the NEPA analysis cannot be accomplished. 

Response: The BLM has added information on degradates and the potential for 

herbicides to act as endocrine disruptors; see responses to Comment RMC-0106-048 

under PEIS Appendix C, Ecological Risk Assessment and Comment RMC-0221-070 

under PEIS Alternatives, Herbicide Active Ingredients Evaluated under the Proposed 

Alternatives. For inert ingredients, see response to Comment RMC-0173-008 under 

PEIS Alternatives, Herbicide Active Ingredients Evaluated under the Proposed 

Alternatives. Inert compounds are considered Confidential Business Information by 

USEPA, and according to USEPA cannot be disclosed. See response to Comment 

EMC-0623-017 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis 

for a discussion on BLM efforts to evaluate herbicide formulations. Adjuvants were 

discussed in Appendix C of the PEIS under Degradates, Inert Ingredients, Adjuvants, 

and Tank Mixtures. 

EMC-0646-020 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

Comment: BLM cannot depend on the registration of pesticides to satisfy the 

requirements of NEPA. All pesticides used in the program must be subject to NEPA 

analysis and, as an integral part of those pesticides, the so-named inerts of chemicals of 

the formulations, degradants and allowed diluents must be analyzed. 

Response: All herbicides used by the BLM, or proposed for use, were evaluated under 

NEPA in the PEIS, or in earlier EISs prepared by the BLM. See response to Comment 

EMC-0646-017 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis 

for information on the analysis of inerts, formulations, degradates, and diluents. 

EMC-0646-021 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

Comment: It has been clearly established in the scientific literature that the substances 

that contribute to the makeup of individual formulations, the adjuvants that increase 

the efficacy of specific formulations, and diluents that may be allowed, by the 

registration label, can be highly toxic and often more toxic than the active ingredient 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-363 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0646-024 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

[AI]. The BLM addressed these issues with the following; [1] Inerts, “Relatively little 

toxicity information was found. A few acute studies on aquatic or terrestrial species 

were reported. No chronic data, no cumulative effects data, and almost no indirect 

effects data (food chain species) were found for the inerts in the 10 herbicides.” 

([Draft] [P]EIS C-83); [2] Adjuvants, “In general, adjuvants compose a relatively 

small portion of the volume of herbicide applied; however, selection of adjuvants with 

limited toxicity and low volumes is recommended to reduce the potential for the 

adjuvant to influence the toxicity of the herbicide.” ([Draft] [P]EIS C-84); [3] The Full 

Tank Mixture “Ecological Risks of Degradates, Inerts, Adjuvants, and Tank Mixtures 

– Only limited information is available regarding the toxicological effects of 

degradates, inerts, adjuvants, and tank mixtures. In general, it is unlikely that highly 

toxic degradates or inerts are present in approved herbicides. Also, selection of tank 

mixes and adjuvants is under the control of BLM land managers, and to reduce 

uncertainties and potential risks, products should be thoroughly reviewed and mixtures 

with the least potential for negative effects should be selected” (Bromacil ERA 

[ecological risk assessment] pg 7-10). Once again, this rationale and subsequent lack 

of analysis for these broad class of chemicals is unjustified, and illegal in respect to 

NEPA and ESA [Endangered Species Act]. There is a wide body of data concerning 

many effects from the list of BLM approved inerts and adjuvants and their degradates, 

readily available through internet search engines. We hope the following data we 

present will help you to understand this fact. Time constraints, however, force us to 

highlight only certain compounds, effects and pathways in this comment period. One 

chemical family and associated health effects is herein highlighted for each of the 

individual concerns, i.e.; a) For AIs [active ingredients], 2,4-D/endocrine & 

reproductive; b) For inerts, POEA [polyethoxylated tallowamine] /multiple concerns; 

c) For adjuvants & degradates, NPE [nonylphenol ethoxylate] /endocrine disruption & 

acute toxicity. Endocrine disruption will be the primary health effect analyzed that has 

not been given analysis in the PEIS or supporting documents. NEPA is very clear what 

agencies must do when there is insufficient data on a potential significant adverse 

effect: Describe the data gaps that need to be filled and describe either how those shall 

be filled or why it is not possible to do so. 

Response: The BLM disagrees that there is a wide body of data on inert and degradate 

compound toxicity. Among the new herbicides for which the BLM did risk 

assessments and the USFS herbicides that did not have ecological risk assessments, no 

active ingredient or inert compounds were found to be clearly associated with 

endocrine disruption in information available to the BLM or on any agency lists. In 

response to public comment, the BLM provided more information on degradates and 

toxicity in Appendix D of the Final PEIS. Also see responses to Comment EMC-0646-

017 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis, Comment 

RMC-0106-037 (POEA) under PEIS Environmental Consequences, Fish and Other 

Aquatic Organisms, and Comment EMC-0646-102 (2,4-D) under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis. The BLM has proposed as mitigation to no 

longer use formulations of glyphosate that contain POEA, or if no alternative 

formulations are available, to use the formulation with the lowest amount of POEA. A 

discussion of how the BLM handled incomplete and unavailable information is found 

in Chapter 4 of the PEIS under Incomplete and Unavailable Information in the section 

on How the Effects of the Alternatives Were Estimated. 

Comment: It is important for BLM to present the analytical route and investigative 

tools used to arrive at the conclusion that scientific data had changed little in the toxic 

profiles of “2,4-D, clopyralid, dicamba, glyphosate, hexazinone, imazapyr, 

metsulfuron methyl, picloram, and triclopyr,” since 1992. It might open a window 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-364 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0646-031 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

EMC-0646-038 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

EMC-0646-040 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

through which we could understand where this assessment was derived from and 

support claim that this analysis upholds NEPA. 

Response: The BLM does not state that the scientific data have not changed; it states 

that the current toxicity values (derived by USEPA) for these chemicals are not 

substantially different from the toxicity values used in the earlier risk assessment. 

Therefore, the results of risk assessments for these herbicides would not change. The 

previous risk assessments showed that for some herbicide-exposure situations, there is 

a potential for risk. Still, the BLM conducted a detailed analysis of the human health 

and ecological risks associated with the use of 2,4-D, clopyralid, glyphosate, 

hexazinone, imazapyr, metsulfuron methyl, picloram, and triclopyr by using 

information from recent risk assessments prepared by the Forest Service. In addition, 

the BLM conducted its own risk assessment for dicamba for this PEIS. Thus, although 

the scientific data may have changed little since 1992, the BLM still conducted an 

analysis of these herbicides using up-to-date information. 

Comment: The BLM, however, sees no need for concern in the body of scientific data 

provided since 1992 on endocrine, neurologic or reproductive effects relating to 2,4-D. 

When the BLM last did an ERA [ecological risk assessment] for 2,4-D, endocrine 

disruption was an unknown science. And though it was better understood by 1998, it 

isn’t mentioned in the SERA [Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc.] 

1998 supporting document. Nor can it currently be found in the BLM PEIS or 2,4-D 

supporting documents. It has somehow missed detection during the BLM’s search for 

“new human health and ecological health risks” for 2,4-D. 

Response: See responses to Comment EMC-0646-024 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis, Comment RMC-0221-070 under PEIS 

Alternatives, Herbicide Active Ingredients Evaluated under the Proposed Alternatives, 

and Comment RMC-0200-008 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, How the 

Effects of the Alternatives Were Estimated. 

Comment: In truth, science has come a long way since 1991 with respect to 

toxicology in general. There are ample reasons why the AIs need to be reanalyzed, and 

new ERAs [ecological risk assessments] prepared. The above are only a few of them. 

Every AI [active ingredient], (as well as other components in the final mix), needs to 

be analyzed for the full range of known health effects, including neurotoxicity, 

immunotoxicity and endocrine disruption. All data used in this analysis needs to be 

derived from published and peer reviewed studies and reports, to ensure the integrity 

of the analysis. Only then can the following statement be made. 

Response: The BLM agrees that the science with respect to toxicology has come a 

long way since 1991; it was an important reason for updating the risk assessments for 

herbicides proposed for used under alternatives B, D, and E. However, the BLM relied 

on earlier risk assessments to evaluate several herbicides that could be used under 

Alternative A, but would not be used under alternatives B, D, and E because the 

current toxicity values (derived by USEPA) for these herbicides are not substantially 

different from the toxicity values used in the earlier risk assessments. See response to 

Comment EMC-0646-031 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, Herbicide 

Effects Analysis. 

Comment: The analysis must also take into account the fact that real world conditions 

can often increase the potency of toxic substances. Numerous studies, mostly with 

insecticides, have demonstrated that pesticide toxicity can increase with environmental 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-365 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0646-048 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

EMC-0646-052 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

EMC-0646-053 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

factors, such as differences in temperature, water pH, and competition (Boone and 

Semlitsch 2002, Boone MD, Bridges CM 1999, Zaga et al. 1998). Predatory stress has 

been also shown to increase pesticide toxicity, in the case of carbaryl, making it 

anywhere from 4 to 46 times more lethal (Boone and Semlitsch 2001, Relyea and 

Mills 2001, Relyea 2003). Understanding the complexities of toxic response, and how 

seemingly insignificant factors can produce different results, is one of the recent 

advances in the science of toxicology. 

Response: Varying environmental conditions are confounding factors that make it 

difficult to attribute effects to the primary independent variable—dose. See the 

Uncertainty Analysis section of Appendix C of the PEIS for a discussion of 

compounding factors that can influence the results of a risk analysis and how the BLM 

tended to err on the side of caution. Also see response to Comment EMC-0646-031 

under PEIS Environmental Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis. 

Comment: Another important fact that has been overlooked by BLM in your 

preparation of the [P]EIS, is, quite simply, whatever comes out the end of the spray 

nozzle, is the material that BLM is adding to the environment, and which must be 

analyzed for potential adverse impacts to satisfy the requirements of NEPA. To isolate 

components of the final mix and pretend that their introduction into the environment is 

not your responsibility, is, to put it mildly, absurd, in addition to being in violation of 

law. To state that analysis cannot be attempted because it wouldn’t fit into current 

modeling does not re-leave you of performing other aspects of amassing data and 

evaluating potential effects ([Draft] PEIS p C-78 [of Appendix C]). 

Response: The BLM used the most current state-of-the-science methods, toxicity 

information, models, and risk assessment guidance available to perform the risk 

assessments. Also see response to Comment EMC-0646-021 under PEIS 

Environmental Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis. 

Comment: The scientific body of toxicological data concerning chemicals used as 

inerts or adjuvants, or their degradates, by the BLM, is massive. Some of these 

substances are 100 to 10,000 times more toxic than the AI they are mixed with. 

Because the BLM is having trouble locating this data, might we suggest that you start 

with studies referenced here. Many of these studies then reference other studies which 

can be then acquired, and those studies reference other studies, etc. This is known as 

following a reference trail, and very helpful for locating data about specific chemicals 

or health effects. 

Response: The BLM disagrees that there is massive literature on inerts, adjuvants and 

degradates. See responses to Comment 0646-021 under Environmental Consequences, 

Herbicide Effects Analysis, and Comment EMC-0646-011 and Comment EMC-0646-

017 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis. 

Comment: Interesting enough, the BLM is aware of the importance of viewing the 

application of the final mix as a singular action. In the Ecological RA [risk assessment; 

Appendix C of the PEIS] you state; In a detailed herbicide risk assessment, it is 

preferable to estimate risks not just from the a.i. of an herbicide, but also from the 

cumulative risks of degradates, inert ingredients (inerts), and adjuvants........However, 

using currently available models (e.g., GLEAMS), it is only practical to make 

deterministic risk calculations (i.e., exposure modeling, effects assessment, and RQ 

derivations) for a single a.i.” ([Draft] PEIS [Appendix C] p [page] C-78). 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-366 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0646-054 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

This statement raises some serious questions. First, if the NEPA analysis of an agency 

program calling for the treatment of a million acres a year with toxic substances isn’t 

the right time for a detailed risk assessment, when is? Second, just because current 

modeling standards don’t allow for cumulative analysis risk quotients of all 

ingredients, this does not excuse BLM from analyzing the individual components and 

then making assessments as to their cumulative effect. And irrespective of how you 

perform a cumulative analysis, the individual substances need to be analyzed and 

toxicologically profiled. As NEPA demands, the BLM must perform the following 

steps; 1) State “that such information is incomplete or unavailable.” 2) “A statement of 

the relevance of the incomplete or unavailable information to evaluating reasonably 

foreseeable significant adverse impacts”. 3) “A summary of existing credible scientific 

evidence which is relevant to evaluating the reasonably foreseeable significant adverse 

impacts”. 4) “An evaluation of such impacts based upon theoretical approaches or 

research methods generally accepted in the scientific community”. (40 CFR [Code of 

Federal Regulations] 1502.22). BLM must analyze all components of the final mixture 

that pose a risk to human health or the environment. This is an unavoidable reality. 

NEPA demands it, for endangered species ESA [Endangered Species Act] demands it, 

and responsible decision making demands it. Claiming that there is no data available 

for review, when there is a wide body of data with relevant information, does not free 

BLM from it’s responsibilities. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0646-048 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis. The BLM did not limit the assessment to 

active ingredients, but looked at tank mixes and inert compounds; see response to 

Comment RMC-0173-008 under PEIS Alternatives, Herbicide Active Ingredients 

Evaluated under the Proposed Alternatives. For example, BLM used GLEAMS 

modeling for surfactant inert compounds to determine the environmental 

concentrations and compared them to available toxicity information/levels of concerns. 

The BLM conducted additional analysis of degradates and endocrine disrupting 

capability of herbicides for the Final PEIS; see Appendix D. A discussion of how the 

BLM handled incomplete and unavailable information is found in Chapter 4 of the 

PEIS under Incomplete and Unavailable Information in the section on How the Effects 

of the Alternatives Were Estimated. The BLM stated what information was 

unavailable in the herbicide risk assessments (see CD that accompanies the PEIS) and 

in Appendixes B and C of the PEIS; the relevance of this incomplete or unavailable 

information is given in the Uncertainty Analysis sections of the human health 

(Appendix B) and ecological (Appendix C) risk assessments. The risk assessments and 

Chapter 4 of the PEIS provide reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts and 

an evaluation of such impacts based upon theoretical approaches or research methods 

generally accepted in the scientific community. 

Comment: In the Consent Decree for Californians for Alternatives to Toxics et al v. 

The Environmental Protection Agency, C00-3150 CW, EPA agreed to considered 

inerts, adjuvants, degradants and diluents in ESA [Endangered Species Act] 

consultations undertaken under the CD. This approach should be applied to all analysis 

of pesticide use in the BLM program where listed species may be affected. The BLM 

has failed to make such analysis in the draft PEIS. 

Response: The BLM acknowledges that the USEPA agreed to consider inerts, 

adjuvants, degradants and diluents in ESA consultations undertaken under the consent 

decree. See Appendix D of the Final PEIS for an expanded discussion of these 

substances. During the development of the Final PEIS, the BLM reviewed all available 

data on inerts and degradants, and associated use of diluents, adjuvants, and surfactants 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-367 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0646-055 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

EMC-0646-058 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

EMC-0646-059 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

to the extent practicable, given the data that exists and is currently available. The BLM 

also conducted extensive toxicological risk assessments on the herbicides considered 

under this PEIS, in addition to and beyond the risk assessments conducted by USEPA 

to register such ingredients for use under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act. The cost to the BLM to assess every possible combination of active 

ingredient, tank mixture, and degradant, given the lack of information that exists on 

these substances would be exorbitant. 

Comment: Each individual component must be analyzed as an individual action. 

Then, an analysis of the cumulative effects from all components of the final mix must 

be performed. Where similar modes of action are identified, this fact must be 

addressed. There should also be an analysis of cumulative effects both for 

environmental effects and as they pertain to the general body burden of an individual 

or species, including how this affects the immune system. 

Response: See responses to Comments EMC-0646-053 and Comment EMC-0585-

203 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis. 

Comment: The PEIS states that selection of tank mixes and adjuvants is under the 

control of BLM land managers, and to reduce uncertainties and potential risks, 

products should be thoroughly reviewed and mixtures with the least potential for 

negative effects should be selected. As we have noted previously, this is in violation of 

established law. 

None of this rationale concerning analysis or use of inerts, adjuvants, and degradates, 

satisfies legal requirements. On one hand, BLM is saying that ERAs [ecological risk 

assessments] are important to decision making. On the other hand BLM is saying that 

analysis of the full mixture is a) impossible to address and b) will be addressed 

adequately at the site specific level because land managers and field workers will have 

the knowledge needed to pick the components that will produce the least toxicity. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0646-053 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis. The BLM evaluated adjuvants in 1991 

(USDI BLM. 1991. Final Environmental Impact Statement Vegetation Treatment on 

BLM Lands in Thirteen Western States. BLM Wyoming State Office. Casper, 

Wyoming) and as part of the ERAs prepared for each herbicide evaluated by the BLM 

(and included on the CD that accompanies the Final PEIS). 

Comment: Without documentation in support, the BLM claims that there is little data 

available concerning inerts, adjuvants and degradates currently used by BLM. Then 

BLM claims that the issues are too complex and are outside the scope of the [P]EIS. 

Yet BLM expects land managers to have enough information to choose the right 

combinations of inerts and adjuvants to limit toxicity. If BLM does not provide this 

data at the program level, where is this knowledge going to come from? Does BLM 

think that their land managers and field workers spend their free time doing Toxline 

and PubMed data searches, and studying up on the latest health effects in medical 

journals, in order to have the knowledge needed to perform their task of choosing 

“mixtures with the least potential for negative effects”. 

Response: See responses to Comment EMC-0646-053 and Comment EMC-0646-058 

under PEIS Environmental Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-368 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0646-060 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

EMC-0646-062 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

EMC-0646-064 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

EMC-0646-087 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

EMC-0646-088 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

Comment: There needs to be an NEPA analysis of individual components at the 

program level and any additions made in the future so land managers will have a basic 

understanding of potential effects at the project level. Congress intended that NEPA 

would serve this purpose. Currently, the Biological Assessment for this program does 

not even contain the words inert and adjuvant, let alone analyze potential effects, thus 

illustrating that BLM’s failure to realize these mandates have created an Agency-wide 

incompetence. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0646-053 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis. The Biological Assessment does reference 

the mode of action of inerts, but relies on the analysis in the ecological risk 

assessments for effects to sensitive species and does not differentiate between effects 

caused by the active ingredient and effects from other components of the herbicide 

formulation. 

Comment: Hopefully, this data will help BLM to see the insufficiency of the 

statement “it is unlikely that highly toxic degradates or inerts are present in approved 

herbicides”. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0646-053 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis. 

Comment: However, the names of many inerts are known, and from this list we can 

assess effects. POEA (polyethoxylated tallowamine, listed as polyoxethylenealkylamine by Monsanto) is the primary inert in the original RoundUp formulation. In 

every scientific study we have reviewed that deals with the differences in toxicity 

between glyphosate and POEA in the RoundUp formulation, it has been shown, or 

stated, that the surfactant POEA was the primary contributor to the toxicity of 

RoundUp. [See Relyea 2005b, 2005c.] 

Response: See responses to Comments EMC-0046-002 and EMC-0257-005 under 

PEIS Environmental Consequences, Wildlife Resources. 

Comment: There are countless inerts in use, or proposed for use, by the BLM. Some 

are identified through the EPA list of inerts which, (especially in terms of list 3), is 

dated and provides insufficient data. Some are highly toxic, some are not. The affected 

community (BLM employees, contract workers, anyone passing through or near the 

annually treated million acres, all wildlife that call these acres home, etc.) is depending 

on BLM to amass as much pertinent data, with help from the scientific and 

environmental communities, and perform an honest evaluation of the known data. It is 

required under NEPA. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0646-053 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis. 

Comment: When dealing with additives to a tank mixture, it makes little difference 

whether the chemical is an inert (premixed with the AI [active ingredient] in a 

commercial mixture), or an adjuvant (mixed in at the tank stage). This is especially 

true for surfactants, a necessary component of most herbicide mixtures. Since they are 

essential, their use can be expected. And this use must be analyzed at the program 

level, in order for there to be reasoned decision making at the project level. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-369 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC0646-099 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

EMC-0646-102 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

EMC-0646-146 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0646-053 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis. The BLM evaluated adjuvants in 1991 

(USDI BLM. 1991. Final Environmental Impact Statement Vegetation Treatment on 

BLM Lands in Thirteen Western States. BLM Wyoming State Office. Casper, 

Wyoming), and in Appendix D of the Final PEIS. 

Comment: BLM must analyze the effects of any diluent, including diesel, that may be 

used with any of the herbicides in its proposed program. 

Response: Typical diluents used by the BLM include water, crop oils, penetrator oils, 

and in the past, diesel. The effects of diesel and kerosene oil were evaluated by the 

BLM in 1991 (USDI BLM. 1991. Final Environmental Impact Statement Vegetation 

Treatment on BLM Lands in Thirteen Western States. BLM Wyoming State Office, 

Casper, Wyoming). Diesel is a USEPA List I Inert of Toxicological Concern. The 

BLM in recent years has moved away from using diesel to using water, crop-based 

adjuvants, and other inert ingredients that are List 3 or 4 ingredients that are of 

minimal toxicity. 

Comment: Some of the comments provided in Appendix A refer to the document 

USDA 2003 (or Bakke 2003). This is the current risk assessment for NPEs 

[nonylphenol ethoxylates] used by the FS [Forest Service]. Since the BLM is 

piggybacking on FS Ras [risk assessments], it is assumed that the BLM will attempt to 

piggyback on the USDA 2003 as a supporting document for endocrine disruption [ED] 

effects from NPEs nonylphenol polyethoxylate’s) and other EDs proposed for use. 

This would be a mistake, as USDA 2003 is limited in it’s understanding of endocrine 

disruptor effects, poorly written, and outdated. 

Response: The BLM has prepared a new Appendix D for the Final PEIS to address 

ED chemicals. None of the herbicide active ingredients are known or suspected EDs, 

with the possible exception of 2,4-D, which is scheduled for additional USEPA 

evaluation. The only known ED inert compound used by the BLM is R-11, a NPE 

compound which is also suspected of being toxic to aquatic life (Stark et al; 2003 

Agricultural Adjuvants: Acute Mortality and Effects on Population Growth Rate of 

Daphnia Pulex after Chronic Exposure, Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 

Vol. 22, No. 12, pp. 3056-3061). The USEPA has registered R-11 for aquatic use. The 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (D. Bakke, Human and Ecological Risk Assessment of 

Nonylphenol Polyethoxylate-based (NPE) Surfactants in Forest Service Herbicide 

Applications, 2003) concluded concentrations associated with normal operations are 

below any levels of concern. Given the lack of agreement in the literature, the BLM 

proposes to no longer use R-11 as an intentional adjuvant. 

Comment: There is no discussion of endocrine disruption in the PEIS. The only 

reference to ED [endocrine disruptor] effects that could be found were in the FS 

[Forest Service] ERAs [ecological risk assessments]. Concerning ED and glyphosate, 

the FS supporting document, SERA [Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, 

inc.] 2003b, is one of the few places within the extended body of the PEIS where one 

can find a discussion of endocrine disruption. Unfortunately, it is a very limited and 

poorly written analysis. 

Response: See responses to Comment EMC-0646-021 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis; Comment RMC-0200-008 under PEIS 

Environmental Consequences, How the Effects of the Alternatives Were Estimated; 

and Comment RMC-0221-070 under PEIS Alternatives, Herbicide Active Ingredients 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-370 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0646-151 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

EMC-0646-152 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

EMC-0646-153 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

Evaluated under the Proposed Alternatives. 

Comment: This limited ED [endocrine disruptor] analysis of glyphosate performed by 

SERA is, for most extent and purposes, the entire body of analysis relating to 

endocrine disruption in the whole of the PEIS, PER and supporting documents. 

Though some of the SERA ERA’s [ecological risk assessments] (supporting 

documents found on the FS [Forest Service] website) contain this brief analysis of ED, 

it is interesting to note that the SERA ERA for 2,4-D, the most well known ED among 

the herbicides that are relying on FS ERAs, has no discussion whatsoever of endocrine 

disruption. A further discussion of endocrine disruption will be provided below in a 

later section. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0646-021 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis. 2,4-D is not contained on any official 

government lists as an ED compound; however, the USEPA has targeted 2,4-D for 

additional ED screening studies, according to USEPA’s 2005 Reregistration Eligibility 

Decision. Also see responses to Comment RMC-0200-008 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, How the Effects of the Alternatives Were Estimated and Comment 

RMC-0221-070 under PEIS Alternatives, Herbicide Active Ingredients Evaluated 

under the Proposed Alternatives. 

Comment: BLM has proposed one of the largest herbicide projects in history, not only 

in acreage, but also for the number of active ingredients, inerts and adjuvants at their 

disposal. Unfortunately, the level of analysis performed is a throwback to the late 

1980's. The excuses used for foregoing analysis are: a) Research since 1988 has shown 

no need to re-analyze 11 of the herbicides in question. As such, it is appropriate to 

piggyback on analysis provided by the FS [Forest Service]. b) There isn’t enough data 

available to do proper analysis of inerts, adjuvants and degradates, and besides, they’re 

probably harmless anyway. c) The issues are too complex. 

Response: See responses to Comments EMC-0646-024 and EMC-0646-053 under 

PEIS Environmental Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis. 

Comment: We have demonstrated, with overwhelming support from scientific data, 

that: a) Research since 1988 shows a pressing need for re-analysis of all AIs [active 

ingredients]. The example given is 2,4-D, shown to be an endocrine disruptor, and 

recently listed as a Proposition 65 reproductive toxicant. b) For many of the inerts, 

adjuvants and degradates that are known, there is a wealth of information available, for 

both acute and chronic effects. In some cases, these additives can be 1000 to 10,000 

times more toxic than the AI. The examples given, inerts in glyphosate products and 

NPE [nonylphenol ethoxylate] adjuvants and degradates, have had countless studies 

performed that are readily available. Endocrine disruption, a family of health effects 

that was not known in 1988, is now being extensively researched. There are numerous 

ED’s [endocrine disruptors], both known and suspected, among the additives. c) Yes, 

the issues are very complex. If BLM is not up to the task, then it would be best to 

abandon the herbicide component of this program, until such time that BLM can 

effectively carry out it’s mandate. When that time comes, all ingredients (and their 

degradates) proposed and approved for use in this project, will need thorough analysis, 

updated profiles, and with RA’s [risk assessments] for any substance that shows a clear 

threat to human health or the environment. Cumulative effects analysis is important 

with or without GLEAMS modeling. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-371 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Response: See responses to Comment EMC-0646-038, EMC-0640-037, EMC-0643-

030, and EMC-0646-053 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, Herbicide Effects 

Analysis. 

EMC-0647-003 Comment: In a systematic review of the peer-reviewed scientific literature concerning 

Alaska Community health effects of pesticides, a team of physicians from the Ontario College of Family 

Action on Toxics Physicians concluded: “The literature does not support the concept that some 

pesticides [including herbicides] are safer than others; it simply points to different 

health effects with different latency periods for the different classes...Some more 

surprising positive associations were found for pesticides that are considered less toxic 

in acute poisoning settings...[For example] the herbicides glyphosate and glufosinate 

had associations with congenital malformations. Parental preconception exposure to 

glyphosate was associated with late abortion.1

” Although glyphosate is touted as a 

“safe” herbicide, the latest science demonstrates that it is associated with serious 

adverse environmental and health effects. 

Response: The conclusions of this study do not necessarily reflect a consensus among 

governmental regulators or the scientific community. The BLM risk assessment was 

conducted using comprehensive toxicology data supplied by the USEPA. 

FL-0001-004 Comment: Aerial application is particularly problematic, since only a small fraction of 

the pesticides actually land on the target pest; the rest drifting off-site causing 

“unanticipated” health and ecological impacts. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0200-012 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Air Quality. 

FXC-0071-008 Comment: For the ten herbicide active ingredients/formulations which BLM prepared 

Campbell, Bruce human health and ecological risk assessments for related to these Programmatic 

documents, did BLM seek data on all tests which are considered to make a complete 

toxicological profile? If not, why not? If not, did BLM abide by what you mentioned 

on Page 1-11 [of Chapter 1 of the Draft PEIS]) – which says that “The Council on 

Environmental Quality Regulations provide direction on how to proceed with the 

preparation of an EIS when information is incomplete or unavailable: “If the 

information relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts cannot be 

obtained because the overall costs of obtaining it are exorbitant or the means to obtain 

it are not known, the agency shall include within the environmental impact statement: 

1) a statement that such information is incomplete or unavailable;”. Is such a statement 

in these recent Programmatic BLM documents? If so, where is it? In the human health 

and ecological risk assessments for the five herbicides/formulations currently available 

to BLM (bromacil, chlorsulfuron, diuron, sulfometuron methyl, and tebuthiuron) as 

well as those proposed for future use (diflufenzopyr, diquat, fluridone, imazapic, and 

Overdrive), where in the documents (if existent) is detailed information about their 

inert ingredients, adjuvants, and degradation products? 

Response: The BLM found sufficient toxicological information to proceed with the 

risk assessments for the active ingredients. The BLM relied on the USEPA’s 

evaluation of the toxicity of inert compounds. Also see responses to Comment RMC0106-048 under PEIS Appendix C, Ecological Risk Assessment on Degradates; 

Comment EMC-0640-036 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, Wildlife 

Resources on the level of analysis, and Comment RMC-0173-008 under PEIS 

Alternatives, Herbicide Active Ingredients Evaluated under the Proposed Alternatives 

on inert ingredients. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-372 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

FXC-0071-018 

Campbell, Bruce 

FXC-0071-019 

Campbell, Bruce 

FXC-0071-020 

Campbell, Bruce 

Comment: Did the risk considerations for the herbicides consider substances such as 

thalidonmide or such as dioxin contaminants which impact humans much more than 

those in the animal kingdom? If not, why not(?) – especially when these statements on 

page B-83 of [Appendix B of] the Draft Programmatic EIS tell of the uncertainty 

involved when extrapolating similar risk levels from animals to humans” 

“Extrapolation from animals to humans introduces uncertainty into the risk 

characterization. Usually, the difference between the human reaction to a chemical and 

the test animal reaction to a chemical is unknown.” And “because the fate of a 

chemical can differ in animals and humans, it is possible that animal experiments will 

not reveal an adverse effect that would manifest itself in humans.” There will be 

considerably more on dioxin contaminants under the 2,4-D heading. 

Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0200-008 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, How the Effects of the Alternatives Were Estimated, and Comment 

EMC-0643-030 and Comment FXC-0071-025 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis. 

Comment: Despite saying that a commenter during the scoping process urged that the 

Programmatic documents describe all potential toxicological hazards including the 

ability of herbicides/formulations to disrupt the hormone system and the immune 

system, did the Draft Programmatic EIS and Programmatic Environmental Report 

research impacts of the proposed to be used substances on hormone and immune 

systems of various species including humans of various ages and health conditions? 

Where is such an evaluation in the documents? If they were not evaluated, why not? 

Response: See responses to Comments RMC-0200-008 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, How the Effects of the Alternatives Were Estimated and Comment 

EMC-0643-030 and Comment EMC-0646-021 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis. 

Comment: Where in the Draft Programmatic documents is analysis of synergistic 

effects on workers, other humans, animals, threatened/endangered/sensitive species 

from not only various chemicals within an herbicide formulation, but also different 

active ingredients being applied together (such as Overdrive®) along with the inert 

ingredients? Will such analysis be in the final Programmatic BLM document regarding 

vegetation treatment? Also, seeing that many species travel, and seeing that herbicides 

drift and runoff (as well as direct aquatic habitat application) will bring various 

residues to similar areas to impact various species. I object to BLM scientists getting 

access to USEPA’s inert ingredient Confidential Business Information and yet not 

share this info with the public. It is clear that both EPA and BLM are in bed with the 

chemical industry, so rather than getting assurance that key info is being shared, it is 

clear the agencies and industry are winking at each other and not interested in true 

analysis of effects from inert ingredients, active ingredients, synergistic effects, etc. 

Also, was any analysis conducted in regards to species exposed to various herbicide 

formulations and also exposed to fire retardants which on page 4-59 of the PEIS [Draft 

PER] admits are “especially harmful to aquatic organisms?” 

Response: The BLM did evaluate approved mixtures of active ingredients (tank 

mixes) in the risk assessments (see Adjuvants and Tank Mixtures in Appendix C of the 

PEIS and individual ecological risk assessments included on the CD that accompanies 

the PEIS). Additionally, the BLM did obtain and evaluate inert compound information, 

and is required by law to maintain confidential business information proprietary. Fire 

retardants rapidly degrade in the environment, are not commonly applied to herbicide 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-373 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

FXC-0071-025 

Campbell, Bruce 

FXC-0075-004 

Citizens for Fire Safety 

Sanity 

RMC-0095-008 

New Mexico 

Department of Game 

and Fish 

treatment areas, and are restricted to upland non-aquatic or riparian uses. Also see 

response to Comment RMC-0122-002 under Appendix C. 

Comment: I do not have time to get into harmful impacts from specific active 

ingredients – with the exception of 2,4-D and glyphosate which I will paste below. 

Also in regards to 2,4-D, I cannot find the specific info currently, but it was more than 

half the time that 2,4-D contains either the 2,3,7,8-TCDD dioxin contaminant or the 

1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin which are the two considered to have the 

highest Toxic Equivalency Value (thus the most toxic). As far as other active 

ingredients, besides reminding you that the document says that animals (like horses 

and burros were just mentioned) could suffer “death” as well as many ailments due to 

herbicide Spraying, please look at some of your own material to discover health and 

safety hazards for many species due to this massive BLM herbicide application plan. 

Response: The BLM provides an analysis of the risks associated with using 2,4-D, 

glyphosate, and other herbicides the BLM proposes to use in Chapter 4 and in 

Appendices B and C of the PEIS, and in the ecological risk assessments prepared by 

the BLM (an included on the CD that accompanies the PEIS) and Forest Service 

(http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/risk.shtml). According to the USEPA’s 

2005 Reregistration Decision for 2,4-D, the dioxin/furan contaminants were always 

low in 2,4-D in the 1980s, and the industry has since reduced these contaminants. 

Using 1987 data, the USEPA found cancer and noncancer effects from these 

contaminants to be of no toxicological concern. 

Comment: The mandate of the BLM is not to conduct “risk assessments” for pesticide 

use. Please inform us as to how many toxicologists the BLM employs and location of 

the laboratories that allow the BLM to conduct this kind of research. Our impression is 

this is the responsibility of the EPA to do this kind of research though their efforts 

have been sabotaged by the Bush Administration. 

Response: It is not the BLM’s mission to conduct herbicide research. It is the 

USEPA’s mission to regulate pesticides; hence the BLM’s reliance on USEPA data, 

models, and guidance. The BLM contracted the toxicological services for preparation 

of the ecological risk assessments, and consulted with in-house and other federal 

toxicologists and scientists. Also see response to Comment EMC-0640-036 under 

PEIS Environmental Consequences, Wildlife Resources. 

Comment: The second major omission in the D[raft] PEIS is the failure of the 

document to analyze or address the long-term persistence (fate) of these chemicals in 

the environment, particularly as they pertain to adverse affects to groundwater 

resources and amphibians. Many of the herbicides discussed in the D[raft] PEIS have 

been identified as groundwater contaminants. As a likely result of the long-term 

persistence of some of these chemicals in the environment, recent research has 

implicated atrazine, an herbicide currently approved for use by the BLM, in causing 

reproductive malformations in frogs. The PDEIS [Draft PEIS] states that atrazine has 

not been used much in the last few years by the BLM, but does not discuss why, or 

why it should be reauthorized for use in this PDEIS [Draft PEIS]. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0316-003 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Soil Resources. The BLM would not be allowed to use atrazine and 

five other herbicides currently approved for use under the three of the action 

alternatives (the Preferred Alternative and alternatives D and E). Alternative C 

prohibits the use of all herbicides. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-374 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0106-040 

Public Employees for 

Environmental 

Responsibility 

RMC-0106-041 

Public Employees for 

Environmental 

Responsibility 

RMC-0106-045 

Public Employees for 

Environmental 

Responsibility 

RMC-0106-047 

Public Employees for 

Environmental 

Responsibility 

RMC-0106-055 

Public Employees for 

Environmental 

Responsibility 

Comment: P. 4-173 [of the Draft PEIS]. Inerts. a) Analysis of Confidential Business 

Information is done only for the 6 active ingredients in this section. While HHRAs 

[human health risk assessments] may have been assessed in previous EISs (1988, 

1989, 1991), none of these assessed inert components except to state that most of the 

formulations did not contain USEPA List 1 and 2 substances. Therefore, this PDEIS 

[Draft PEIS] assesses inert components for only 33 percent of the herbicides proposed 

to be used. 

Response: Toxicity information was sought and evaluated for all inerts. Confidential 

Business Information was analyzed for dicamba, diflufenzopyr, fluridone, imazapic, 

oust, diuron, bromacil, fosamine, chlorsulfuron, and tebuthiuron, and all inerts were 

classified by the four USEPA list categories. 

Comment: The USEPA categorization cited is incomplete. List 4 has two 

subdivisions: 4a inerts of minimal risk; 4b substances that have yielded sufficient 

information to determine that current uses have no adverse public health or 

environmental effects. This D[raft] PEIS lumps all List 4 inerts under 4a. However, the 

wording of 4b requires knowledge of when each item included was evaluated and what 

uses were then “current,” and what cumulative impact might be relevant. 

Response: We have revised the text in the Final PEIS to reflect that there at two 

subdivisions for List 4 inert ingredients. 

Comment: A perusal of this literature gives no confidence that the BLM’s assessment 

of inerts in 6 herbicide formulations is sufficient. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0106-040 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis. 

Comment: Thus, at least 21 inerts in 50% of the herbicides proposed for use are 

potentially harmful to human health and to the environment. How many of the inerts in 

List 4 are actually harmful to human, plant, and wildlife receptors by current or 

cumulative use is unknown—this is underscored by the statement re inerts (p. C-83) 

that “relatively little toxicity information was found (from 6 sources). A few acute 

studies on aquatic or terrestrial species were reported. No chronic data, no cumulative 

effects data and almost no indirect effects data (food chain species) were found for 

inerts in the 10 herbicides [Appendix C evaluates one herbicide not proposed for use in 

the Draft PEIS]. 

Response: By definition, according to the USEPA, List 4 inerts are of minimal risk 

(List 4A) or there is sufficient data to indicate that they can safely be used in pesticides 

(List 4B). Hence, the USEPA has determined that they have minimal toxicity and risk 

to humans, plants, and wildlife. As shown on Page C-83 of Appendix C of the PEIS, 

only 12 inerts of unknown toxicity were found for 10 herbicides. All herbicides 

evaluated in Appendix C are used, or proposed for use, by the BLM. Also see response 

to Comment RMC-0106-041 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, Herbicide 

Effects Analysis. 

Comment: P. [Page] 4-178 [of the Draft PEIS]. It is stated that in all steps in the 

HHRA [human health risk assessment] evaluation process, “...assumptions must be 

made due to a lack of absolute scientific knowledge.” For too much of this process, the 

problem is the absolute lack of knowledge. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-375 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0130-004 

Craig, Diane 

RMC-0159-008 

Proctor, Gradey 

RMC-0173-008 

Delles, Susan 

Response: Risk assessments will always be an evolving art and science. USEPAapproved state-of-the-science methods were used in the BLM risk assessments. A 

large body of toxicological literature was available for each of the herbicides. 

Comment: I also question where does the research on these chemicals come from? – 

how long were the studies done and on what subjects, and for what result were they 

looking for. I would hope that the vast majority of the population understands is that it 

is the chemical companies themselves that provide the information on these chemicals 

and it is their studies that are used – not biased at all is it! 

Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0069-009 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Monitoring. The USEPA is the federal agency designated to regulate pesticides 

(including toxicity testing) and does so in concert with its statutory authority and 

judicial review. Extensive human health toxicity profiles were provided in Appendix B 

of the PEIS under Toxicity Profiles in the Hazard Identification section. These profiles 

were based on USEPA documents, which rely in part on manufacturer studies, as well 

as on literature searches using the National Library of Medicine’s Hazardous 

Substance Database and Toxline. 

Comment: Dicamba also contains numerous toxic inert ingredients. Virtually all the 

testing that has been done on Dicamba have been on the chemical itself, not the 

products and their inert ingredients and contaminants. There is evidence that these 

other ingredients greatly increase the toxicity and the health risks. We are very 

concerned that these health risks are largely unknown and believe that the [P]EIS 

should disclose how little we know about the health and environmental risks 

associated with this chemical, the other herbicides proposed for use, including the inert 

ingredients, and any other chemicals used on BLM land, including but not limited to 

rodenticides, fire retardants, fire propellants, and any other pesticides, and the potential 

for synergistic effects with surfactants, and between chemicals if multiple chemicals 

are used at the same location over time. We also believe that what we do know enough 

about the risks to know that the toxicity of these chemicals far outweighs many of the 

dubious benefits of herbicide treatments. 

Response: While no information was gathered by the BLM on synergism with nonherbicides, rodenticides and other non-herbicide pesticides are either not used or are 

infrequently used by the BLM. Fire propellants and retardants are sparingly used, and 

generally not in the same locations and at the same time as herbicides. All of these 

chemical classes are either rapidly degraded in the environment or are not used. 

Dicamba does not contain any inert ingredients on USEPA List 1 or List 2, and 

contains only one ingredient on List 3, indicating that dicamba formulations do not 

contain substances of known toxicity. Another inert is on List 4B, and one is unlisted 

but is a common naturally occurring mineral. 

Comment: Inert ingredients of chemicals do not require listing on the label. Health 

and safety studies are kept secret so the public does not know possible dangers. 

However, many of these “Inert Ingredients” can add to the toxicity of the product. 

Included for reference on pg is a list of Inert Ingredients for 2,4-D. (Journal of 

Pesticide Reform, Winter 2005 Vol 25 #4 obtained by them through a Freedom of 

Information Act request). These ingredients are rarely disclosed to the public. 

Response: Inert ingredients are regulated as confidential business information, and the 

BLM is prohibited from explicitly identifying them in a product. However, the BLM 

received approval from the USEPA to review the list of inerts for the 10 herbicides 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-376 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0191-009 

Ertz, Brian 

evaluated by the BLM in their risk assessments. The results of that review are provided 

in Appendix C of the PEIS under Degradates, Inert Ingredients, Adjuvants, and Tank 

Mixtures in the Uncertainty Analysis section. Also see response to Comment RMC0106-004 under PEIS Alternatives, Monitoring. 

Comment: This citation of scientific literature suggesting the necessity that degradates 

be considered when prescribing herbicide application is wise. Scientific studies 

undertaken by the USGS [U.S. Geological Survey] confirm the necessity for degradate 

consideration. How are we to know that the EPA’s thresholds or RTE [rare, 

threatened, and endangered] species’ toxicity thresholds for concentration levels have 

not been exceeded when as studies out of the USGS indicate that frequencies of 

detection in ground water for a given herbicide increased multifold when its degradates 

are considered (Kolpin, Thurman, and Linhart 1998). The “GLEAMS” model protocol 

the agency uses (D[raft] PEIS [on page] C-17 [of Appendix C) to assess concentration 

levels of herbicides in environments associated with treatment makes no mention 

accounting for pre-existing concentrations associated with adjacent public or private 

(agricultural, adjacent agency, organic wastewater contaminants, etc.) treatment, the 

cumulative toxicity levels associated with these contaminants in addition to degradates 

resulting from proposed treatment will inflate levels of toxic chemicals beyond those 

accounted for in the model. 

Response: Additional text on degradates associated with the herbicides under 

consideration is included in Appendix D of the Final PEIS. Very little fate or 

toxicological data are available for herbicide degradates, so a quantitative assessment 

is not feasible. The risk assessments were designed to assess the potential risks 

associated with individual herbicides as applied by the BLM, not all potential sources 

of risk within a watershed. There is no sound way to estimate background levels of 

contaminants in the environment and incorporate that information into a quantitative 

risk assessment. Section 4 (Environmental Consequences) of the PEIS includes a 

qualitative discussion of potential cumulative impacts on the environment due to the 

effects of BLM vegetation treatments. The Uncertainty Associated with Herbicide 

Concentration Models section of each ecological risk assessment (ERA) indicates that 

“unidentified stressors” may have an unknown effect on the results of the ERA (copies 

of each ERA are included on the CD that accompanies the Final EIS). These 

unidentified stressors may include herbicides or other chemicals added to the 

environment by agricultural or industrial sources. 

See response to Comment RMC-0191-007 under PEIS Alternatives, Herbicide Active 

Ingredients Evaluated under the Proposed Alternatives regarding consideration of 

degradates, and response to Comment EMC-0646-164 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis regarding multiple treatments within a 

watershed. The BLM examined USGS data for herbicides in surface water and 

groundwater (Larsen et al, 1997 Pesticides in Surface Waters, distribution, Trends, and 

Governing Factors, Ann Arbor Press, Chelsea, Michigan.; Scribner et al. 2002. 

Reconnaissance Data for Glyphosate, Other Selected Herbicides, Their Degradation 

Products, and Antibiotics in 51 Streams in Nine Midwestern States, U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 03–217). Few, if any, data points were available for surface 

waters in proximity to BLM-administered lands except downstream of urban areas. 

Most of this work has been reported for agricultural areas where herbicides are 

intensively used and groundwater is often shallow. The GLEAMS model does not 

account for preexisting conditions, but concentrations of herbicides on public lands 

should be none to low, depending upon the recency and frequency of herbicide 

applications on or near the treatment site, and the type of herbicide used. However, as 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-377 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0191–010 

Peacock, Delores (Dog 

Valley Ranch) 

RMC-0191-011 

Ertz, Brian 

RMC-0191-012 

Ertz, Brian 

stated in Appendix C of the PEIS under GLEAMS in the Concentration section, the 

GLEAMS modeling approach either approximates or overestimates the rate of loading 

observed in the field. Thus, the conservative nature of the model may indirectly 

account for the risks associated with preexisting conditions. 

Comment: The BLM claims to be sensitive to the risks associated with use of 

herbicides pointing to the “acceptable” levels at which the herbicides it hopes to 

approve break down. However, the degradates that these herbicides break down into 

are sometimes as harmful if not more harmful than the parent herbicides (Kolpin, 

Thurman, and Linhart 1998). Given these findings regarding the effects that degradates 

have on both human and environmental health, Koplin concludes that, “it is essential 

that degradates are included in any type of herbicide investigation” (Kolpin, Thurman, 

and Linhart 1998). As we can see in section 7.3.1 the BLM agrees. However, the 

agency states that, “it is beyond the scope of this risk assessment...” (D[raft] PEIS 

[page] C-83). We’ve heard this before in reference to the Restore Native Ecosystems 

Alternative being “beyond the scope” of the Vegetation Treatment [P]EIS. This 

“unknown” cannot be accepted. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0106-048 under PEIS Appendix C, 

Ecological Risk Assessment. 

Comment: Given these findings regarding the effects that degradates have on both 

human and environmental health, Koplin concludes that, “it is essential that degradates 

are included in any type of herbicide investigation” (Kolpin, Thurman, and Liinhart 

1998). As we can see in section 7.3.1 the BLM agrees. However, the agency states 

that, “it is beyond the scope of this risk assessment ...” (DPEIS [Draft PEIS page] C83). We’ve heard this before in reference to the Restore Native Ecosystems Alternative 

being “beyond the scope” of the Vegetation Treatment EIS. This “unknown” cannot be 

accepted. 

Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0191-007 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Herbicide Active Ingredients Evaluated under the Proposed Alternatives, and 

Comment RMC-0106-048 under PEIS Appendix C, Ecological Risk Assessment. 

Comment: In addition to the actual toxicity levels of treated or affected waterways 

being neglected in favor of superficial consideration of isolate herbicide parent 

compounds, the effect of synergistic and antagonistic interactions between herbicides, 

degradates, and previously existing contaminants in watersources were not adequately 

(not at all) considered in either the herbicide ERAs [ecological risk assessments] nor 

the Biological Risk Assessments submitted by the BLM. All considerations of risks 

associated with application of herbicides to specific species were conducted as if these 

species were only being exposed to a given herbicide. Studies have shown the 

presence of various Organic Wastewater Contaminants (OWCs) in streams across the 

country. Such compounds represent the fallout of pharmaceuticals, hormones, 

pesticides, etc. that inevitably find their way into our waterways as a result of water 

treatments’ inability to break them down. Scientists wonder about the potential for 

increased toxicity of chemical mixtures and about the effects that such interaction may 

have on the health of humans and aquatic ecosystems (Kolpin et al. 2002). The adverse 

affects of such mixtures can be pronounced and implicate the endocrine, immune, and 

nervous systems of humans and animals alike (Porter et al 1999). Neurological, 

endocrine, immune, and developmental effects may show up only when pesticides are 

tested in combination (Boyd et al., 1990; Porter et al., 1993). I make this point to 

illustrate the inadequate consideration that has been given to the health of our 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-378 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0191-014 

Ertz, Brian 

RMC-0204-007 

Wroncy, Jan (Gaia 

Vision/Canaries Who 

Sing) 

ecosystems and human populations should such a drastic upsurge in the use of 

herbicides be allowed to take place as the Preferred Alternative prescribes. I am 

concerned that given the little we know about the pre-existing chemicals that are 

persistent in our environments (which include the lands managed by the BLM) as a 

result of both public and private use (agriculture, pre-existing agency treatments, joesixpack’s overzealous landscaping techniques, waste disposal, etc.) and their effect on 

human and environmental health, to administer more chemicals into the soup that 

already exists is extremely unwise. It’s akin to a pharmacist handing a patient a bottle 

of volatile pills without ever asking whether the patient is on any other drugs. This in 

conjunction with the agency’s seemingly lackluster mentioning of these issues without 

the good-faith effort and scientific consideration that one would hope for, let alone 

being prescribed in the BLM’s own account and by the body of scientific literature, is 

unfortunate and negligent. 

Response: See responses to Comments RMC-0191-009, RMC-0221-070, and 

Comment RMC-0159-008 under PEIS Alternatives, Herbicide Active Ingredients 

Evaluated under the Proposed Alternatives. In addition, very little fate or toxicological 

data are available for herbicide degradates, so a quantitative assessment is not feasible. 

Furthermore, there is no sound way to estimate background levels of contaminants in 

the environment and incorporate that information into a quantitative risk assessment. It 

is impractical and beyond the scope of this PEIS to evaluate the potential effect of all 

possible non-herbicide contaminants in all surface water bodies of 17 western states. 

Comment: The lack of consideration for the science regarding degradates, baseline 

toxicity levels, the potential for increased toxicity to species given mixtures etc. 

constitutes a failure on the part of BLM to give adequate consideration to relevant 

scientific data required by NEPA (See 40 C.F.R. [Code of Federal Regulations] §§ 

1500.1(b); 1502.24; Native Ecosystems Council v. United States Forest Serv. (9th Cir. 

2005) 418 F.3d 953, 964.). 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0623-017 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis regarding degradates and mixtures. See 

Appendixes B and C in the Final PEIS for the risk analysis results and the 

methodology used to evaluate herbicide toxicity and risks associated with mixtures, 

including the section in Appendix C on Degradates, Inert Ingredients, Adjuvants, and 

Tank Mixtures. Incomplete and unavailable information is presented in Chapter 4 of 

the PEIS under Incomplete and Unavailable Information in the section on How the 

Effects of the Alternatives were Estimated. The BLM adequately considered the 

relevant, extant scientific data on the toxicity and degradates of the herbicide active 

ingredients evaluated in the PEIS. Also see responses to Comment EMC-0646-048 

under PEIS Environmental Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis, Comment 

RMC-0191-007 and Comment RMC-0159-008 under PEIS Alternatives, Herbicide 

Active Ingredients Evaluated under the Proposed Alternatives, and Comment RMC0106-048 under PEIS Appendix C, Ecological Risk Assessment. 

Comment: The Draft [P]E1S does not consider obtaining informed consent from the 

members of the public who are assumed to be likely to receive some amount of 

exposure from pesticides, by-products, contaminants, pyrolytic or phytolytic products, 

petroleum distillates, inerts, surfactants, smoke, fire ignitors and/or fire retardants that 

may be used in the vegetation management program. First of all there is not complete 

information given as to the full formulations of the pesticides, what their inerts are, 

what their breakdown products are, their pyrolytic or phytolytic products, what 

surfactants, Spreader-stickers, activators or contaminants are in them, much less any 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-379 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0208-040 

California Oak 

Foundation 

RMC-0208-058 

California Oak 

Foundation 

health, environmental fate or impact information about them. The full formulations of 

the pesticides are usually not even tested; only the inert ingredients. How can the BLM 

ever hope to get informed consent without providing the “information” to the public 

being asked to give their consent. To expose people to chemicals and/or smoke 

without their explicit prior informed consent is, many of us would argue, in fact a 

criminal act, not becoming of a public agency. 

Response: The BLM will post locations intended for herbicide use to warn people to 

stay out until the restricted entry interval has elapsed. Extensive information about the 

human toxicity of the herbicides is provided in the PEIS and human health risk 

assessment that accompanies the PEIS (and is included on the CD that accompanies 

the Final PEIS). The active ingredients were evaluated in the risk assessment, while 

the inert ingredients (Confidential Business Information) were determined to be of 

minimal risk to humans or had no known toxicity data. Also see responses to 

Comment RMC-0173-008 under PEIS Alternatives, Herbicide Active Ingredients 

Evaluated under the Proposed Alternatives, Comment EMC-0646-048 under PEIS 

Environmental Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis, Comment RMC-0159-008 

under PEIS Alternatives, Herbicide Active Ingredients Evaluated under the Proposed 

Alternatives, Comment RMC-0106-048 under PEIS Appendix C, Ecological Risk 

Assessment, and Comment RMC-0191-007 under PEIS Alternatives, Herbicide Active 

Ingredients Evaluated under the Proposed Alternatives. 

Comment: Ultimately, “little is known about the fate of pesticides (transport, 

dissolution, degradation. and deposition onto soil, plants, and water) and their impact 

on ecosystems in the topographically complex landscape of California.” (Exhibit 23.) 

In some cases, pesticide residue in winter and SPRCing rain and snow has been found 

at levels “ ‘uncomfortably close’ ” to the published median concentrations.” (Ibid.). 

Response: The BLM disagrees with the commentor. Herbicides proposed for use by 

the BLM have been used for many years, and many studies have been conducted on 

the fate of these chemicals in the environment. This information is provided in 

Sections 3.2 (Herbicide Physical-chemical Properties) and 3.3 (Herbicide 

Environmental Fate) in the ecological risk assessments prepared by the BLM for each 

herbicide and in the risk assessments prepared by the Forest Service 

(http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/risk.shtml) that were used by the BLM for 

the PEIS. 

Comment: California’s ecosystems are also contaminated by a number of other active 

ingredients that are not proposed for use by the BLM. Nevertheless, the synergistic 

effects of these active ingredients must be assessed in order to project the real potential 

for cumulative impacts of the BLM’s vegetation management program. (See exhibits 

23, 24, 25 [studies assessing the potential of different herbicides to interact 

cumulatively and/or synergistically in both the aquatic and terrestrial environments].) 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0590-029 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Herbicide Modes of Action and Treatment Methods. The exhibits only reference 

glyphosate plus its surfactant adjuvant, and triclopyr formulations in separate mixtures 

(e.g., triclopyr not mixed with glyphosate) and with differing water hardness. It is well 

known that surfactants enhance toxicity to plants and potentially to aquatic life. The 

BLM did evaluate the potential for synergistic effects in Appendix C of the PEIS 

under Degradates, Inert Ingredients, Adjuvants, and Tank Mixtures. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-380 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0210-021 

MCS Task Force of 

New Mexico 

RMC-0210-022 

MCS Task Force of 

New Mexico 

RMC-0210-027 

MCS Task Force of 

New Mexico 

RMC-0210-029 

MCS Task Force of 

New Mexico 

Comment: The PEIS fails to disclose the identity of the “inert” ingredients in the 

products containing the six active ingredients evaluated in this risk assessment. It states 

that BLM scientists obtained this information, but claims that because it is considered 

Confidential Business Information, it cannot be disclosed to the public ([Draft] PEIS 

[page] 4-173). The [Draft] PEIS further claims that the majority of the inerts are of 

“minimal risk” and only a few are on EPA’s List 3, “Inerts of Unknown Toxicity”. But 

failing to provide the identity of the inert ingredients prevents the public from being 

able to affirm or refute this claim and thus violates NEPA. The BLM is, in effect, 

saying “just trust us” rather than providing the public with the information it needs to 

fully participate in the EIS process. Under NEPA, an Environmental Impact Statement 

is (EIS) required to provide “high quality” data to the public. Providing “no” data on 

the identity of the inert ingredients, even though this information is known BLM and 

relied upon to reach conclusions in the draft PEIS, falls far short of providing “high 

quality” data. 

Response: The BLM is prohibited by law from releasing Confidential Business 

Information. See response to Comment RMC-0106-004 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Monitoring. 

Comment: The BLM should only have considered using and analyzed herbicides 

whose manufacturers were willing to provide the identity of inerts in their products 

and allow this information to be disclosed to the public. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0210-021 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis. 

Comment: The draft PEIS and Forest Service Risk Assessments fail to adequately 

analyze the herbicides proposed for use regarding their potential endocrine-disrupting 

effects. While herbicide active ingredients are evaluated for gross reproductive and 

developmental effects, many endocrine-disrupting effects are far more subtle. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0200-008 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, How the Effects of the Alternatives Were Estimated. 

Comment: According to Theo Colborn: The U.S. EPA has rarely used the open 

literature in its risk assessments, generally using only data submitted by manufacturers. 

Industry continues to use traditional toxicology protocols that test for cancer, 

reproductive outcome, mutations, and neurotoxicity, all crude endpoints in light of 

what is known today about functional endpoints. In using manufacturer data, the U.S. 

EPA misses almost all delayed developmental, morphologic, and functional damage of 

fetal origin ... Brucker-Davis (1998) published a comprehensive review of the open 

literature in which she found 63 pesticides that interfere with the thyroid system − a 

system known for more than a century to control brain development, intelligence, and 

behavior. Yet, to date, the U.S. EPA has never taken action on a pesticide because of 

its interference with the thyroid system. (A Case for Revisiting the Safety of 

Pesticides: A Closer Look at Neurodevelopment by Theo Colburn, Env. Health 

Perspectives, Vol. 114, No. 1, January, 2006, 

http://ehp.hiehs.nih.gov/members/2005/7940/7940.pdf). The EPA has, however, 

expressed concern that “Based on currently available toxicity data, which demonstrates 

effects on the thyroid and gonads following exposure to 2,4-D there is concern 

regarding its endocrine disruption potential” (EPA Reregistration Eligibility Decision 

for 2,4-D, June, 2005, p. 21, www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/24d_red.pdf). The EPA 

also noted there was a need for further testing of 2,4-D regarding its endocrineBLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-381 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0210-030, 036 

MCS Task Force of 

New Mexico 

RMC-0210-032 

MCS Task Force of 

New Mexico 

RMC-0210-033 

MCS Task Force of 

New Mexico 

disrupting potential. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0222-104 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis. 

Comment: The draft PEIS errs in placing too much emphasis on the concept of RfD 

[reference dose] and not placing enough emphasis on prudent concerns regarding the 

hazards of applying toxic herbicides to the environment, including their potential to 

cause adverse effects in humans, wildlife, vegetation, and water resources. 

Response: The RfD is the USEPA’s reference dose, which is derived from toxicity 

studies of laboratory animals. Safety factors are used to address uncertainty from 

interspecies extrapolation or high to low dose extrapolation. Safety factors are 

fundamental in extrapolating to other non-target species, be they humans, wildlife, or 

plants. Although a firm experimental basis does not exist for safety factors, 

toxicologists have used them for many years to address uncertainty. The BLM and 

Forest Service conducted risk assessments for the herbicides the BLM proposes to 

used under the PEIS; the risks associated with the use of these herbicides are given in 

the ecological risk assessments, and in Chapter 4 and Appendixes B and C of the PEIS. 

Based on this information, the BLM developed Standard Operating Procedures and 

mitigation to prevent or minimize risks associated with the use of these herbicides, as 

discussed in Chapter 2 of the PEIS under the Herbicide Standard Operating Procedures 

and Mitigation sections. 

Comment: a) Too narrow a focus on the NOAEL [no-observed-adverse-affect-level] 

means that information on the shape of the dose-response curve is ignored. Such data 

could be important in estimating levels of concern for public safety. b) As scientific 

knowledge increases and the correlation of precursor effects (e.g., enzyme induction) 

with toxicity becomes known, questions about the selection of the appropriate 

“adverse effect” arise. c). Guidelines have not been developed to take into account the 

fact that some studies have used larger (smaller) numbers of animals and, hence, are 

generally more (less) reliable than other studies. These and other “scientific issues” are 

not susceptible to immediate resolution, since the data base needed is not yet 

sufficiently developed or analyzed. U.S. EPA work groups are presently considering 

these issues. 

Response: Concerning the NOAEL, the shape of the dose response curve is typically 

only important at higher doses, and not at the no effect level. It is most conservative to 

use the NOAEL as the BLM did. Enzyme induction may not be an adverse effect; it 

may simply be a defensive response that has no adverse effect on health. The USEPA 

animal testing guidelines specify the minimum number of animals for statistical 

significance. 

Comment: The term “safety factor” suggests, perhaps inadvertently, the notion of 

absolute safety (i.e., absence of risk). While there is a conceptual basis for believing in 

the existence of a threshold and “absolute safety” associated with certain chemicals, in 

the majority of cases a firm experimental basis for this notion does not exist. 

Response: A safety factor does not represent absolute safety. It is a mechanism to 

extrapolate from one species to another by dividing a toxicity dose by a factor such as 

10 or 100 or another quantity to provide conservatism for assessing risks to non-target 

species. Use of safety factors or uncertainty factors is an empirical principal that has 

been used by toxicologists world-wide for many years, based on extensively studied 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-382 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0211-013 

Ghandi, Theresa Marie 

K. 

RMC-0211-017 

Ghandi, Theresa Marie 

K. 

RMC-0211-018 

Ghandi, Theresa Marie 

K. 

chemicals and extrapolations from (1) individual to individual, (2) species to species, 

and (3) acute to chronic effects. 

Comment: I’ll start with the science BLM used in the draft PEIS. So called “scientific 

studies” produced by USEPA and included in the PEIS are not “verifiable science”. 

Science relies on observation and classification being verifiable by other scientists. If 

you do not publish something in a sufficiently complete way that an independent 

scientist can replicate results and is peer reviewed, it is not acceptable science by any 

reputable scientist. No one can replicate an experiment or testing involving secret 

substances. The United States pesticide (includes herbicides) regulatory system, i.e. 

USEPA and BLM’s PEIS fail to meet basic criteria of the scientific method: ability to 

be verified and reproduced with 0.95 of original study by other scientists and this 

submitted for peer reviewed scientific study. 

Response: Most (not all) of the toxicological studies were performed under USEPA 

oversight for registration. Extensive directives specify USEPA requirements and 

quality assurance/quality control. When the USEPA receives data, they are carefully 

reviewed and commented on by USEPA scientists. Studies are sometimes rejected and 

must be redone. Testing results are public information. The BLM also reviewed the 

scientific literature for toxicity information. See responses to Comment RMC-0069-

008 under PEIS Alternatives, Herbicide Active Ingredients Evaluated under the 

Proposed Alternatives and Comment EMC-0640-036 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Wildlife Resources. 

Comment: The PEIS can not be trusted to protect the public, wildlife, aquatic life, 

birds, cattle and other range animals and the vegetation these species feed upon 

because peer review scientific tests were not done on the Endocrine Disruption aspects 

of herbicides used by BLM. This omission eliminates the possibility that results of the 

so called “scientific studies” included in the BLM PEIS are reliable and can be trusted 

to protect the public. 

Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0200-008 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, How the Effects of the Alternatives Were Estimated, Comment EMC0267-005 under PEIS Alternatives, Herbicide Active Ingredients Evaluated under the 

Proposed Alternatives regarding endocrine disruption aspects, and Comment EMC0640-036 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, Wildlife Resources regarding the 

quality of the studies used to evaluate risks from the use of herbicides. 

Comment: Although short term tests for cancers were included I did not find any test 

results for endocrine disruption on the proposed chemicals in the PEIS. The chemical 

family tree of organophosphates, chlorinated hydrocarbons, organochlorines, furans, 

dioxins and PCBs [polychlorinated biphenyls] are proven endocrine disruptors. That 

means that the chemicals disrupt the body’s hormonal system, be that human, bird, 

aquatic, livestock or wild life, i.e. wild horses (the last of them) or collaterally 

damaged vegetation. Omitting and or ignoring the peer reviewed scientific studies of 

the endocrine disruption aspects of herbicides proposed to be used by BLM threatens 

the extinction of all life species down stream and proposed areas of application by 

interfering with hormones necessary to reproduction. 

Response: None of the chemical classes listed above include herbicides that are used 

or proposed for use by the BLM. The BLM conducted additional analysis on 

herbicides used or proposed for use by the BLM for their potential to be endocrine 

disruptors for the Final PEIS; this information is provided in Appendix D of the Final 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-383 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0214-047 

Natural Resources 

Defense Council and 

National Wildlife 

Federation 

RMC-0216-009 

Neff, Jack 

RMC-0216-020 

Neff, Jack 

RMC-0216-023 

Neff, Jack 

EIS. Also see response to Comment RMC 200-008 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, How the Effects of the Alternatives Were Estimated. 

Comment: The BLM has failed to consider the epidemiological data on adverse 

reproductive outcomes and the data on steroid hormone disruption in the Preferred 

Alternative and the other alternatives incorporating use of 2,4-D in the D[raft] PEIS. 

Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0218-027 and Comment RMC-0222-104 

under PEIS Environmental Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis, and Comment 

EMC-0324-011 under Environmental Consequences, Human Health and Safety. 

Comment: BLM submits no contingency for the foreseeable consequences resulting 

from a combination of the nine active ingredients (2,4-D, chlorsulfuron, clopyralid, 

glyphosate, hexazinone, imazapyr, metsulfuron methyl, picloram, and triclopyr) likely 

released in the toxic spill on BLM land. 

Response: Prior to the application of an herbicide on BLM-administered lands, the 

agency prepares a Pesticide Use Proposal which is tied into the Environmental 

Assessment. Proposals are specific for a site or a particular weed species. An 

understanding of how each herbicide is to be used is needed to prepare the plan. The 

nine herbicides identified in the comment would not all be in the same spray tank, 

since some of them are selective for the management of broadleaf species, while others 

offer no selectivity. Some are applied and require incorporation into the soil for their 

herbicidal activity to be expressed. Given the different properties associated with each 

herbicide identified, all of them would not be used in a single application. Also see 

response to Comment RMC-0122-002 under Appendix C. 

Comment: BLM’s language to describe the environmental consequences of the draft 

[P]EI[S]R probably comes directly from the warning labels, instruction labels and 

disclaimer language provided by the manufacturers of these harmful, toxic products. 

Response: The information used to describe the environmental consequences that is 

contained in Chapter 4 and Appendixes B and C of the PEIS was taken or based on 

information provided in the risk assessments conducted by the BLM and Forest 

Service, the scientific literature, discussions with agencies and field personnel, and 

other credible sources of information about the risks associated with the herbicides. 

Warning labels and instruction labels were used to help develop the Standard 

Operating Procedures. Also see response to Comment EMC-0640-036 under PEIS 

Environmental Consequences, Wildlife Resources. 

Comment: BLM never acknowledges its responsibility under the law to insure these 

hazardous chemicals are used safely because BLM cannot insure these hazardous 

chemical are used safely. BLM wants to bring in thousands of workers into 

environmentally-sensitive habitats and abdicate control over substances which 

constitute a threat to national security. 

Response: The BLM believes that the new herbicides are safe to use under the typical 

application scenarios, with the mitigation measures and other site-specific and safety 

precautions associated with the label. Also see responses to Comment RMC-0208-040 

under PEIS Alternatives, Herbicide Active Ingredients Evaluated under the Proposed 

Alternatives, and Comment EMC-0267-002 under PEIS Proposed Action and Purpose 

and Need, Federal Laws, Regulations, and Policies that Influence Vegetation 

Treatments. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-384 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0218-021 

Blue Mountains 

Biodiversity Project, 

League of Wilderness 

Defenders 

RMC-0218-027 

Blue Mountains 

Biodiversity Project, 

League of Wilderness 

Defenders 

RMC-0220(i)-003 

Save Our ecoSystems, 

Inc. 

RMC-0220(k)-001 

Save Our ecoSystems, 

Inc. 

Comment: Generally the synergistic effects of combined active ingredients in 

formulas, chronic toxicity effects, effects on amphibians, insects and vital soil 

functions have not been well studied for most of these herbicides and studies have 

been on lab animals, not wildlife in wild conditions. 

Response: Concerning synergistic effects, see responses to Comment RMC-0159-008 

under PEIS Alternatives, Herbicide Active Ingredients Evaluated under the Proposed 

Alternatives, and Comment RMC-0122-002 under Appendix C. Also see Degradates, 

Inert Ingredients, Adjuvants, and Tank Mixtures in the Uncertainty Analysis Section of 

Appendix C of the PEIS. 

Comment: New or more recent scientific findings as to the toxicity and other imparts 

of 2,4-D, glyphosate and other herbicide active ingredients, formulas, inerts, 

metabolites and impurities should have been disclosed and analyzed in the DEIS 

[Draft PEIS] (examples given in the NCAP [Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to 

Pesticides] comments). 

Response: See responses to Comment EMC-0646-016 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis and Comment FXC-0071-009 and 

Comment RMC-0221-070 under PEIS Alternatives, Herbicide Active Ingredients 

Evaluated under the Proposed Alternatives for information on the timing of 

development of the risk assessment for the PEIS. Also note that the BLM has included 

updated information on degradates and the potential for herbicides to act as endocrine 

disruptors in Appendix D of the Final PEIS. 

Comment: The attached list includes hundreds of chemicals, but it can never be 

complete so long as manufacturers continually introduce new ones and send them to 

market. Testing of new ones, if it is done, is done by the manufacturers themselves. 

This list, however is published by the EPA which they say “performs an independent 

review of studies conducted in mice and rats to evaluate the carcinogenic potential of 

pesticides.” Two chemicals you propose to spray on our public lands are on this list: 

Bromacil is “a possible human carcinogen.” (page 8). Diuron is a “known/likely” 

carcinogen. (page 12). 

Response: Neither bromacil nor diuron is currently listed as a known or likely human 

or animal carcinogen by the USEPA, the federal government’s regulator of pesticides 

and authority on environmental carcinogens. Inconclusive evidence prompted the 

USEPA to list diuron as category C, possible human carcinogen, in 1996 and require 

that it be assessed using the reference dose for noncarcinogenicity. 

Comment: “humans are more sensitive than the most sensitive experimental animals 

tested to date...” See pg IV-17, attached: Chemical Hazards to Human Reproduction 

Council on Environmental Quality to the White House. 

Response: Standard risk assessment guidance treats humans as more sensitive than 

laboratory animals and utilizes uncertainty factors to extrapolate from laboratory 

animals to humans (for example, the no observed adverse effect level from animals 

may be divided by uncertainty factors from 10 to 1,000, based on interspecies 

extrapolation and other factors). The BLM and Forest Service used uncertainty factors 

to account for the risks to humans during the development of the risk assessments for 

the PEIS. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-385 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0221-061 

Center for Biological 

Diversity 

RMC-0221-064 

Center for Biological 

Diversity 

Comment: The BLM fails to adequately analyze the impacts even of the 10 herbicides 

that it chose to examine: bromacil, chlorsulfuron, diflufenzopyr (with dicamba), 

diquat, diuron, fluridone, imazapic, sulfometuron methyl, and tebuthiuron. The 

Ecological Risk Assessment portion of the Biological Assessment fails to fully and 

adequately consider cumulative acute and chronic and synergistic ecological effects of 

these herbicides on biota, and present its results in a clear, concise, accessible format 

as required by NEPA. 40 C.F.R [Code of Federal Regulations] § 1502.1. 

Response: The BLM conducted detailed, state-of-the-science human health and 

ecological risk assessments, which are provided on the CD that accompanies the PEIS. 

These risk assessments were developed in cooperation with the USEPA, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and National Marine Fisheries Service. Subsequently, two 

appendixes (Human Health Risk Assessment and Ecological Risk Assessment) were 

prepared for the PEIS to summarize the findings of the risk assessments in a clear and 

concise format, and the information was incorporated into the effects analysis of 

Chapter 4 of the PEIS. The Biological Assessment incorporates much of this material 

in the text by reference and provides conservation measures to protect species of 

concern. The risk assessments and appendixes evaluated acute, chronic, and 

synergistic effects, and cumulative effects were evaluated in both the PEIS and 

Biological Assessment. 

Comment: The methodology used for this Ecological Risk Assessment (“ERA”) was 

to develop a “Toxicity Reference Value” using both U.S. EPA toxicity studies and 

current literature. Typically, surrogate species had to be used for analyses of effects on 

rare, threatened, or endangered (“RTE”) species due to lack of available studies. The 

ERA addressed RTE animal species using the same toxicity endpoint for other nonRTE species, but the acute Level of Concern was lowered. While this approach may 

make sense for assessing the potential impacts on individual animals in some 

instances, it does not adequately and fully express the risks of the proposed action to 

populations of at-risk species or provide meaningful information regarding direct, 

indirect or cumulative impacts on those populations and their habitats. The ERA fails 

to include any information on overall populations of special-status species in the 

project area; the status of specific populations in different locations and habitat types 

within the project area; how many of these specific populations would be exposed to 

herbicide treatment; and how often these populations would be exposed. 

Response: Appendix C of the PEIS and the supporting ERAs thoroughly address RTE 

species to the extent possible, given that it is against the law to experiment or perform 

toxicology studies on RTE species. Effects on RTE species are evaluated at the level 

of the individual organism; it is especially important to protect every individual of an 

RTE species. The ERAs also looked at secondary impacts of herbicide application on 

the habitats of several RTE species. The ERAs provide a listing of RTE species in 

Appendix C of the ERA. Information on the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts 

on populations of RTE species in the project area; the status of specific populations in 

different locations and habitat types within the project area; and populations that could 

be exposed to herbicide treatment are provided in the Biological Assessment that 

accompanies the PEIS. The Biological Assessment, along with the PEIS and PER, 

would be used by the BLM and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine 

Fisheries Service during consultations to ensure that RTE species are protected from 

herbicide treatments. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-386 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0221-067 

Center for Biological 

Diversity 

RMC-0221-069 

Center for Biological 

Diversity 

RMC-0221-071 

Center for Biological 

Diversity 

RMC-0222-097 

Salvo, Mark 

(Sagebrush Sea 

Campaign), Cox, 

Caroline (Northwest 

Coalition for 

Alternatives to 

Pesticides), and 

O’Brien, Mary 

RMC-0222-104 

Salvo, Mark 

(Sagebrush Sea 

Campaign), Cox, 

Caroline (Northwest 

Coalition for 

Comment: We could find no disclosure of the literature used to formulate the Toxicity 

Reference Values in the ERA [ecological risk assessment]. This information is 

important for the public to be able to determine whether any key studies were omitted. 

Response: All literature sources are described in Appendix C of the PEIS under Effect 

Characterization, Literature Review, and are also included with the effects 

characterization in Appendix C under Non-target Species Effects Characterization. 

References used to develop the ERAs are also included in the individual ERAs and 

their appendixes. 

Comment: Chemicals also can have complex effects on wildlife: even sublethal doses 

can result in adverse impacts on immune function and reproductive rates, and can 

increase stress on individuals. The ERA [ecological risk assessment] provided no such 

detailed information on these sublethal but potentially significant impacts on 

populations of wildlife, which is particularly troubling in the case of rare, threatened, 

and endangered species. 

Response: The BLM did consider non-lethal effects in the risk assessments; see those 

sections of the ERAs related to chronic effects. Also see response to Comment RMC0069-008 under PEIS Alternatives, Herbicide Active Ingredients Evaluated under the 

Proposed Alternatives. 

Comment: Widespread aerial herbicide application by the BLM with little 

understanding of the extremely serious potential direct, indirect, cumulative, and 

additive/synergistic effects it may cause would be irresponsible and violate both NEPA 

and the ESA [Endangered Species Act]. 

Response: The human health risk assessments and ecological risk assessments 

considered various potential receptors and exposure pathways for each herbicide, 

including risks associated with aerial spraying. It is difficult to quantitatively evaluate 

synergistic effects of herbicides, since the toxicology studies are done on individual 

herbicides. Also see response to Comment RMC-0159-008 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Herbicide Active Ingredients Evaluated under the Proposed Alternatives, in Appendix 

C of the Final PEIS under Degradates, Inert Ingredients, Adjuvants, and Tank 

Mixtures in the Uncertainty Analysis section, and in Appendix D of the Final PEIS. 

Comment: The evaluations of herbicide risks in the DEIS [Draft PEIS] fall short of 

NEPA’s mandate to include accurate scientific analyses of the following topics: 

nonlethal effects on fish; nonlethal effects on amphibians; nonlethal effects on plants; 

effects on birds of herbicide damage to habitat; hazards of inert ingredients; 

occupational hazards; and synergistic hazards. 

Response: The comment is incorrect; sublethal effects were evaluated and used for 

these receptors. None of the effects are based on mortality; instead, BLM ecological 

risk assessments are based no-observed-adverse-effect levels, which are even more 

conservative than sublethal effects. 

Comment: Hazards of inert (unidentified) ingredients in herbicides: The DEIS [Draft 

PEIS] ([page] C-84 [of Appendix C of the PEIS]) states that “minimal impacts to the 

environment would result from these inert ingredients.” However, the DEIS [Draft 

PEIS] ignores recent research showing that the combination of inert ingredients with 

the herbicidal ingredients in a commercial herbicide product can pose hazards not 

identified when ingredients are tested singly. For example, scientists from the 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-387 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Alternatives to University of Caen showed that the combination of inerts and herbicidal ingredients in 

Pesticides), and Roundup is toxic to human placental cells and disrupts the synthesis of sex hormones. 

O’Brien, Mary This research was published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives. 

(Richard et al 2005) In another example, researchers from the University of Minnesota 

showed that the combination of inert ingredients and herbicidal ingredients in two 

commercial 2,4-D products acts like estrogen in breast cancer cells. This research was 

published in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health. (Lin and Garry 

2000). 

Response: The BLM is aware of these reports. The BLM has provided new 

information in the Final PEIS in Appendix D on the potential for herbicides to affect 

the endocrine system. 

RMC-0222-107 Comment: Synergistic effects: the cumulative effects analysis in the DEIS [Draft 

Salvo, Mark PEIS] does not consider effects of exposure to multiple herbicides. For example, it was 

(Sagebrush Sea shown over 20 years ago that picloram and 2,4-D are synergistically toxic to trout. 

Campaign), Cox, This research was conducted by Daniel Woodward at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Caroline (Northwest Service and published in the Journal of Range Management. (Woodward 1982) In 

Coalition for addition, imazapic herbicides and commonly used organophosphate insecticides are 

Alternatives to synergistically toxic to non-target plants, according to imazapic’s manufacturer. 

Pesticides), and (BASF Corporation 2004). 

O’Brien, Mary 

Response: Herbicide manufacturers have combined active ingredients where they 

have been shown to be effective either in products or tank mixes. The BLM evaluated 

mixed products and tank mixes. The BLM rarely uses insecticides and would not 

simultaneously apply insecticides and herbicides. There is no record of the BLM ever 

having prepared a tank mix of an organophosphate insecticide with an herbicide. As a 

proposed mitigation measure, the BLM will either avoid using any formulations of 

glyphosate with POEA, which may be the toxic component in glyphosate, or seek to 

use the formulation with the lowest amount of POEA available. Also see responses to 

Comments RMC-0221-070 and RMC-0159-008 under PEIS Alternatives, Herbicide 

Active Ingredients Evaluated under the Proposed Alternatives. 

Environmental Consequences, Non-herbicide Effects Analysis 

EMC-0566-004 Comment: It is important to note the exclusion of risks associated with non-chemical 

Western Society of alternatives mentioned in this alternative. There is no mention of the risk to workers 

Weed Science using mechanical, fire or other methods to control invasive plants particularly in 

Alternative C: No Use of Herbicides. This ignores the dangers to workers using these 

methods such as the inhalation of vehicle exhaust or smoke from prescribed fires, risks 

associated with fire escape, physical injuries from over-exertion or injuries as a 

resulting from operation of heavy equipment. In Alternative D: No Aerial 

Applications, it should be noted that aerial applications of herbicides are often the 

method of control that offers the least disturbance to an area. Mechanical methods, as 

is mentioned in the PEIS, will often disturb the ground cover which opens the area to 

new weed infestations, and actually facilitates the spread of invasive plants into new 

habitats. Also in this alternative it is mentioned that the most sensitive factor for aerial 

applications is the potential for spray drift. This assumes that the application will be 

made with a liquid spray solution; however, there are granular formulations of many 

herbicides which greatly reduce or eliminate drift onto non-target areas. 

Response: There is some discussion of the risks of non-chemical treatments in the 

PEIS, primarily under Alternative C for each of the resource areas covered in Chapter 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-388 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0057-010 

California Wilderness 

Coalition 

RMC-0217-033 

Sierra Club Utah 

Chapter 

RMC-0222-045 

Salvo, Mark 

(Sagebrush Sea 

Campaign), Cox, 

Caroline (Northwest 

Coalition for 

Alternatives to 

Pesticides), and 

O’Brien, Mary 

4. However, most of this information was provided in the PER, since the PER covered 

all treatment methods. 

Comment: The DPElS [Draft PER] states “There would be some short-term scenic 

degradation, as well as distractions to users (e.g., noise from machinery), from 

treatments” ([page] 4-117). However the DPEIS [Draft PER] does not acknowledge 

the potential for mechanical treatments, and the use of heavy machinery required for 

such treatments, to create future routes for unauthorized off road vehicle use. Such use 

will encourage the spread of noxious weeds and undermine the intent of the treatments. 

Furthermore, unauthorized off road vehicle use in areas managed for non-motorized 

recreation will degrade habitat and wilderness values on BLM lands. These impacts 

are not analyzed in the DPElS [Draft PER]. 

Response: Based on the page number and quotation provided in this comment, it is 

assumed that the comment refers to the Draft PER rather than the Draft PEIS. The text 

of the Final PER has been modified in response to this concern. See the discussion on 

Effects of Mechanical Treatments, under the Recreation subheading, in Chapter 4 of 

the PER. 

Comment: The draft PEIS needs to be fleshed out with a lot more information about 

all of the aspects of altered fire regimes, the causes of exotic plant invasions, and 

realistic and effective methods of changing the current trends of increasing exotics 

(both in numbers and in areas affected). 

Response: The PEIS assesses the impacts of proposed herbicides on human health, 

ecological risk, vegetation and other public lands resources. Information on altered fire 

regimes, causes of exotic plant invasions, and effective treatment methods is provided 

in the PER. 

Comment: Regardless, the DEIS [Draft PEIS] never analyzes the consequences of 

using “a combination of methods to combat undesirable species,” let alone the 

consequences of herbicide use with and without native seedings in a range of settings. 

Response: The BLM operates under an integrated pest management (IPM) framework 

in regard to vegetation treatments. Under IPM, methods and combinations of methods 

are utilized to achieve the greatest effectiveness to meet vegetation management 

objectives identified in local land use and activity plans. The analysis of impacts in 

Chapter 4 of the PEIS assumes that IPM methods and combinations of methods are 

used to reduce impacts to the natural and social environment. We have included text in 

Chapter 4 of the Final PEIS under How the Effects of the Alternatives were Estimated 

to note that use of IPM methods and combinations of methods were considered in the 

analysis. 

Environmental Consequences, Air Quality 

EMC-0001-002 Comment: Spray drifts can drift thousands of miles. Spraying out west come east. 

Sachau, B. 

Response: See the discussion on spray drift in Chapter 4 of the PEIS under Air 

Quality. The ecological risk assessments evaluated spray drift when determining risks 

from herbicide use. The reader should consult the individual risks assessments found 

on the CD that accompanies the PEIS for more information. An analysis of sitespecific factors that could influence treatment success and impacts would be conducted 

for each project at the local level. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-389 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0013-002 Comment: It is especially dangerous to apply anything like [an herbicide] by air so 

Keppelman, Tony that it pollutes the air all the animals, including us, breath. It is a known fact that such 

airborne chemicals can travel hundreds of miles to be breathed by hundreds of 

thousands of people. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0001-002 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Air Quality. 

EMC-0050-002 Comment: An integral part of this proposal involves aerial spraying of toxic 

EMC-0051-002 pesticides, which increases negative impacts on non-targeted vegetation, wildlife, and 

EMC-0055- 002 people, including recreationalists, tourists, and native peoples (pesticide application 

EMC-0067-007 areas include Alaska, where native fishing and plant gathering is widespread). 

Rietsema, C.J. Although the proposal claims care would be taken in applying the pesticides in a 

Peckman, Kristin controlled manner, these chemicals are known to drift much further than anticipated 

Love, Joe and cause unexpected health and ecological impacts. The pesticides that would be used 

Womens Global Green include persistent and mobile chemicals, including known developmental and 

Action Network reproductive toxins. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0001-002 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Air Quality. 

EMC-0059-002 Comment: The aerial spraying of toxic pesticides is unacceptable, posing serious risks 

Cranley, Mary to non-targeted vegetation, wildlife, and people, including forest users such as tourists, 

and native peoples. In addition to acute or short-term health effects, many of these 

pesticides are also known to cause reproductive and developmental problems including 

birth defects; neurological problems; and cancer. Aerial application is particularly 

problematic, since only a small fraction of the pesticides actually land on the target 

pest; the rest drifting off-site causing “unanticipated” health and ecological impacts. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0001-002 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Air Quality. 

EMC-0061-002 Comment: The aerial application of pesticides poses certain risks because the 

Stuckman, Scott application is not targeted; rather, much of the pesticide can drift off-site, creating 

unanticipated health and ecological problems. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0001-002 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Air Quality. 

EMC-0078-002 Comment: You cannot think that nobody is affected by the spraying of hazardous 

Ore, Ed materials into our environment. Every time a hazardous material is sprayed it travels 

many miles through the air and onto non target areas. Someone will be affected 

somewhere. The elderly and children are most affected. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0001-002 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Air Quality. 

EMC-0101-007 Comment: Since we are downwind of pesticides sprayed in Nevada, I really object to 

Terry, Noalani spraying herbicides in huge amounts and think other measures are more appropriate. 

And in case you think, the herbicides can’t travel this far, be aware that we get smoke 

from fires in California, Arizona, Utah, and yes, Nevada, in our valley. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-390 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0140-004 

Small, Jack W. and 

Joyce C. 

EMC-0173-003 

Leavenworth Audubon 

Adopt-a-Forest (LEAF) 

EMC-0190-003 

Kanne, Claudia 

EMC-0267-003 

Medbery, Angela 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0001-002 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Air Quality. 

Comment: The hazards to the people that do the spraying, or who live in the area of 

spraying, are often shrugged off The effects are not immediately apparent (the guy 

doesn't immediately drop dead). What needs a lot more attention is many ways these 

agents can be spread. Spraying from the air, or on windy days, easily gets spread 

beyond the specific area being treated. Chemicals getting into the water table adds up 

over time, and in some cases goes down hill a long way, often turning up in places 

where people rarely think to look or test for it. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0001-002 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Air Quality. 

Comment: The Diffuse Knapweed recovers the soils in a number of ways. First, it 

extracts nitrogen so that native plants, that cannot tolerate much nitrogen, can thrive. 

Removing the handpulled knapweed skeletons from the site then removes the nitrogen, 

leading to reduced nitrogen in the soils, and a great boost in native plant growth. 

Second, the handpulling of the knapweed initiates a rush of microbial activity when the 

root is pulled out, stimulating recovery of soils and boosting native plant recovery. 

Third, knapweed helps to develop biological soil crust, as it shades the crust in the hot 

summer, helping it to develop, much as blue bunch wheatgrass does in their symbiotic 

relationship. 

Response: Diffuse knapweed provides some benefits to the environment. However, it 

also displaces native vegetation and the species that depend upon native vegetation and 

may lead to soil erosion. Studies in Montana have shown that sedimentation and 

erosion rates were 50% to 200% greater on sampling plots dominated by spotted 

knapweed than on plots dominated by native bunchgrasses (Lacey et al. 1989). 

Comment: Aerial spraying of toxic pesticides could kill me. The BLM has no control 

of where the toxic chemicals will be carried in the wind. There is no place for me to 

escape the toxic chemicals you may use. 

Response: Although the BLM cannot control where herbicides will be carried, the 

agency can take steps to reduce the potential for herbicide drift. These steps include 

applying herbicides during periods with little wind, or using drift reduction agents. 

These Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) are discussed in Chapter 4 of the PEIS 

under SOPs. In addition, the BLM modeled the effects of herbicide drift when 

analyzing the risks of using herbicides. Based on this analysis, the BLM developed 

buffer guidelines to avoid or reduce risks to non-target vegetation and fish and wildlife 

that may be found on lands adjacent to public lands. Also see response to Comment 

RMC-0200-012 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, Air Quality. 

Comment: Recognition should be given that wind gusts, variable vegetative covers 

and heights, and changing weather and climate patterns may impact drift and chemical 

effectiveness in unpredictable manners. 

Response: These variables were evaluated when conducting the ecological and human 

health risk assessments to assess the risks from the use of herbicides. Please review the 

risk assessments (available on the CD that accompanies the PEIS) and Appendixes B 

and C of the PEIS. In addition, herbicide drift is evaluated in Chapter 4 of the PEIS 

under Air Quality. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-391 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0316-001 

Hardebeck, Larry J. 

EMC-0324-002 

Rachel Carson Council 

EMC-0324-005 

Rachel Carson Council 

EMC-0336-003 

Tipps, Betsy L. 

EMC-0446-023 

The Nature 

Conservancy 

Comment: I am writing to oppose the BLM’s plan to significantly increase herbicide 

use in 17 western states. I am especially concerned about the aerial applications you 

have planned, which will cause the chemicals to be spread far and wide. Just look at 

what happened on the BLM test plots in Idaho where they used OUST, a supposedly 

safe chemical manufactured by Du Pont. 

Response: Alternative D, as explained in Chapter 2 of the PEIS and evaluated in 

Chapter 4, looked the risks and benefits of only conducting herbicide spray treatments 

using ground-based methods. The BLM conducted modeling to determine the 

likelihood of herbicides drifting and impacting humans, non-target vegetation, and 

other resources. Based on this assessment, the BLM developed Standard Operating 

Procedures and mitigation measures to reduce the likelihood of drift impacts to 

humans and the environment. 

Comment: We question whether there has been sufficient consideration of the drift 

laws, that apply to commercial pesticide applicators, existing in the individual states. 

For example, under these local regulations 2,4-D is not allowed to be applied in areas 

where certain crops (Tomatoes, grapes, and others) are being grown. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0200-012 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Air Quality. 

Comment: Pesticide drift, the unintentional airborne movement of pesticides beyond 

the target area where pesticides are applied, can occur through the unpredictable 

weather and wind patterns, human error and/or equipment failure. It is most common 

with aerial pesticide spraying. Regulations pertaining to pesticide drift are 

administered by states and have varying degrees of severity and scope. Some prohibit 

applications of 2,4-D to commercial areas due to the sensitivity of certain crops such as 

tomatoes, and grapes. (Feitshans, Theodore A. “An Analysis of State Pesticide Drift 

Laws,” San Joaquin Agricultural Law Review, No. 1, 1999). We question whether 

sufficient consideration has been given to this issue. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0200-012 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Air Quality. 

Comment: By proposing to apply much of the herbicides using aerial means, the plan 

virtually guarantees maximum dispersal of these toxic agents, into areas and places 

there the chemicals are not wanted such as our homes, our schools, our parks, our 

farms and ranches, and places where my family and I like to hike and camp on remote 

BLM lands. 

Response: Approximately 400,000 acres would be treated aerially using herbicides. 

The BLM will post herbicide treatment areas, as discussed in Chapter 2 of the PEIS 

under Coordination and Education. The BLM also modeled spray drift to determine 

what the risks were to non-target vegetation and humans and animals from spray drift, 

and to develop appropriate Standard Operating Procedures and mitigation to eliminate 

or reduce these risks. 

Comment: Some ALS [acetolactate synthase]-inhibiting herbicides have higher 

potential for off-site movement than other effective herbicides. The PEIS should 

provide guidance on how to weigh the benefits of increased effectiveness against the 

increased risk of off-site movement that certain ALS[-inhibiting] herbicides could 

pose. We believe that use of ALS-inhibiting chemicals should be allowed, but only in 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-392 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0505-026 

U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency 

EMC-0505-028 

U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency 

justifiable circumstances and within the context of an adaptive management plan. 

Response: The risks and benefits of not using ALS-inhibiting herbicides were 

evaluated under Alternative E – No Use of Sulfonylurea and other Acetolactate 

Synthase-inhibiting Active Ingredients. Use of these herbicides was evaluated under 

Alternative B – Expand Herbicide Use and Allow for Use of New Herbicides in 17 

Western States (Preferred Alternative). The risks associated with off-site movement of 

these chemicals are discussed under Alternative E in the Vegetation section of Chapter 

4 of the PEIS. As noted in that section, these herbicides carry risks because they are 

very potent, but their use in small amounts helps to mitigate risks. To reduce the risks 

associated with off-site drift of herbicides, the BLM would comply with buffer 

guidelines presented in Tables 4-12 and 4-14 in Chapter 4 under Vegetation. 

Comment: In a report of this nature, it is typical to address the individual and total 

uncertainties in the analysis. There are many uncertainties in the emission rates, the 

meteorology, model formulation and choice of background values and these should be 

addressed and evaluated. 

Response: Both the PEIS and PER indicated that, “The number of acres [to be] treated 

in each state is an approximation, based on field data compiled for this analysis.” The 

USEPA’s Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors, AP-42, Fifth Edition details 

the uncertainty of each emission factor used to develop the annual air pollutant 

emissions by state and alternative. ENSR (2005a) described the methodology 

(including uncertainties) used to estimate direct particulate matter impacts for typical, 

but hypothetical (example) emission scenarios. As directed by Council on 

Environmental Quality regulations, where uncertainties exists, and obtaining “certain” 

information is not readily possible, the BLM uses reasonable but conservative 

assumptions so that actual impacts would be less than those predicted to occur. 

Comment: The Agency recommends using area specific background information 

instead of the default background concentrations. Historically, most PM10 modeling 

analyses have been done with dispersion and/or receptor models. Since these models 

don’t account for all sources, a background concentration needs to be used to account 

for other sources. The “PM10 SIP [particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter 

State Implementation Plan] Development Guideline” (June 1987) recommends using 

nearby monitoring data to develop reasonable background values. The BLM report 

referred to documents from Arizona and Montana which contained default background 

concentrations. Our recommendation would be to not use default values and to develop 

values that were relevant to the specific area being modeled. By using default values, it 

appears that the values may be overly conservative. BLM used values of 30 ug/m3 and 

8 ug/m3 as 24-hour and annual average background values for both PM10 and PM2.5 

[particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter]. These values for PMl0 may be 

overly conservative for many areas in the West. The values for PM2.5 are almost 

certainly higher than background concentrations in most areas of the West. There are 

annual average PM2.5 concentrations in some urban locations in the West that are as 

low as 4 ug/m3; rural areas would be even lower. 

Response: When developing concentration estimates of particulate matter for typical, 

but hypothetical (example) emission scenarios, the Annual Emissions Inventory for 

BLM Vegetation Treatment Methods – Final Report (ENSR 2005a) clearly states, “To 

compare modeled particulate concentrations due to each treatment method to the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard, a regional background concentration is 

needed to represent ambient particulate concentrations due to background sources in 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-393 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0544-003 

Public Lands 

Advocacy 

EMC-0585-176 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0590-017 

Western Slope 

Environmental 

Resource Council 

the vicinity of the treatment area.” In addition, “This analysis assumed that vegetation 

treatment takes place in rural areas, therefore concentrations measure[d] at most 

monitors would yield an overly conservative estimate of ambient particulate 

concentrations in the vicinity of the treatment areas.” Therefore, the analysis assumed 

rural background particulate matter concentrations based on documented guidance 

(New Mexico Air Quality Bureau 1998, and Montana Department of Environmental 

Quality 2002; see ENSR 2205a for full citations). However, given the lack of specific 

proposed activities (location, timing, amount, conditions, etc.), it is not possible to 

further quantify background conditions. 

Comment: [The following concern should be addressed:] Air quality impacts from 

vegetation treatments and their affect on oil and gas operations. 

Response: Potential air quality impacts from future herbicide use are described in the 

Final PEIS in Chapter 4 under Air Quality, and air quality impacts from other future 

vegetation treatment methods are described in the Final PER in Chapter 4 under Air 

Quality. Potential air quality impacts described in these documents would not have any 

unique implications for oil and gas operations. 

Comment: BLM ignores analysis of the variation between states in legal limits on 

wind speeds where aerial application is allowed. How does Idaho differ from 

California? BLM must establish a conservative wind speed that maximizes public 

safety and the health of the land, air and water, not rely on whatever is allowed in any 

particular state. BLM can not assess risk without evaluating application and drift under 

various wind speeds. 

Response: Management practices that the BLM would follow to minimize the 

potential adverse effects of herbicides on air quality, and to minimize herbicide drift, 

are presented under Standard Operating Procedures in the Air Quality section of 

Chapter 4 of the PEIS. These practices were established to protect human and 

environmental health on public lands, and may be more or less conservative than state 

requirements. However, the BLM would also comply with state requirements 

pertaining to herbicide applications if they are more restrictive than BLM 

requirements. 

Comment: Under the vegetation management programs proposed by the BLM, the 

area of public lands that will be treated with herbicides in the 17 Western States could 

cover over 932,000 acres. Proposed methods of herbicide application across the BLM 

land programs include aerial-, ground-, or boat-based applications. Proposed 

application vehicles include airplane, helicopter, all-terrain vehicle, boat, horse or 

humans. Application methods include aerial deposition, boom/broadcast, and spot 

applications. While all of these components of application are of concern to WSERC 

[Western Slope Environmental Resources Council], we are especially concerned with 

the potentials for spray drift from aerial and boom/broadcast applications, with the 

volatilization of pesticides in the days following applications, with the potential 

transport of chemicals on particulate matter, and with exposure of workers and citizens 

to the chemicals during and following applications. 

Response: As expected, the risk assessments showed higher risks associated with 

aerial and boom applications than other types of herbicide applications. Generally, risk 

drops dramatically with distance, and there are no residents on BLM-administered 

lands. Also see responses to Comment EMC-0336-003 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Air Quality, and Comment EMC-0185-002 under PEIS Environmental 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-394 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0597(a)-007 

Beeland, DeLene 

EMC-0630-012 

Porter, Mark C. 

(Wallowa Resources) 

RMC-0129-004 

Noble, E.A. 

RMC-0200-012 

Lindsay, Dianne 

RMC-0208-061 

California Oak 

Foundation 

Consequences, Human Health and Safety on spray drift. 

Comment: Finally, how can BLM propose aerial herbicide spraying in arid climates 

where pesticide “drift” is becoming well-documented as an air-polluter and as a root 

cause for asthma, endocrine-disruptor diseases and cancers? Even if BLM hits their 

intended targets, some of the herbicide will remain air borne and drift, or – it will settle 

and in dry months with little rain, it will become airborne once more and drift to 

nearby communities, or watersheds. 

Response: The BLM evaluated the risks associated with drift in Appendixes B 

(Human Health Risk Assessment) and C (Ecological Risk Assessment). Based on this 

analysis, the BLM proposed protective buffers to reduce or avoid risks to humans, 

non-target vegetation, and other resources from herbicide drift. Many of the herbicides 

proposed for use by the BLM have short half-lives and biodegrade relatively quickly, 

as discussed under Soil Resources and Water Resources and Quality in Chapter 4 of 

the PEIS. 

Comment: The [P]EIS shows very little cognition of the sophisticated understanding 

of drift in aerial applications that is available today. Though I cannot give you a 

reference for this type of material I know it exists as I have seen several presentations 

on the matter. From personal experience I can say that aerial applications can be 

extremely precise, very small scale, with new technologies and tight application 

standards impacts of drift can be very well mitigated. New GIS technologies also 

allow the precise mapping of targets prior to treatment and on board helicopters allow 

the same technologies accurately map spray swaths. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0200-012 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Air Quality. 

Comment: What investigation, if any in these days of cover-up of unwanted reality, 

has been made to establish any correlation between rapid spread of “unwanted” 

grasses and greenhouse warming? If all of this vegetation is killed. What will there be 

to keep dust down in case of continued drought? 

Response: We are not aware of studies that look at the spread of invasive vegetation 

and global warming. After invasive vegetation is removed, sites would be revegetated 

with native vegetation or other suitable vegetation to stabilize soils and minimize dust 

and erosion. 

Comment: The PEIS fails to adequately address drift problems with aerial spraying. 

Response: Both the PER and the PEIS in the Air Quality sections of Chapters 3 and 4 

address potential “drift” of herbicide from aerial spraying, including several 

management practices the BLM has developed to minimize potential adverse effects of 

herbicide use on air quality. The BLM also modeled drift to determine the effects to 

non-target vegetation and other resources from the drift of herbicides applied aerially 

or by boom sprayers. 

Comment: Here, the Draft PEIS calls for a survey of the “project site” for special 

status species before any treatment occurs. (Draft PEIS, at p. [page] 2-16.) This locallevel requirement, however, fails to account for herbicide drift, which, as the abovereferenced studies show, carries the active ingredients to ecosystems outside of the 

target site. Accordingly, the Draft PEIS is deficient in assessing the true impact to 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-395 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

special status species from the use of herbicides on BLM land. This requirement also 

fails to ecosystems outside of the target site. Accordingly, the Draft PEIS is deficient 

in assessing the true impact to special status species from the use of herbicides on 

BLM land. This requirement also fails to account for impacts on populations of species 

that cannot be identified except at larger “landscape” scales. 

Response: Both the PER and the PEIS in the Air Quality sections of Chapters 3 and 4 

address potential “drift” of herbicides during aerial spraying, as well as several 

management practices the BLM has developed to minimize the potential adverse 

effects of herbicide use on air quality. In addition, the BLM identified Standard 

Operating Procedures and Guidelines (see Chapter 2 under Herbicide Treatment 

Standard Operating Procedures) and mitigation measures (see Chapter 2 under 

Mitigation; also see mitigation sections for each resource area discussed in Chapter 4 

of the PEIS) in the PEIS, and for species of concern in the PEIS and Biological 

Assessment (BA; see Conservation Measures in BA) to reduce the potential for risks to 

species of concern from herbicide drift. At the project level, direct and indirect effects 

from the proposed action will be analyzed, and if it is determined that the project “May 

Affect” Endangered Species Act-listed species, Section 7 consultation with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service will be initiated. 

RMC-0204-008 Comment: The Bureau of Land Management may be unaware of how much 

Wroncy, Jan (Gaia pesticides drift, leach, vaporize, generally move about, and persist, but the BLM 

Vision/Canaries Who certainly can not deny that the smoke (and any additional chemicals in it) created by 

Sing) the intentionally set fires on BLM lands does in fact travel off the site to other 

properties not belonging to the BLM. The members of the public, individually, need to 

be asked whether they will give their informed consent to such expose and to the 

trespass onto their land. 

Response: Potential air quality impacts from future herbicide use are described in the 

Final PEIS in Chapter 4 under Air Quality, and impacts from other future vegetation 

treatment methods (including smoke from prescribed fires) are discussed in the Final 

PER in Chapter 4 under Air Quality. The BLM’s actions (including use authorizations) 

must comply with applicable local, state, tribal, and federal air quality laws, 

regulations, standards, and implementation plans. Therefore, potential air quality 

impacts are managed below scientifically based and legally enforced regulatory 

significance thresholds, and no interference with personal property rights are likely to 

occur. 

Environmental Consequences, Soil Resources 

EMC-0042-001 Comment: Herbicides are not selective. When you spray, plants we want are too often 

Altshool, Elsa killed. Why shouldn’t there be plants on government land. They are harmless, and help 

to hold soil; We need no more flying soil. 

Response: Some herbicides are selective, as shown in Table 2-3 of the PEIS. The 

BLM would use selective herbicides and establish buffers adjacent to treatment areas 

to reduce the risk of herbicides impacting non-target vegetation. Following removal of 

invasive vegetation, sites would be revegetated with native vegetation or other suitable 

vegetation to stabilize soils and minimize dust and erosion. 

EMC-0145-003 Comment: They [herbicides] also sterilize soils -- thus inviting more invasives in 

Wahl, Mark succeeding years thus creating an endless escalating cycle of pesticide dependence. 

This has been seen in numerous locations throughout the country and these sensitive 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-396 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0173-004 

Leavenworth Audubon 

Adopt-a-Forest (LEAF) 

EMC-0248-003 

Harrer, Roger 

EMC-0316-003 

RMC-0089-002 

Hardebeck, Larry J. 

wild systems are certainly no exception. 

Response: Herbicides do not sterilize the soil. When herbicides are applied, they may 

reduce the vigor of or kill non-target plant species that come in contact with the 

herbicide prior to its breakdown. Upon the breakdown of the active ingredients of the 

herbicide, which occurs at a rate that has been discussed in this PEIS for each 

herbicide proposed for use, plants that would have been susceptible to the herbicide are 

able to re-establish, naturally or artificially, and prosper on the site. The main 

consideration for reducing reinvasion is the establishment of adequate plant cover on 

the site after treatment to reduce opportunities for invasive plant establishment. This is 

a function of proper post-treatment management and not sterilization of the site by 

herbicides. Also see response to Comment EMC-0173-004 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Soil Resources. 

Comment: It is clear that the massive spraying of herbicides that you propose will 

degrade the soils and invite knapweed to come in and do its soil healing work. You 

will actually create knapweed fields. That is the opposite of what you are supposed to 

do. Your job is to prevent weeds by maintaining healthy soils. To maintain healthy 

soils you will need to stop your soil disturbing activities. Overgrazing weakens the 

ecosystem, weakens the soils, weakens the native plants. Overgrazing compacts the 

soils. Knapweed is not the only weed that is a response to soil degradation. If you want 

to stop weeds, quit inviting them in. Restore degraded soils, then you will not have 

weeds. Healthy soils lead to healthy plants and those healthy soils and plants keep out 

weeds. 

Response: The PEIS includes a description of how invasive species, including 

knapweed, damage soil quality and health. Accelerated wind and water erosion, 

production of chemicals that negatively affect soil quality, altered fire frequency and 

nutrient cycling, reduced water availability, altered soil physical characteristics, and 

reduced soil food web function can result from dominance of a site by invasive 

species. It is further explained that negative short-term impacts to the soil resource are 

minor and will be minimized by use of Standard Operating Procedures. The clearly 

stated net result of the proposed herbicide use would be the restoration of healthy soil 

and ecosystem function. 

Comment: And what about erosion of denuded areas? Isn’t that likely and doesn’t that 

even cause more problems? 

Response: Stabilization of soils is an important component of restoring vegetation 

after treatment or wildfire. It would never be the intent of a project to leave an area 

susceptible to erosion after treatment. BLM policies do not allow for that. Stabilization 

would be an important step in any project with erosion concerns. Revegetation 

Standard Operating Procedures are discussed under Revegetation in Chapter 2 of the 

PER. 

Comment: In addition to concerns I have about breathing these herbicides as they 

float by in the air, I believe there is good science to demonstrate how these chemicals 

will eventually end up contaminating our water and soils, and ultimately, our food 

supply. Once they are in our soil and water, how will they be removed? Chlordane, 

which was banned in 1988, continues to contaminate our food and water and make 

some of our foods and fish unsafe to eat. Why? It lingers in the soil for 14 years after 

application and we do not know how to remove it. How many of the herbicides that the 

BLM is planning to use will linger this long, or longer? 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-397 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0585-106 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

Response: As shown in Table 4-7 in Chapter 4 of the PEIS, all but two of the 

herbicides the BLM proposes to use have half-lives (the amount of time needed for 

half of the chemical to disappear) of a few weeks to months; diuron and tebuthiuron 

may persists for one or more years. The BLM would avoid using persistent herbicides 

in areas near croplands or drinking water supplies. 

Comment: As another example, under Cumulative Impacts ([page] ES-6 [of the Draft 

PEIS]) BLM claims that treatments that slow erosion would benefit water quality. 

Unfortunately, most of the treatments being proposed to be used (and where these 

herbicides would be applied), result in exposure of large areas of soil to wind and 

water erosion. Treatments remove both protective vegetation as well as kill or harm 

microbiotic crusts, on top of the poor or degraded conditions of lands that causes weed 

problems/need for “restoration” --- in the first place. Soil erosion in the short and midterm may create gullying and loss of remaining topsoil that will cause long-term 

problems. Unless causes of degradation are addressed and assessed, and taken into 

consideration before any treatments are conducted so that the appropriate type of 

treatment can be applied, outcomes of treatments can not be so rosily predicted. The 

[P]EIS consistently fails to provide effectiveness or other monitoring information, 

scientific data, references and analysis to support such claims. 

Response: The assumption that most of the treatments proposed result in exposure of 

large areas of soil to wind and water erosion is inaccurate. The PEIS does not propose 

any treatments. Treatments discussed in the PEIS and PER relative to the cumulative 

impacts of herbicide use range from vegetative control with herbicides to activities 

such as reseeding and site stabilization; mechanical treatment in the form of disking, 

chopping, or cutting; biological controls; and use of prescribed fire. Many of these 

techniques, including herbicide application, do not necessarily result in large areas of 

soil exposure. For example, herbicides may be applied after a catastrophic fire, where 

vegetation has been removed through burning, as a pre-emergent to reduce 

competition of cheatgrass in preparation for reseeding with soil stabilizing grasses and 

forbs. In cases where soil is exposed, reseeding or other stabilization measures are 

implemented to stabilize soils and control erosion. Initial treatments of vegetation 

should not be viewed as stand-alone activities that do not include site preparation and 

follow-up stabilization measures and monitoring. The commenter provides no 

information to lead the BLM to the conclusion that treatments designed to slow 

erosion would not benefit water quality. 

Impacts of herbicide application to microbiotic crusts would depend on the specific 

herbicide used, application rate, and number of repeat treatments. In a study using two 

glyphosate herbicides on moss-dominated microbiotic crusts, the herbicides had no 

short-term negative impact on the crusts (Youtie, B., J. Ponzetti, and D. Salzer. 1999. 

Fire and herbicides for exotic annual grass control: effects on native plants and 

microbiotic soil organisms. In D. Eldridge and D. Freudenberger, eds. Proceedings of 

the VI International Rangeland Congress, Aitkenvale, Queensland, Australia. Pages 

590-591). In fact, litter buildup on heavy annual grass dominated sites can significantly 

reduce microbiotic crust cover (Belnap, J., J. Hilty Kaltenecker, R. Rosentreter, J. 

Williams, S. Leonard, and D. Eldridge. 2001. Biological Soil Crusts: Ecology and 

Management. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Technical 

Reference 1730-2). Prescribed burning under proper conditions would result in low 

intensity fires that would not be harmful to microbiotic crusts and could actually be 

beneficial to the crusts by reducing the risk of hot wildfires that would damage the 

crusts. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-398 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0585-169 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-170 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0601-004 

Kampmeyer, Al 

Mechanical treatment can impact microbiotic crusts, depending on the degree of 

surface disturbance. Treatment design could help mitigate any impacts to sites with 

highly developed microbiotic crust communities. 

Comment: The rosy predicted Preferred Alternative outcomes of Table 2-8 [of the 

Draft PEIS] are based on little or no data. Here, BLM predicts “minor effects” to soil 

under the Preferred Alternative. Yet, [P]EIS/PER is based on large increases in 

defoliation including of non-target vegetation interspersed with herbicided areas −

especially acute with large-scale aerial applications, and great expansion of 

‘treatments’ on BLM lands. Nowhere is an adequate analysis of herbicide or treatment 

impacts to microbiotic crusts provided. 

Response: Vegetation treatments could result in the loss of vegetation over large 

areas. However, without treatments, areas with large amounts of hazardous fuels 

would be prone to large-scale wildfires, while large areas of invasive vegetation may 

make these areas unattractive to wildlife for habitat and humans for social and 

recreational values. Treatments would be designed to minimize the loss of non-target 

vegetation (in contrast to wildfires, which would destroy nearly all vegetation in their 

path), and sites would be revegetated to restore more desirable vegetation to the site. 

As noted in Chapter 4 of the PEIS under Soil Resources, Impacts by Treatment, there 

is limited information on herbicide effects on biological soil crusts. Caution would be 

used in applying herbicides to soils supporting biological soil crusts. 

Comment: BLM’s analysis ignores the poor condition of many soils and microbiotic 

crusts across BLM lands, especially the poor condition or arid lands most likely to be 

treated using herbicides or other treatment disturbances. 

Response: The analysis of the PEIS discusses the reduced soil function and health of 

sites dominated by invasive species, which are those that would be treated. Accelerated 

wind and water erosion, production of chemicals that negatively effect soil quality, 

altered fire frequency and nutrient cycling, altered physical characteristics, and 

reduced soil food web function can result from dominance of a site by invasive 

species, as explained in this document. The analysis cites a study by Youtie et al. 

((Youtie, B., J. Ponzetti, and D. Salzer. 1999. Fire and herbicides for exotic annual 

grass control: effects on native plants and microbiotic soil organisms. In D. Eldridge 

and D. Freudenberger, eds. Proceedings of the VI International Rangeland Congress, 

Aitkenvale, Queensland, Australia. Pages 590-591), which observes that biological soil 

crust was reduced where annual grass leaf litter accumulated. The analysis also 

describes the increased fire frequency on sites dominated by some invasive species, 

such as downy brome and hoary cress, and states that fire can result in severe damage 

to biological soil crusts. 

Comment: Issue two with spraying; after spraying and the weeds are gone (you know, 

only the vegetation goes, the weed seed source will always be in the soil) you have 

bare ground. Lovely, another spring storm, heavy snow, fluke rainfall, with episodic 

runoff, and no vegetation to hold the sediment. Has anyone at BLM ever seen erosion 

before? Sediment deposition in waterways is also pollution. You can not control 

erosion when you have bare ground, there has to be some vegetative cover to control 

it. Are you prepared to spray and plant? Good luck, in the arid West that won’t meet 

with any success. 

Response: Vegetation treatments are not designed to result in bare ground without any 

follow-up reseeding or planting, unless bare ground is the management objective (e.g. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-399 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0643-067 

California Indian 

Basketweavers 

Association 

RMC-0106-018 

Public Employees for 

Environmental 

Responsibility 

RMC-0106-019 

Public Employees for 

Environmental 

Responsibility 

facility management). The goal of emergency stabilization and rehabilitation following 

fire is to prevent erosion, and seeding, reseeding, or planting is included in follow-up 

actions to stabilize soils. Where possible, seeding is accomplished prior to wet season 

precipitation events such as snow or rainfall, to facilitate germination and sprouting in 

the spring season, ensure soil stabilization to prevent erosion, and encourage growth. 

Comment: The DEIS [Draft PEIS] does not provide scientific documentation from 

field collected data demonstrating that its plan to utilize herbicides and clearing of 

native trees such as juniper and pinyon and other types of vegetation manipulations 

will result in “reduce[ing] the negative effects of invasive species on soil” (p. [page] 4­

20 [of the Draft PEIS]). 

Response: The space limitations of the PEIS prohibit an exhaustive documentation of 

all available field collected data on benefits to soil resources from invasive species 

control. The PEIS makes reference to numerous studies that document the negative 

effects of invasive species on soil resources. The proposed treatments would greatly 

reduce or eliminate invasive species on the treated sites and allow for restoration of 

native species on these sites. Thus, ecosystem function would be restored on these site 

and the negative effects of invasive species on the soil would be reduced. 

Comment: Discussion of the behavior of herbicides in soil is incomplete. It is obvious 

from contamination of groundwater that at least some of the herbicides (e.g., 2,4-D, 

Diquat, Glyphosate, Bromacil, Dicamba, Diuron, Hexazinone, Atrazine, and 

Simazine) are capable of transport through soils unchanged to groundwater. There is 

no correlation between occurrence of groundwater contamination and the Soil 

Adsorption Coefficient, which for known groundwater contaminants ranges from 2 

mL/g to 1 million mL/g. The BLM should assess the occurrence of groundwater 

contamination with soil type(s) and vertical distance to the water table in contaminant 

source areas to better understand transport mechanisms through the unsaturated zone. 

Response: There are numerous factors that can influence the potential leaching of 

herbicides through soil and into the groundwater, as discussed in the PEIS. The 

importance of the soil adsorption coefficient as one of these factors is well established 

by studies, and clearly stated in the PEIS. The influence of herbicide use patterns; 

chemical half-life; rainfall amount, intensity, and duration; and depth to the water table 

can vary greatly, but does not negate the influence of soil adsorption. The very broad 

scale of the PEIS does not allow the BLM to assess the potential occurrence of 

groundwater contamination for each soil type and possible vertical distance to the 

water table in treated areas. More detailed environmental analysis will be conducted at 

the local level during the activity planning stage. 

Comment: [On] p. [page] 4-11 [of the Draft PEIS. It is not clear how the SOPs 

[Standard Operating Procedures] will help. The herbicides are more likely to penetrate 

soil on lower slopes where contact is maintained over longer periods. 

Response: As discussed in the SOPs portion of the soil impact analysis, herbicide 

transport to non-target areas can occur via solution in runoff water, erosion of soil 

particles to which herbicides are adsorbed, and water transport of granular herbicides. 

The SOPs are designed to reduce the risk of these modes of herbicide transport. In fact, 

the purpose of the SOPs is to reduce the mobility of the herbicides and the soil 

particles to which the herbicides are adsorbed. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-400 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0106-020 

Public Employees for 

Environmental 

Responsibility 

RMC-0106-021 

Public Employees for 

Environmental 

Responsibility 

RMC-0106-023 

Public Employees for 

Environmental 

Responsibility 

RMC-0106-024 

Public Employees for 

Environmental 

Responsibility 

RMC-0106-025 

Public Employees for 

Environmental 

Responsibility 

Comment: [On] p. [page] 4-12 [of the Draft PEIS]. The statement on Factors that 

Influence the Fate, Transport, and Persistence of Herbicides in Soil is simplistic and 

wholly inadequate. 

Response: The statement on factors that influence the fate, transport and persistence of 

herbicides in soil is an introductory statement for a complex process. This statement is 

followed by more detailed information on the 1) chemical processes of a) adsorption to 

soil particles and soil organic matter and b) photochemical decomposition and 

chemical reactions with soil constituents; 2) physical processes of a) leaching, b) 

volatility, and c) transport with water or wind; and 3) biological processes. 

Comment: [On] p. [page] 4-13 [of the Draft PEIS]. Table 4-7 [of the Draft PEIS] 

should take into account half-life and adsorption characteristics of degradates and 

“inert” components. 

Response: Herbicide degradates and “inert” components are generally not determined 

to be biologically active or environmental hazards. Thus, only the active ingredients of 

the herbicides proposed for use were included in Table 4-7 of the PEIS. 

Comment: p. [Page] 4-13 [of the Draft PEIS]. The statement that “...removal of 

annual grasses requires repeated applications of herbicides and that long-term effects 

were not known” (emphasis added) says a lot more than is dealt with in this D[raft] 

PEIS. 

Response: This statement is based on comments from Youtie et al. (1999; see full 

citation in Chapter 6, References, in PEIS), who studied the effects of glyphosate on 

soil crusts and bunchgrass communities. They were concerned about the effects of 

multiple treatments, but noted that multiple treatments were needed to remove annual 

grasses, and removal of annual grasses slowed the loss of the soil crust. As noted under 

Mitigation in Chapter 2 of the PEIS, the BLM would limit glyphosate applications to 

the typical application rate, and would use spot applications, where feasible, to reduce 

the amount of glyphosate applied to any one area. 

Comment: [Pages] 4-14 to 4-19 [of the Draft PEIS]. Of the 18 herbicides assessed, 

practically no discussion of breakdown products (and this only to say there is no 

information available), none of inerts; no information is provided on number of 

formulations assessed. The D[raft] PElS admits that very little information is available 

on effects on soil organisms. One might ask what the BLM was doing over the past 20 

years of herbicidal treatments of public lands! 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0585-192 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis for information on inert ingredients. See 

responses to Comment RMC-0106-048 under PEIS Appendix C, Ecological Risk 

Assessment, and Comment EMC-0623-017 and Comment RMC-0191-009 under 

PEIS Environmental Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis for information on 

degradates and formulations. 

Comment: Page 4-16. The statement that “Runoff would be negligible in relatively 

arid environments is wrong. 

Response: As stated in Chapter 4 under Soil Resources, runoff of imazapic would be 

less in areas with little rainfall and sandy soils than in areas with clay soils and heavy 

rain. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-401 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0106-027 

Public Employees for 

Environmental 

Responsibility 

Comment: This description [of groundwater impacts] is inadequate—are they not 

known to contaminate groundwater because they were sought and not detected, or 

were they not sought and therefore not detected? 

Response: The chemicals were not found to contaminate groundwater. They were 

sought and may have been found in a few groundwater samples, or in surface water, 

but not often enough or at high enough concentrations to warrant concern. 

RMC-0205-017 

Oregon Department of 

Agriculture 

Comment: Many of the pesticides on the proposed list have been detected in surface 

or groundwaters in the U.S. Geological Survey National Ambient Water Quality 

Assessment (NAWQA) studies. These include 2,4D, atrazine, bromacil, dicamba, 

diuron, glyphosate, simazine, and triclopyr 

(http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1161/nawqa91.d.dtml These data suggest that standard 

application practices may result in measurable concentrations of these compounds in 

surface waters near application areas, sometimes above water quality standards. These 

results emphasize the need to limit use of chemical herbicide controls whenever 

feasible. Occurrence in Oregon of other BLM proposed herbicides, including asulam, 

chlorsulfuron, clopyralid, fosamine, hexazinone, imazapyr, mefluidide, picloram and 

tebuthiuron, are unknown due to lack of water quality data. 

Response: Detection limits have decreased dramatically during the last decade. It is 

now possible to detect parts per billion, where parts per million was the standard 

before. The ability of laboratory methods to detect such low levels has resulted in 

documented pesticide occurrence in waters over a wider area than was realized in the 

past. However, concentrations are rarely above recommended exposure limits for 

humans or aquatic species. The detection of a pesticide in waters does necessarily 

mean that standard application procedures were used during the treatment. A properly 

developed treatment plan will consider measures to keep immediate and cumulative 

levels of pesticides safe. Water quality monitoring will be a requirement of every 

application of pesticide or herbicide. Chemical application plans will have the review 

and approval of hydrologists to ensure that the level of risk to human health and the 

environment is acceptable. 

RMC-0205-023 

Oregon Department of 

Agriculture 

Comment: While we recognize that the application of herbicides is one of the most 

effective ways to prevent fires by destroying unwanted vegetation, the non-herbicidal 

options for addressing the vegetation should be considered in areas that potentially 

impact public water supplies. Herbicides can negatively impact the water quality in 

streams and groundwater serving as public water supply sources. Most herbicides are 

not monitored at the intakes or wells for public water supplies as part of the routine 

requirements to meet federal drinking water standards. Most communities and public 

water providers do not have the resources to increase their monitoring capabilities 

when significant areas are sprayed adjacent to or upstream of their intake or well. 

Response: Public water supply sources, groundwater contamination potential and 

effects on water quality are considered in any herbicide use proposal. Mitigation for 

herbicide use in situations that may affect water resources or aquatic habitat includes 

application of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs; see Table 2-5 in the PER for a 

description of SOPs) including, but not limited to, the use of mandatory or 

discretionary buffers, application rates, and drift management. Alternative nonherbicide treatment methods are also considered. Just as mechanical or manual 

techniques would likely be used in lieu of prescribed fire in a wildland urban interface 

situation, non-herbicide methods would be considered in situations where public water 

supplies and/or groundwater or surface water quality may be affected. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-402 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0220c-001 Comment: The attached maps show small segments of BLM and USFS [U.S. Forest 

Save Our ecoSystems, Service] public lands, not necessarily the ones you are proposing to spray, but they are 

Inc. representative. The blue lines showing waterways are everywhere. One can see at a 

glance that it would be virtually impossible to spray such areas without contaminating 

their waters. Forest streams flow down into rivers and eventually oceans. They create 

drinking water for humans and other animals (who would be even more directly 

affected). 

Response: In areas with many waterways, the BLM could use several Standard 

Operating Procedures or mitigation measures listed in Chapter 2 of the PEIS to reduce 

or avoid impacts to aquatic bodies. These measures include selecting herbicides with 

minimal adverse affects on water or aquatic organisms, using treatment methods (hand 

spraying, mechanical treatments) that have little or no potential to contaminate water, 

and ensuring that buffers are maintained between treatment areas and aquatic bodies. 

Environmental Consequences, Water Resources and Quality 

EMC-0123-001 Comment: The contamination of groundwater is one that I will focus on. A massive 

MacKillop, Kenneth influx of toxins will overload an already stressed ecosystem. The health costs of 

contaminated water have not been properly evaluated. Our behavior in placing toxins 

into the aquifers will be considered criminal by future generations, who face further 

increases in cancer and reproductive harm. 

Response: The application of pesticides/herbicides will not result in a massive influx 

of toxins into aquifers. Careful adherence to recommended application procedures will 

prevent exceedence of recommended concentration levels. Further, degradation 

processes in soils and aquifers will decrease concentrations to levels that are not 

deleterious to wildlife or human health. 

EMC-0484-001 Comment: The Bureau of Land Management should not be considering herbicide use 

Safe Alternatives for in steep mountainous areas such as Trinity County, California. Here, the terrain 

Our Forest includes an abundance of watercourses. These watercourses are heavily used for 

Environment domestic water supplies and are the principal water supply for the majority of people 

here in Trinity County. Most herbicide labels instructions have warnings, “do not 

apply where runoff is likely”. There is almost nowhere in this kind of terrain that 

herbicides can be safely or legally used. 

Response: The BLM will take into consideration slope, soil type, infiltration capacity 

and stream patterns when applying herbicides. Provisions in the Wellhead Protection 

Act will protect local drinking water supplies from potential contamination, as there is 

a requirement for buffer zones around municipal water supply wells. If the application 

procedures for an herbicide state “do not apply where runoff is likely,” these 

instructions will be followed. 

EMC-0585-123 Comment: In addition, many hikers are accompanied by domestic dogs that invariably 

Western Watersheds drink water encountered, and the effects of various chemicals or treatments on these 

Project animals has not been assessed. Treatments that increase algal concentrations in wild 

land waters may have particularly harmful impacts not only to domestic dogs, but also 

to wildlife. Bighorn sheep in the Oregon Owyhee (as well as domestic dogs) have died 

from algal blooms caused by excessive nutrients and temperatures. 

Response: The impact assessment to wildlife, livestock, and wild horses and burros is 

applicable to domestic dogs. An Activity Plan covering the use of chemicals and 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-403 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0585-177 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

RMC-0069-013 

Desert Survivors 

RMC-0106-028 

Public Employees for 

Environmental 

Responsibility 

treatments on specific federal lands considers the vegetation that will take advantage of 

the void existing after treatment. The native and/or invasive plants that can likely fill 

this void are considered, along with their adverse and beneficial effects. The BLM 

notes the commentor’s statement that the effects of algal blooms should be considered, 

along with other replacement species. 

Pesticides/herbicides do not stimulate algal growth. Pesticides/herbicides will be 

applied in accordance with manufacturers’ recommendations, and will not result in 

concentrations in water bodies that are harmful to aquatic life, wildlife, or domestic 

animals. 

Comment: Aquatic application is particularly alarming − as there is no assurance that 

chemicals will not be quickly transported into areas where the public is recreating. The 

limited wild land surface waters often tied to limited aquifers in the arid West are 

critical for survival of many species of wildlife and wild horses that have nowhere else 

to drink. Pollution/contamination of sources of drinking water by aquatic chemicals, 

especially if animals inhabiting degraded lands are also coping with degraded habitats 

subject to grazing, fragmentation, energy development, etc. with suboptimal cover or 

food or where they are otherwise stressed from human disturbances, may increase 

harmful responses to chemicals. 

Response: Degradation of pesticides and/or herbicides by biodegradation, adsorption 

and dispersion processes will minimize risks to shallow aquifers. Assessment of the 

surrounding environmental conditions, rainfall data, flow patterns, human use patterns, 

and the nature of degradation of the chemical all come into play when planning for a 

reasonable level of assurance that chemicals will not be quickly transported into areas 

where the public is recreating. Strict adherence to guidance on application procedures 

will protect wildlife by maintaining concentrations at a low level, and degradation 

processes will further decrease concentrations. 

Comment: The herbicides and their break-down residues are dangerous to both 

animals and humans, and the application of these pesticides to water sources or 

riparian vegetation is a criminal act. All the more so because there is no notification, 

no signs at the water sources, no “skull and crossbones” danger signs erected at 

“treated” sites. If these herbicides or their break-down products get into the 

groundwater at a “treated site”, such pollution of the groundwater is impossible to 

remove, and the water source and its downstream waters then become toxic. 

Response: See responses to Comment EMC-0525-012 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis, Comment EMC-0584-110 under PEIS 

Environmental Consequences, How the Effects of the Alternatives Were Estimated, 

and Comment EMC-0623-016 under PEIS Alternatives, Herbicide Active Ingredients 

Evaluated under the Proposed Alternatives. 

Comment: [On] p. [page] 4-28, 4-31 [of the PEIS]. It is stated that “little is known 

about [the] occurrence, fate, or transport” of 16 percent of the 18 herbicides proposed 

for use (Imazapyr, Imazapic, and Sulfometuron Methyl). This should be ample 

grounds for prohibiting their use. 

Response: Although little is known about the occurrence, fate, or transport of these 

herbicides in water, the PEIS also notes that these herbicides are not known to be 

groundwater contaminants and are not known (imazapic) or rarely known (imazapyr 

and sulfometuron methyl) to be surface water contaminants. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-404 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0106-029 

Public Employees for 

Environmental 

Responsibility 

RMC-0144-021 

Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department 

RMC-0191-013 

Ertz, Brian 

Comment: No information is provided on the occurrence of potentially harmful inerts 

or degradates. The inadequate state of knowledge about impacts of the 18 herbicides 

on water resources is such as to require banning of their use anywhere that a potential 

for contaminating water, including groundwater, exists. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0585-192 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis for information on inert ingredients. See 

responses to Comment RMC-0106-048 under PEIS Appendix C, Ecological Risk 

Assessment, Comment EMC-0623-017 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, 

Herbicide Effects Analysis, and Comment RMC-0191-009 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis for information on degradates and 

formulations. There is considerable knowledge about the impacts of the proposed 

herbicides on water resources and their fate and transport in water and soil, as 

discussed in Chapter 4 of the PEIS under Soil Resources and Water Resources and 

Quality. 

Comment: We recommend BLM consult with state agency fishery personnel on the 

need for ephemeral stream buffers. Buffer strips should be an option in the SOP 

[Standard Operating Procedure] following appropriate consultation. 

Response: The development of more restrictive, or additional, SOPs is always an 

option for local offices. The SOPs identified in the PEIS are suggested requirements to 

be followed during project implementation. The Biological Assessment prepared for 

the PEIS states that local consultation with National Marine Fisheries Service and/or 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the potential impacts on threatened, endangered, and 

other special status fish species will be required for use of herbicides in riparian areas. 

At such time, the SOPs may be modified, based on local conditions and information. 

Comment: I would have hoped that the BLM would have at least taken the time to 

determine present levels of potentially harmful compounds in waters that may be 

compounded by the Preferred Alternative then incorporated those findings into their 

considerations of acceptable toxicity levels given the addition of the Preferred 

Alternative treatments to ecosystems, RTE [rare, threatened, and endangered] species, 

and human health. 

Response: As discussed in Chapter 3 of the PEIS under Water Resources and Quality, 

water quality on lands administered by the BLM is generally good, except in areas 

where past mining activity has taken place, and in areas near agricultural or urbanized 

areas where pesticides and other pollutants have entered the surface water or 

groundwater. As part of its risk assessments, the BLM evaluated the potential for 

herbicides to be transported from overland runoff, erosion, and root-zone groundwater 

runoff (see Concentration Models in the Uncertainty Section of Appendix C of the 

PEIS). Using this information, the BLM developed application methods, Standard 

Operating Procedures, and mitigation measures to avoid or minimize risks to aquatic 

bodies and their organisms from herbicides. No studies by U.S. Geological Survey or 

others have identified the migration of BLM herbicides into surface water or 

groundwater in or on BLM lands. Also see responses to Comment RMC-0069-009 

under PEIS Alternatives, Monitoring and Comments RMC-0191-009 and RMC-0159-

008 under PEIS Alternatives, Herbicide Active Ingredients Evaluated under the 

Proposed Alternatives. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-405 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0210-045 Comment: No herbicides should be applied directly to water. 

MCS Task Force of 

New Mexico Response: See responses to Comment EMC-0585-185 and Comment EMC-0585-178 

under PEIS Environmental Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis. 

RMC-0228-009 Comment: The Preferred Alternative (Alternative B) presents a substantial increase in 

Metropolitan Water herbicide application, which poses a concurrent increased risk to water quality. 

District of Southern Metropolitan is concerned about these risks. The specific impacts to the lower 

California Colorado River and watershed are not clearly delineated in the Draft PEIS. The 

Colorado River represents a major source of water for Southern California, as well as 

Nevada and Arizona. Metropolitan requests that practices that can impact drinking 

water sources be monitored carefully. Thus the monitoring plan must include 

evaluation feedback to direct, halt, or change herbicide applications that are 

deleteriously affecting water quality or other resources. 

Response: The application of pesticides and herbicides will always be in accordance 

with manufacturer’s recommendations, including careful attention to weather 

conditions so that applications are not made during windy periods. Percolation into 

groundwater systems is not likely to occur, due to low infiltration rates and adsorption 

of chemicals onto soil and clay particles. The slow rate of groundwater flow (a few 

inches per year to a few feet per year) will allow degradation processes to take place, 

and lower concentrations to the level that are below recommended limits for the 

various chemicals. Likewise, surface water protection is assured through proper use of 

buffers and other measures to keep pesticides out of streams and allow degradation 

processes. 

Environmental Consequences, Wetland and Riparian Areas 

EMC-0559-004 Comment: There should be no aerial spraying of herbicides or use in riparian areas. 

Daniel, Bill Amphibian species are experiencing a global decline, as are natural fish populations. 

Use of the proposed herbicides would negatively impact many aquatic species in the 

region, including Threatened or Endangered species. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0641-004 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Wetland and Riparian Areas. 

EMC-0641-004 Comment: Although we support the judicious use of herbicides where safe and

Idaho Conservation appropriate, we are concerned about potential adverse effects of aerial spraying on

League aquatic environments, particularly on small streams and other shallow water bodies.

We do not feel confident that the proposed buffer zones will prevent contamination.

We strongly encourage the BLM to consider adopting an alternative that strictly limits

the use of aerial and broadcast application in regions containing water bodies. 

Response: Based on the data call to field offices and as discussed in Chapter 4 of the 

PEIS under Wetland and Riparian Areas, only about 10,000 of the 932,000 acres 

treated using herbicides would be found in wetland and riparian habitats. Of these 

10,000 acres, 98% would be treated using ground-based methods. Also see response to 

Comment RMC-0220c-001 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, Soil Resources. 

Environmental Consequences, Vegetation 

EMC-0088-003 Comment: If economical uses can be found for these ‘Weeds’, wildcrafting can keep 

Mentzer, Fred them in check. Other plants can also be planted in their space. Milk Thistle has 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-406 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0191-001 

Frazier, Penny (Goods 

From The Woods) 

EMC-0203-007 

Institute For Culture 

and Ecology 

economic value and is a powerful plant for taking over other ‘weeds’. I use it to take 

over buttercup. Milk Thistle is easy to kill and adds much nutrients and organic matter 

to the soil. Please do more experimenting before using toxic chemicals as a solution. 

More jobs are also needed. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0049-003 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, How the Effects of the Alternatives Were Estimated. Vegetation 

treatments are often followed by reseeding or planting of other vegetation, however, 

the BLM does not endorse the planting of known invasive weeds to outcompete other 

invasive species. The BLM will provide permits for the public to gather plants for 

personal use. 

Comment: I do not believe the plan has taken into account those who harvest nontimber forest products and the impacts spraying will have upon that land use. 

Response: The PEIS addresses use of public lands for harvest of non-timber forest 

products, and assesses the impacts of herbicide use on this land use, as well as on the 

health of those who could potentially be exposed to herbicides as a result of this land 

use. This information can be found in Chapter 4 of the PEIS, under the subheadings 

Paleontological and Cultural Resources, Recreation, and Human Health and Safety. 

Additional information may also be found in Appendix B of the PEIS, which provides 

information on the human health risk assessment. 

Comment: The ecological and biological assessments for the draft [P]EIS do not 

include a discussion of the impacts of spraying herbicides on nontimber forest product 

productivity. Developing such a discussion requires developing adequate inventories 

of species being harvested. The agency must consider management alternatives that 

could be taken to simultaneously achieve the goals for vegetation management with 

herbicides and the sustainability of harvesting cultures, traditions, and economies. 

Response: Vegetation management alternatives will be considered before any 

vegetation treatments analyzed in the Draft EIS and PER are initiated. These 

alternatives will be developed in accordance with decisions and land allocations 

contained in the applicable land use plan (see Chapter 1 of the PEIS under NEPA 

Requirements of the Program). Approximately 8% of all proposed herbicide 

treatments would occur in Oregon (See Chapter 4 of the section on Social and 

Economic Values, Economic Activity and Public Revenues Generated from BLM 

Lands), where the preponderance of non-timber forest products are harvested from 

BLM-administered forests. Effects on harvesting other (non-timber) vegetation 

products would depend on the product and the design of specific herbicide treatment 

projects. Indiscriminate application of herbicides could damage resources or reduce 

their value. Alternatively, herbicidal control of undesirable, invasive plants could 

enhance the habitat for desirable species. Public involvement in project planning and 

environmental review will be encouraged to minimize adverse effects and maximize 

benefits. Herbicide treatments would follow BLM procedures outlined in BLM 

Handbook H-9011-1 (Chemical Pest Control), and Manuals 1112 (Safety), 9011 

(Chemical Pest Control), and 9015 (Integrated Weed Management), and would meet 

or exceed states’ label standards. Herbicide application schedules are designed to 

minimize potential impacts to non-target plants and animals, while remaining 

consistent with the objective of the vegetation treatment program. (see Chapter 2 of the 

PEIS under Herbicide Modes of Action and Treatment Methods). 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-407 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0203-009 

Institute For Culture 

and Ecology 

EMC-0274-002 

Noble, Emily A. 

EMC-0278-015 

Lutjens, William 

(BLM) 

EMC-0338-005 

Dow AgroSciences 

EMC-0338-009 

Dow AgroSciences 

Comment: In reviewing the reference section only two references for nontimber forest 

products are listed, neither of which pertain to public lands in the western United 

States specifically. This suggests the agency has neglected to review the current and 

historical scholarly literature regarding nontimber forest products. 

Response: As stated in Chapter 1, this PER does not evaluate vegetation management 

that is focused primarily on commercial timber or other forest product enhancement or 

use activities that are not related to improving forest health, hazardous fuel reduction, 

or work authorized under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. Herbicide application 

will be conducted to target invasive and otherwise undesirable plant species and limit 

impacts on non-target species. Potential impacts to particular plants used locally as 

special forest products will be considered and addressed when site-specific treatments 

are proposed. Appendix D (Native American and Alaska Native Resource Uses) and 

Appendix E (Cultural Resources) of the PER discuss Native Peoples uses of nontimber 

and other vegetation products. 

Comment: How will herbicide affect four-wing saltbush, for instance? That particular 

plant is supposedly helpful as an actual “fire retardant” I have heard although I do not 

know about it from personal experience. 

Response: Four-wing saltbush, Atriplex canescens is a native woody shrub. It would 

react to the mode of action of the selected herbicide and the rate of application. Some 

woody shrubs are more tolerant of low rates of herbicide than are herbaceous plants. 

Some four-wing saltbush populations may be vigorous sprouters after top-kill, but 

studies on rhizomatous fourwing saltbush are lacking. 

Comment: How effective will the BLM be in preventing an increase in expansion rate 

without the aide of herbicides, especially with weeds like leafy spurge and 

medusahead which are impractical or impossible to control by mechanical means in 

many situations? 

Response: The BLM’s Proposed Action and Preferred Alternative (Alternative B) 

include the use of herbicides to reduce the expansion rate of invasive species. The 

alternative analysis for Alternative C indicates that without the use of herbicides, 

control of noxious weeds and invasive species will be more difficult over the long 

term. 

Comment: In Alternative D: No Aerial Applications, it should be noted that aerial 

applications of herbicides are often the method of control that offers the least 

disturbance of the area. Mechanical methods, as is mentioned in the PEIS, will often 

disturb the ground cover, which opens the area to new infestations, and actually 

facilitates the spread of invasive plants into new habitats. 

Response: We have included wording indicating that mechanical disturbance could 

lead to the spread of invasive plants in Chapter 4 of the PEIS under Vegetation, 

Alternative D – No Aerial Applications. 

Comment: These comparisons are not reasonable in some cases, for example 

comparing buffer distances for drift of imazapic (Table 4-12 [of the Draft PEIS] Buffer 

Distances to Minimize Vegetation from Off-site Drift of BLM Evaluated Herbicides) 

and clopyralid (Table 4-14 [of the Draft PEIS] Buffer Distances to Minimize 

Vegetation from Off-site Drift of Forest Service Evaluated Herbicides) it is apparent 

that different criteria were used as a basis for these comparisons. The potential for drift 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-408 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0338-010 

Dow AgroSciences 

EMC-0338-011 

Dow AgroSciences 

is mostly a factor of application equipment including nozzle size, pressure, volume 

applied per acre and weather conditions at the time of application. How can there be a 

difference between the typical application rates of 900 ft [feet] for these two 

compounds (0 ft for imazapic and 900 ft for clopyralid) for sensitive plants? If applied 

correctly there should be no difference at all between the risks. It is the applicator that 

makes sure the application targets the site with no or a minimal amount of drift. 

Response: The AgDrift model did predict similar proportions of each active ingredient 

remaining at each distance modeled. In other words, a similar percent of the active 

ingredient drifted to 100 feet or to 900 feet from the application site. However, the 

amount of active ingredient (i.e., lb/acre) drifting from the application site was not the 

only factor used to estimate buffer distances. Buffer distances were determined by 

looking at the potential/predicted impact of the drifted herbicide on non-target species. 

For active ingredients with lower toxicity thresholds (i.e., more toxic herbicides), the 

buffer distance was greater than for those with higher toxicity thresholds (i.e., less 

toxic herbicides). 

Comment: Comments about clopyralid: Page 4-54 [of the Draft PEIS] indicates that a 

“maximum use rate” of clopyralid used in the analysis was 1 lb ai/A [pounds of active 

ingredient per acre]. There are no uses on the current labels over 0.5 lb ae/A [acid 

equivalent per acre]. Even though 0.5 lb a.i./A is the maximum amount allowed by the 

label most applicators use 0.375 lb a.i./A as the maximum amount needed to control 

many of the target weed species. Further the “typical use rate” of clopyralid is 0.25 lb 

a.i./A not the 0.375 lb a.i./A used in the calculations. Therefore, any restrictions 

(buffers, etc) on the use of clopyralid on BLM land should be re-calculated with the 

maximum amount per acre rate of 0.375 lb a.i. and a typical rate of 0.25 lb a.i./A. If 

this is not done then at the least the calculations should be re-done using the maximum 

label rate of 0.5 lb a.i./A. 

Response: Clopyralid is one of the herbicide active ingredients that was assessed using 

information from the Forest Service Risk Assessments. Since the beginning of the 

PEIS, the Forest Service has updated their original clopyralid risk assessment. In the 

original risk assessment (dated 1999), the maximum application rate was 1.0 lb. 

a.e./acre. In the 2004 version of the clopyralid risk assessment, the maximum 

application rate is 0.5 lb. a.e./ac. at the current labels of the formulations that contain 

clopyralid—Curtail, Reclaim, Redeem, and Transline—state that the maximum 

application rate allowed on a per acre basis is between 0.375 and 0.5 lb. a.e./A./year. 

For the Final PEIS, and based on this commentor’s concerns, we recalculated the risks 

associated with a maximum clopyralid application rate of 0.5 lb. a.e/acre. Based on 

this analysis, the levels of risk (low, medium, high) were the same as those for 

applications at 1 lb. a.e./acre. 

Regarding the typical application rate, 0.375 lb. a.e./A. is the value selected by the 

Forest Service and fits within our program limits. 

Comment: Comments about triclopyr: In Chapter 4, on page 4-59 [of the Draft PEIS] 

it is noted that a typical application rate of triclopyr would be 1 lb ai/a and that a 

maximum use rate of 10 lb a.i./A [pounds of active ingredient per acre] was used in 

some of the modeling. First, the maximum label use rate of either the triclopyr ester or 

amine labels is 8 lb a.i./A. Therefore any calculations using a rate of 10 lb a.i./A should 

be re-calculated to be in line with the labels. Second, we wish to make clear the 

maximum use rate for broadcast use of triclopyr on rangeland sites. The US EPA 

Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED, October 1998) set the maximum use rate at 1 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-409 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0338-012 

Dow AgroSciences 

EMC-0525-009 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

lb/A; however that was quickly changed to 2 lb ae/A in the attached communication 

from US EPA to Dow AgroSciences. The 2 lb ae/A [acid equivalent per acre] rate, 

required that the tolerances in forage grass be raised from 500 ppm to 700 ppm. Data 

were gathered and submitted to accomplish this change and to support this new use 

rate, and was published in the Federal Register in 2004. The RED documents are never 

updated, but the regulation of the molecule continues to evolve over time. 

Documentation of these changes are attached. 

Response: Triclopyr is one of the herbicides that was assessed using information from 

the Forest Service risk assessments, with the March 15, 2003 document stating that the 

“maximum use rate” analyzed was 10 lbs. a.e./acre and the “average application rate” 

analyzed was 1.0 lb. a.e./acre. For the Draft PEIS, we concurred with these values, 

rather than running an analysis on values that would reflect the limits associated with 

the label. The commenter is correct in pointing out that the maximum use rate on the 

label is 8.0 lbs. a.e/acre. For the Final PEIS, we recalculated the risks, this time using a 

maximum application rate of 8.0 lbs. a.e/acre. Based on this analysis, the levels of risk 

(low, medium, high) were the same as those predicted for applications at 10 lbs. 

a.e./acre. 

Comment: An error was found on the Garlon 4 label where a limitation of 1.5 lb a.i./A 

was allowed on rangeland. This has been removed from the label since the maximum 

for broadcast use on rangeland is 2 lb a.i./A as noted above. The new label will allow 

for individual plant applications such as basal or cut surface treatments to be used on 

any use site listed on the label at a maximum use rate of 8 lb/A. These types of 

applications are made directly to ungrazed parts of plants and, therefore, are not 

restricted by the grazing maximum rate of 2 lb a.i./A but rather are limited only by the 

maximum label rate of 8 lb a.i./A. 

Response: The BLM recognizes that labels of pesticides are fluid documents that can 

change over time as new research is submitted in support of proposed changes. The 

label on each particular container of pesticide is the label that that governs its use. As 

the newly labeled containers of pesticide make their way into the distribution channel, 

the label modifications will be part of the application procedures. Such is the case with 

the Garlon 4® formulation. End users with current labeled containers with the 1.5 

quarts restriction are required, by law, to follow this restriction. As the new labeled 

container arrives in the users’ hands, the modified restrictions will be followed. 

Comment: Desertification can be both a patchy destruction, often exacerbated by 

drought, as well as the impoverishment of ecosystems within deserts. The [P]EIS must 

assess the levels and degree of desertification that have occurred across the [P]EIS 

area. This is necessary to understand the capability and suitability of these lands for 

livestock grazing, the productivity and carrying capacity of these lands for grazing, the 

current or likely future extent of cheatgrass and other hazardous fuels problems linked 

to desertification and livestock or other degradation, the need for treatments and the 

type of treatments that may best be applied, the risks associated with treatments, and 

the likely effectiveness or success of any treatments undertaken under the [P]EIS/PER. 

The effects of alternatives, their ability to meet any objectives, and the ability of 

actions under the [P]EIS to maintain, enhance or restore habitats and populations of 

special status and other important species and native plant communities depend on the 

current environmental conditions of the lands where they would be applied. For 

example, how has the extensive depletion of understories in many areas of Wyoming 

big sagebrush vegetation or Utah juniper affected the degree and rate of desertification 

processes across the [P]EIS area, and altered the potential of a site to recover from any 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-410 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0525-177 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0525-178 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0553-010 

Callihan, Robert H. 

treatment disturbance that may be imposed under the [P]EIS? 

Response: The PEIS and PER provide an assessment of the adverse and beneficial 

effects of treatments under general land use and environmental scenarios likely to 

occur in the West. The ecological risk assessments evaluate more detailed land 

condition scenarios (e.g., soil type, moisture, vegetation type, slope, erodibility); the 

reader should consult these assessments to understand how herbicide treatments might 

behave under conditions of drought, limited vegetation, etc. Also see response to 

Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Scope 

of Analysis. 

Comment: BLM’s [P]EIS/PER aggressive treatment disturbance to mature and old 

growth plant communities will only serve to accelerate habitat fragmentation and 

degradation. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0525-165 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Wildlife Resources. The focus of the PEIS and PER was on treatments 

to control invasive species and weeds, and to reduce hazardous fuels. Efforts to reduce 

wildfire risk should help preserve mature and old growth plant communities while 

efforts to improve ecosystem health should reduce fragmentation and land degradation. 

Comment: The [P]EIS never reveals that the primary plant communities being dubbed 

hazardous fuels and targeted for ‘treatment” across BLM and Forest Service lands 

across the West are primarily old growth and mature native vegetation communities 

upon which many rare and declining species rely. Thus, the treatment and herbicide 

actions that disturb these vegetation communities instead of having BLM’s claimed 

rosy outcomes, will further endanger sagebrush and juniper dependent species, and 

have deleterious watershed-level impacts affecting such species as Lahontan cutthroat 

trout or bull trout. Without providing necessary data on not just broad vegetation types 

where it contemplates treatment, but also how it characterizes “hazardous fuels” and 

vegetation to be targeted, no honest Weed [P]EIS analysis or adequate BA [Biological 

Assessment] for spraying and treatments can be provided. 

Response: The PEIS only addressed vegetation treatments on BLM-administered 

lands; the Forest Service is responsible for management of vegetation on Forest 

Service-administered lands. Over 85% of treatments would occur in the Temperate 

Desert and Temperate Steppe ecoregions, where nearly all treatments would focus on 

shrubs, grasses, and perennial forb weed species. The majority of treatments would 

focus on controlling and removing weeds and other invasive vegetation and reducing 

the risk of wildfire through hazardous fuels treatments. These treatments would 

generally benefit mature vegetation by removing competing vegetation and reducing 

the threat of a catastrophic wildfire that kills or harms mature vegetation. The 

definition of hazardous fuels is given in the PEIS and PER in Chapter 1 under 

Terminology. Information of specific types and ages of vegetation to be treated would 

be provided for individual projects at the local level. 

Comment: The draft [P]EIS correctly points out the propensity of sulfometuronmethyl to injure sensitive crops, but fails to identify ways to manage risks posed by 

this exceptionally phytotoxic herbicide; it does deserve more attention than most other 

highly potent herbicides. Failure to exercise such cautions is the reason for the reaction 

against all Sulfonylurea herbicides. Whereas the unusual potency of sulfometuron, 

picloram, and certain other herbicides the BLM proposes to use, is such that they 

deserve authoritative prescriptions and extraordinary attention to job specifications to 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-411 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0553-011 

Callihan, Robert H. 

EMC-0553-012 

Callihan, Robert H. 

EMC-0562-014 

The Lands Council 

avoid injury to off-target crop species, their use should not be abandoned. There are 

thousands of acres, particularly in isolated temperate desert and steppe regions, in 

which these could be aerially applied without endangering crops, but a quarter-mile 

upslope from row-crop farms is not among them. I recommend that the final decision 

address administration of the use of such tools. 

Response: The PEIS identifies the rationale for analyzing the toxicity and 

environmental fate of sulfometuron methyl in this document. Chapter 4 of the PEIS, 

for each resource discussed, identifies specific ways to manage risks associated with 

the use of sulfometuron methyl. 

Comment: The draft EIS wrongly implies that all ALS [acetolactate synthase] 

inhibitor herbicides are of comparable phytotoxicity (e.g. table 2-8; Vol [Volume] 1 p. 

[page] 4-115 [of the Draft PEIS]). They vary greatly in level of phytotoxicity and in 

spectrum of selectivity; the document should point out that fact. 

Response: As noted under each herbicide discussion in the Vegetation section in 

Chapter 4 of the PEIS, the phytotoxicity and selectivity of ALS-inhibitor herbicides do 

vary. 

Comment: No RQs [risk quotients] or LOCs [levels of concern] were cited or 

suggested for even one agricultural crop species; those crops are not so much as named 

in the document, though nearly 300 other plant species are, on pages A-1 to A-6 [of 

Appendix A of the Draft PEIS]; nor does the document acknowledge them even to the 

extent of mentioning exclusion of consideration of risks to crops. Perhaps this is 

because the preparer considered agricultural species of little significance in the 

environment, or to put it another way, not of any “special status” such as is designated 

to the list of nearly 2000 species of plants and animals on pages H-1 to H-44 [of 

Appendix H of the Draft PEIS]. Considering the close association of many BLM land 

with sensitive irrigated crops, the BLM’s history of crop injury, and the nearly 

absolute human dependence on crops, more recognition should have been given to 

risks to crops of the irrigated West, as well as to ornamentals near farmsteads and 

urban areas. Granted, the BLM does not, in practice, entirely ignore that risk, but that’s 

not the point; I recommend that the final draft or decision refer to this matter. 

Response: The BLM did not evaluate crops because crops are not grown on BLM 

lands. However, the BLM did look at potential impacts to cropland plants as well as 

other non-target plants under Non-target Plants in the Vegetation section of Chapter 4 

of the PEIS. Where agricultural crops are grown in proximity to BLM lands, they are 

typically hay and other grass species. The BLM’s pesticide use proposal process has 

special considerations for use near crop areas. As part of the required Pesticide Use 

Proposal, any proposed herbicide application requires the BLM to identify “Sensitive 

Aspects and Precautions” associated with the proposed action, which would include 

cropland areas. Also see response to Comment EMC-0336-003 under PEIS 

Environmental Consequences, Air Quality. Note that private landowners use 

herbicides extensively for management of pasture and other agricultural crops. 

Comment: The Lands Council members are concerned about the effect of herbicides 

on biodiversity as well as the aesthetic value of native plant species. Evidence exists 

that herbicides may create conditions more hospitable to invasive species than those 

that were present before the chemicals were used. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-412 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0562-015 

The Lands Council 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0646-172 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Vegetation. 

Comment: Use of herbicides where non-native weed plants already occur frequently 

results in a reproductive advantage for non-native species, which then expand rapidly 

due to the lack of competition. In a short period, this can result in an exponential 

increase in non-native plants. See Wooten and Renwyck 2001; 

www.kettlerange.org/weeds. Support for this is found in literature and is very relevant 

to the issue at hand. For example in 1996, McDonald and Everest of the USFS Pacific 

Southwest Research Station, found that cheatgrass populations, not observed in the 

study plots at the beginning of a study, exploded in an herbicide-treated plot (at 

743,667 plants per acre with 22% foliar cover) where it was 6 times greater in number 

of plants and more than 7 times greater in foliar cover than in the control plot (130,300 

plants per acre, 3% foliar cover) two years after treatment. A study done by the British 

Columbia Ministry of Forests Research Program in the Upper McKay Creek near 

Lillooet, B.C. found that the choice of herbicides can have a profound effect on the 

plant species content and diversity many years after treatment. See 

http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/Lmh45.htm. (“The abundance of several low 

shrub species (black twinberry, black gooseberry, thimbleberry, trailing raspberry, red 

raspberry, birch-leaved spirea, and black huckleberry) was reduced for nine years 

following application of glyphosate.”) As this report further observes, “Plant 

communities naturally change over time, but sudden shifts in structure and 

composition may negatively affect the availability of food for wildlife.” The BLM 

must take these comments into evidence in consideration of its range of preferred 

alternatives. 

Response: The following statement is made in the document cited by the commentor 

(Risky Business: Invasive Species Management on National Forests, Wooten and 

Renwyck 2001; www.kettlerange.org/weeds): “Invasive species management is a 

serious undertaking, with high potential for economic and resource losses and impacts. 

Such projects require prior disclosure of likely effects in order to insure that programs 

are effective, and remain within the limitations of policies and regulations.” 

The goal of the BLM’s vegetation management program is not to create a situation 

where non-native species are enhanced through the application of an herbicide. Rather, 

as stated in Chapter 2 of the PER, the BLM’s vegetation management program goals 

are, “. . . to manage vegetation to sustain the condition of healthy lands, and where 

land conditions have degraded, to restore desirable vegetation to more healthy 

conditions.” 

It is correct to expect that invasive species would become the dominant species if the 

management option resulted in only limited control of targeted species, while severely 

damaging the non-targeted species. If properly carried out, however, management of a 

non-native weed species stresses or controls the weed with minimal impact on the 

native or desirable species. The study noted in the commentor’s response, a study done 

by the British Columbia Ministry of Forest Research Program on the use of an 

herbicide, stresses the importance of understanding three things: the species targeted 

for management, the site where the management activity is to take place, and the 

characteristics of the herbicide selected. Through the preparation of a site-specific 

analysis and Pesticide Use Proposal, the issues of concern brought up by the 

commenter will be addressed. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-413 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0566-005 

Western Society of 

Weed Science 

EMC-0585-121 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-214 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

Comment: One implication for Alternative B that may cause concern is that the use of 

herbicides around Threatened & Endangered (T&E) species is always harmful to the 

organism. However, the judicious use of herbicides can benefit T&E species by 

controlling noxious and invasive weeds that adversely alter habitats making them less 

suitable for T&E organisms. There are herbicides that control specific noxious or 

invasive plants (selective herbicides) without harming T&E species. Generalizations 

that herbicides should not be used around T&E species ignore the potential value of 

herbicides to help restore T&E habitats. In addition, the spread of invasive plants is a 

greater threat to some T&E species than the use of a selective herbicide. For example, 

use of herbicides that control sensitive invasive broadleaf species could be used around 

T&E grass species. Both Dr. Rod Lym, North Dakota State University, and Dr. Joe 

DiTomaso, University of California, have conducted field research that support this 

beneficial effect of herbicides in improving or preserving T&E habitat quality. 

Additionally, some measure of unintentional damage to T&E species should be 

articulated where non-herbicidal approaches are taken. Mechanical removal of 

invasive plants will likely disturb habitats and possibly physically damage T&E 

species. 

Response: The discussion of potential effects to special status species (including 

threatened and endangered species) in the PEIS includes negative effects as well as 

benefits. Additional analysis of potential positive and negative effects of proposed 

treatments on threatened and endangered species, and species proposed for listing 

(TEP), is provided in the Biological Assessment (BA). The PER and BA also address 

the potential negative effects to these species associated with non-herbicide treatment 

methods. The BLM recognizes that many of these species can benefit from vegetation 

treatments, but at the same time steps must be taken to ensure that the treatments do 

not harm populations of these species. As applicable, the threats associated with 

invasive plants are discussed in background sections for individual species in the BA. 

Conservation measures developed in the BA consider the benefits to TEP species from 

treatments that improve habitat quality while not harming populations. For example, 

some conservation measures restrict certain types of treatments, except under 

circumstances in which the treatments are specifically designed to maintain or improve 

the existing population. Treatments specifically designed to improve TEP species 

populations will be analyzed in more detail at the local level. 

Comment: Nowhere has BLM ever assessed the environmental impacts, including 

cumulative effects, of the large-scale removal of vegetation for use in biomass/biofuel. 

Any export of nutrients as biomass must also be assessed in relation to annual nutrient 

export and removal by domestic livestock from nearly all BLM lands. There is also 

greater risk of no long term restoration, or recovery of native vegetation occurring with 

nutrient export in biomass. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0584-066 under PER Effects of 

Vegetation Treatments, Vegetation. 

Comment: BLM ignores a critical link between forbs/broad-leaved plants and insect 

production. In the arid West, many more species of insects and a much greater 

diversity of insects are produced in association with forbs. By killing broad-leaved 

insect-producing plants with herbicides, BLM not only would alter protective 

vegetative cover (increasing likelihood of predation of parent, and nestlings/eggs, as 

well as greatly diminish food supplies for insect-dependent young birds (both altricial 

passerines or precocial young such as sage grouse. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-414 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0585-220 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0619-004 

Bellovary, Christopher 

EMC-0621-006 

Alliance of Forest 

Workers and 

Harvesters 

Response: The scenario described in the comment is possible. However, invasive 

species are not native diets for native insects, and invasive plants are crowding out 

native forbs, which are the diet of native insects and support a food chain for avian 

species. The BLM seeks to replace invasive weeds with native or non-native, noninvasive plants. A discussion of the risks to grouse and their chicks is provided in the 

Wildlife Resources section of Chapter 4 of the PEIS. 

Comment: BLM also ignores link between pollinators and rare plants. Rare plant 

species dependent on insect pollinators may be significantly harmed by herbicide use. 

Response: The text of the PEIS has been changed in response to this concern. See the 

analysis of effects to vegetation in Chapter 4, under the Special Status Species 

subheading. 

Comment: The PEIS for this project entirely fails to adequately identify and address 

the potential impacts to native plants and animals from the proposed herbicide 

spraying, despite the fact that the proposed action could devastate many native plants 

and animal species, and could easily result in detrimental changes to entire ecosystems. 

The directly affected habitats include many rare, threatened and endangered species, 

and due to wind drift, watershed drainage, and other ecological connections, the effects 

will likely extend far beyond the areas being sprayed. 16 USC [United States Code] § 

1532(3) [a.k.a. Endangered Species Act § 3(3)] requires that federal agencies use “all 

methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or 

threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to this Act are 

no longer necessary.” 

Response: The BLM has adequately identified and addressed the potential impacts to 

native plants and animals in Chapter 4 of the PEIS. Ecological risk assessments were 

used to predict risks to native plant and animal species, and were used to develop 

appropriate conservation and mitigation measures. Conservation measures for 

threatened and endangered species, which are presented in the Biological Assessment, 

are especially protective, and are intended to avoid adverse health effects to threatened 

endangered species as a result of herbicide application. 

Comment: The ecological and biological assessments for the Draft PEIS do not 

include a discussion of the impacts of spraying herbicides on nontimber forest product 

productivity. Such a discussion requires developing adequate inventories of species 

being harvested. The agency must consider management alternatives that could be 

taken to simultaneously achieve the goals for vegetation management with herbicides 

and the sustainability of harvesting cultures, traditions, and economies. 

Response: The focus of the PEIS and PER was on treatments to control invasive 

species and weeds, and to reduce hazardous fuels. The PEIS discusses impacts to 

different vegetation groups in Chapter 4 under Vegetation and Wildlife Resources. The 

effects of herbicides on vegetation used by Native Americans and Alaska Natives are 

discussed in Chapter 4 of the PEIS under Paleontological and Cultural Resources. The 

ecological risk assessments evaluated risks to different vegetation groups, including 

forest vegetation, from application of herbicides. This information was used in 

preparing Chapter 4 of the PEIS and PER. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-415 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0621-008 

Alliance of Forest 

Workers and 

Harvesters 

EMC-0626-006 

Scotts Miracle-Gro 

Company 

EMC-0638-001 

Kuczora, Carol 

EMC-0640-022 

Animal Welfare 

Institute 

Comment: In reviewing the reference section, only two references for nontimber 

forest products are listed, neither of which pertain specifically to public lands in the 

western United States. This suggests the agency has neglected to review the current 

and historical scholarly literature regarding nontimber forest products. 

Response: A discussion of the importance of non-timber forest products on public 

lands was provided in Chapter 3 of the PEIS and PER under Vegetation, Non-timber 

Forest Products. Also see response to Comment EMC-0621-006 under PEIS 

Environmental Consequences, Vegetation. The PEIS attempted to provide a 

reasonable review of the literature on herbicide use that showed both the adverse and 

positive aspects of herbicide use. 

Comment: In addition, the efficacy of imazapyr for grassland restoration has been 

documented and BLM should include this information in its PEIS. Masters and 

Nissen,3

 Masters et al.,4 and Stougaard et al.5 [references provided with comment 

response] evaluated the utility of imazapyr and other imidazolinone herbicides for the 

restoration of Great Plains grasslands and leafy spurge-infested rangelands. 

Response: Within the PEIS, the use of imazapyr as an herbicide that has activity on 

aggressive invasive species, such as leafy spurge, is referenced in the Vegetation 

section of Chapter 4 of the PEIS. Within the imidazolinone chemistry, only imazapic, 

and imazapyr have current registrations that would allow for their use on BLMadministered lands, with imazapyr already approved for use and imazapic being part of 

the PEIS, as spelled out in Chapter 2. 

Comment: Defoliating defeats the purpose of protecting against wildfire. It invites 

sun-dependent flammable annual grasses and other invasive and less desirable plants 

such as poison oak, thistles, and other noxious weeds susceptible to ignition and 

spreading fire. This plan is a big mistake. 

Response: Fuels treatments are not focused on defoliating vegetation (removing 

leaves), but at reducing the density of small diameter fuels, especially ladder fuels that 

can move fire into the canopy. The concept that when a stand is opened up it will result 

in reduced surface moisture and thus increased flammability is not necessarily true 

across all vegetation types, in all climate categories, at all times of the year. Land use 

and projects plans may propose site-specific management actions, including successive 

treatments or maintenance treatments, following an initial fuel treatment. In some 

areas, microclimatic conditions could temporarily become somewhat drier between 

successive treatments of a single project or during actual treatments. These sitespecific changes are more transitory and occur at a smaller scale than changes that 

would occur following a wildfire. 

It is true that invasive species can move into any disturbed or degraded plant 

community. That is why noxious weed assessments are done before treatments are 

implemented and revegetation after disturbance is determined during the site-specific 

project planning process. Poison oak is a native species that will be a component of 

plant communities where it is found, whether disturbed or not. 

Comment: The PEIS, PER, and associated documents also fail to delineate what 

method of treatment (herbicidal or non-herbicidal) will be used in each identified 

ecoregion to address the specific management needs identified in the purpose and 

needs statement. For example, while the BLM estimates the number or percentage of 

acres that may be treated with herbicides in each ecoregion if the proposed action is 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-416 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0646-166 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

EMC-0646-167 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

implemented, it fails to disclose what percentage of the ecoregion-specific area will be 

treated to address the reduction in hazardous fuels, restoration of fire damaged land, 

control of weeds and invasive species, and the manipulation of vegetation to benefit 

fish and wildlife habitat. Similarly, though reducing hazardous fuels in the wildlandurban interface is deemed to be of great importance to the BLM in its introductory 

information, there is no explanation of what management technique will be used and 

where it will be used to address this concern. While such specifics may be part of a 

regional or more localized plan, incorporating such data in programmatic documents – 

even if the data could only be presented as estimates – would be valuable to the public 

to better understand for what purpose each treatment technique will be used within the 

various ecoregions. 

Response: Some of this information is available in the PER. We have included text in 

the Vegetation section of Chapter 4 of the Final PER and PEIS under Program Goals 

by Ecoregion that discusses the percentage of acres proposed for treatment by 

treatment goal by ecoregion. 

Comment: The Draft PEIS/PER fails in its analysis of the effects of the treatments 

that may be used to combat invasive plants and conduct vegetation management. 

Evidence exists, for example, that herbicides use may create conditions more 

hospitable to invasive species than were present before the chemicals were applied. 

CATs [Californians for Alternatives to Toxics] is concerned that by spraying 

herbicides on almost a million acres (more than tripling current application acreage), 

the BLM will be increasing potential invasive species infestations, rather than reducing 

them. This is contrary to and exactly the opposite of the BLM’s stated project 

objectives for the PEIS. This evidence and indirect/cumulative effects of the proposed 

actions must be analyzed by the BLM in the PEIS. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0646-169 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Vegetation. 

Comment: Several studies have confirmed that increased nutrient availability, in the 

form of excessive dead organic matter, can favor non-indigenous annual species where 

natural nutrient levels may be insufficient. For example, increases in nitrogen (i.e. the 

widening of the C:N [carbon to nitrogen] ratio) have shown to provide a competitive 

advantage to annuals such as cheatgrass that germinate much earlier in the season than 

native grasses (personal communication USGS [U.S. Geological Survey], Corvallis, 

Oregon). If the BLM follows through with the proposed large scale increase of 

herbicide spraying, lots of plants will die, leaving an unnatural amount of dead organic 

matter on the ground, changing natural nutrient levels, and thus creating an unnatural 

advantage for unwanted exotic species. 

Response: The spread, colonization, and establishment of an invasive/exotic species is 

a product of many differing factors, including the nutrient levels of the site being 

infested. When treating downy brome, one of the management options to consider 

would be the application of an herbicide. The management of invasive grass species 

under the BLM vegetation management program involves the use of preemergence 

herbicidal activity, which prevents the selected grass species from emerging, thereby 

reducing the total amount of dry matter present. Postemergence application of 

herbicides is done when the grasses are small, reducing the potential dry matter 

associated with mature and senescent plants. It is recognized that drying induced by 

herbicide use creates dry matter, but the vegetation will also end up dry and brittle as a 

result of its natural life cycle. The critical point is the correct use of the herbicides as a 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-417 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0646-168 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

component of an integrated management approach, taking into account the different 

management strategies associated with the particular target species. 

Comment: Cheatgrass [downy brome], for example, is not necessarily only 

encouraged by soil disturbance. It is more sensitive to light availability (Zouhar 2003). 

Increased spraying, especially wide spread aerial spraying, will kill large swaths of 

vegetation and drastically increase light availability. Decreases in adjacent canopy 

cover will introduce the invasion promoter of light that would provide suitable habitat 

for cheatgrass establishment (Zouhar 2003). The BLM cannot allow any treatment 

method (like herbicide spraying) that will just increase invasive species infestations. 

The BLM is proposing to spray invasives, but the spraying may actually create 

conditions more favorable to invasives rather than native species. This has the potential 

to become a continuous spraying loop. 

Response: Other references reviewed by the BLM provide information about downy 

brome that differs from the points from Zouhar 2003 raised in this comment: 

1. Downy brome seeds germinate best in the dark or in diffuse light – Young, Jim. 

2000. Bromus tectorum L. In: Bossard, Carla C.; Randall, John M.; Hoshovsky, Marc 

C., eds. Invasive plants of California’s wildlands. Berkeley, CA: University of 

California Press: 76-80. [Reference Number 492]

 2. In drier environments downy brome requires environmental conditions less harsh 

than those of bare soil and must be covered by soil or litter. Young, James A.; Evans, 

Raymond A.; Major, J. 1972. Alien plants in the Great Basin. Journal of Range 

Management. 25: 194-201. [Reference 488]; Evans, Raymond A.; Young, James A. 

1972. Microsite requirements for establishment of annual rangeland weeds. Weed 

Science. 20(4): 350-356. [Reference 142]; Evans, Raymond A.; Young, James A. 

1987. Seedbed microenvironment, seedling recruitment, and plant establishment on 

rangelands. In: Frasier, Gary W.; Evans, Raymond A., eds. Seed and seedbed ecology 

of rangeland plants: proceedings of symposium; 1987 April 21-23; Tucson, AZ. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service: 212­

220. [Reference 146]

 3. Establishment of downy brome seedlings is favored by large amounts of plant 

mulch. Evans, Raymond A.; Young, James A. 1970. Plant litter and establishment of 

alien annual weed species in rangeland communities. Weed Science. 18(6): 697-703. 

[Reference 141] 

4. Downy brome invasion may be accelerated by disturbance, but disturbance is not 

required for downy brome establishment. Goodrich, Sherel. 1999. Multiple use 

management based on diversity of capabilities and values within pinyon-juniper 

woodlands. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Stevens, Richard, compilers. Proceedings: 

ecology and management of pinyon-juniper communities within the Interior West: 

Sustaining and restoring a diverse ecosystem; 1997 September 15-18; Provo, UT. 

Proceedings RMRS-P-9. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station: 164-171. [Reference 166]; Meyer, Susan E.; 

Garvin, Susan C.; Beckstead, Julie. 2001. Factors mediating cheatgrass invasion of 

intact salt desert shrubland. In: McArthur, E. Durant; Fairbanks, Daniel J., compilers. 

Shrubland ecosystem genetics and biodiversity: proceedings; 2000 June 13-15; Provo, 

UT. Proc. RMRS-P-21. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station: 224-232. [Reference 287] 

5. Downy brome can also thrive in areas that have little or no history of cultivation 

or grazing by domestic livestock. Driscoll, Richard S. 1964. A relict area in the central 

Oregon juniper zone. Ecology. 45(2): 345-353. [Reference 126]; Emmerich, F. L.; 

Tipton, F. H.; Young, J. A. 1993. Cheatgrass: changing perspectives and management 

strategies. Rangelands. 15(1): 37-40. [Reference 137]; Goodrich, Sherel; Gale, Natalie. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-418 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0646-169 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

1999. Cheatgrass frequency at two relic sites within the pinyon-juniper belt of Red 

Canyon. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Stevens, Richard, compilers. Proceedings: ecology 

and management of pinyon-juniper communities within the Interior West: Sustaining 

and restoring a diverse ecosystem; 1997 September 15-18; Provo, UT. Proceedings 

RMRS-P-9. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station: 69-71. [Reference 167]; Goodrich, Sherel; McArthur, E. 

Durant; Winward, Alma H. 1999. Sagebrush ecotones and average annual 

precipitation. In: McArthur, E. Durant; Ostler, W. Kent; Wambolt, Carl L., compilers. 

Proceedings: shrubland ecotones; 1998 August 12-14; Ephraim, UT. Proceedings 

RMRS-P-11. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station: 88-94. [Reference 168]; Kindschy, Robert R. 1994. 

Pristine vegetation of the Jordan Crater kipukas: 1978-91. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; 

Kitchen, Stanley G., compilers. Proceedings – ecology and management of annual 

rangelands; 1992 May 18-22; Boise, ID. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-313. Ogden, UT: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 85­

88. [Reference 231]; Mosely, Jeffrey C.; Bunting, Stephen C.; Manoukian, Mark E. 

1999. Cheatgrass. In: Sheley, Roger L.; Petroff, Janet K., eds. Biology and 

management of noxious rangeland weeds. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University 

Press: 175-188. [Reference 307]; Svejcar, Tony; Tausch, Robin. 1991. Anaho Island, 

Nevada: a relict area dominated by annual invader species. Rangelands. 13(5): 233­

236. [Reference 410]; Tausch, Robin J.; Svejcar, Tony; Burkhardt, J. Wayne. 1994. 

Patterns of annual grass dominance on Anaho Island: implications for Great Basin 

vegetation management. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Kitchen, Stanley G., compilers. 

Proceedings – ecology and management of annual rangelands; 1992 May 18-22; 

Boise, ID. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT- GTR-313. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 120-125. [Reference 415] 

As with downy brome, the management of invasive species involves an understanding 

of the ecological characteristics of the species identified for management. By correctly 

identifying such characteristics an effective management plan can be developed. The 

purpose of the PEIS is to provide a broad comprehensive background source of 

information on which any necessary subsequent environmental analysis can be tiered. 

Specific concerns regarding the use of a particular herbicide will be addressed during 

the site-specific analysis. Chapter 2 of the PER further addresses how the different 

management options will be integrated into an overall management program in order 

to meet the goals of the vegetation management program. 

Comment: Use of herbicides where non-native weed plants already occur frequently 

results in a reproductive advantage for non-native species, which then expand rapidly 

due to the lack of competition. In a short period of time, this can result in an 

exponential increase in non-native plants (Wooten and Renwyck 2001). The BLM fails 

to provide analysis of such information in the Draft PEIS, and it is found in the 

literature and very relevant to the issue at hand. 

Response: Any treatment (not just herbicide) to remove non-natives may stimulate 

non-natives to expand, mostly due to disturbance of the seedbank in the soil. Herbicide 

treatment actually is less disturbing in this regard. It is true that continuous use of a 

broadcast herbicide can aid in selection for herbicide tolerant species, which may or 

may not be invasive, but the initial step in planning any vegetation project is to assess 

and plan for revegetation of openings created by the proposed treatment. Revegetation 

Standard Operating Procedures are discussed under Revegetation in Chapter 2 of the 

PER. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-419 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0646-172 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

EMC-0646-175 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

EMC-0646-176 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

EMC-0646-177 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

Comment: That herbicides appear to be a disturbance factor that actually encourages 

invasive species to colonize and spread in herbicide-treated areas clearly must be 

analyzed in the PEIS. 

Response: The colonization and spread of a particular invasive species is the product 

of several factors, including, but not limited to, the species in question and the 

environmental characteristics of the site of potential infestation. Certain invasive 

species are aggressive and will invade an area regardless of whether it has had a 

disturbance event or not. In addition, different vegetation communities vary in their 

natural ability to resist invasion by non-native species. The analysis of potential for 

associated impacts from herbicide applications would occur at the site-specific level 

prior to treatment. 

Comment: CATs [Californians for Alternatives to Toxics] contends that the proposed 

action of widespread spraying of herbicides to kill unwanted vegetation will result in 

increased fired dangers from standing dead biomass and exotic species invasions post 

spraying. Killing large amounts of the brush and other weeds with herbicides will 

undoubtedly increase light availability in heavy brush areas and thus increase potential 

noxious weed and invasive species habitat. 

Response: Following integrated weed management procedures, most herbicide 

treatments will be combined with other methods, including removal of treated fuels 

mechanically or by prescribed fire. These methods include revegetation of areas where 

gaps have been created to prevent invasive species establishment. If herbicides can 

control invasive plants that have disrupted fire regimes and provide a competitive edge 

to native species that do not disrupt fire regimes, then wildland fire risk will be 

reduced. 

Comment: The BLM has failed to discuss in the PEIS cheatgrass’ ability to indirectly 

benefit from herbicides and proliferate in disturbed herbicide sprayed areas, and then 

to create an additional major fire threats. 

Response: As the commentor notes, downy brome (cheatgrass) is an aggressive 

colonizer of disturbed sites. Should an area dominated by downy brome be sprayed 

with an herbicide, it would be one formulated specifically for treating annual grasses. 

If no native plants are available to reinhabit the site, then downy brome is quite likely 

to become reestablished. That is why spraying of downy brome is done to release 

existing native plants, especially in areas where a native seedbank still exists, or 

natives are seeded after the downy brome has been killed. Revegetating a site with 

native plants is a primary goal following the spraying of downy brome with an 

herbicide. 

Comment: The BLM needs to take a long and honest look at the potential for creating 

that which they say they are trying to avoid, tinder dry forests and grasslands, thick 

with both living and dead ladder fuels. In essence that is exactly what will be created 

by the preferred alternative. In truth the only way to avoid this is to cut unwanted 

brush, either mechanically, or by hand, leave it on the ground to discourage new brush 

growth and noxious weed invasion, and restock the area the following planting season. 

This would provide jobs, give greater protection to wildlife, provide erosion 

protection, and create a healthier soil profile. The brush would decompose faster than 

dead brush left standing. A selective re-cut 2 to 3 years later would allow for release. 

The beneficial aspects of brush (soil and nitrogen production, wildlife feed and habitat) 

would allow for a faster growing and healthier forest. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-420 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0646-179 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

EMC0646-180 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

EMC-0646-182 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

Response: When vegetation is treated and killed during a fuels treatment, a secondary 

treatment is planned to remove any remaining dead plant material. Depending on sitespecific habitat requirements needed to meet objectives for other resources, such as 

wildlife, some level of woody debris is left. This debris provides the beneficial aspects 

mentioned in the comment. Brush not needed to meet these objectives would create the 

same level of fuel hazard as if left standing, but would be drier. The only difference is 

the change in placement of the fuel. An analysis of the site variables involved during 

local level project design will determine to what extent fuels must be removed, 

chipped, or handpiled and burned, as well as the need for planting. The potential to 

provide jobs will exist no matter what the follow-up treatment may be. 

Comment: With cheatgrass spread comes the lengthening of the fire season and 

increase in numbers of fires, the very same fires that the BLM’s PEIS is suppose to 

avoid. This invasive greatly impacts ecosystem functioning causing changes in fire 

regimes including increased fire frequency and extent, often to the point where native 

species cannot recover (D’Antonio et al 2002, Brooks et al 2004, Young and Clements 

2005). The Tahoe National Forest wrote in the Cottonwood FEIS (2005) “The biggest 

threat the project area faces from cheatgrass is repeated stand replacing 

fires...Cheatgrass dominated communities tend to burn more frequently and can 

shorten the fire return interval, thus effectively hampering the recovery of native 

vegetation (Personal communication, Young, 2002).” 

Response: See responses to Comment FXC-0071-021 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis, and Comment RMC-0042-054 under PEIS 

Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action. 

Comment: The probability of increased fires due to cheatgrass [downy brome] 

proliferation is not part of the effects or alternative analysis and thus fails to fully 

inform the decision maker. The frequent fires associated with cheatgrass infestations, 

as well as all the dead brush left standing from the herbicide spraying has the likely 

potential to wipe out a vast areas of public lands, and render this project a huge waste 

of BLM resources and tax payer money. 

Response: See Fire Ecology for the Temperate Desert Ecoregion under Fire Ecology 

and Vegetation by Ecoregion in the PER for a description of the downy brome affected 

environment. See Table 4-5 under Vegetation in Chapter 4 of the PER for a discussion 

on the effects of fire treatments on downy brome. When vegetation is treated and 

killed during a fuels treatment, regardless of the method used, a secondary treatment is 

planned to remove any remaining dead plant material. 

Comment: The factors contributing to the proliferation of existing weed populations 

and the establishment of new populations have been described above. The advent of 

increased light availability and soil disturbance to sprayed areas sets the stage for this 

advancement of invasive weeds. The use of herbicides is unwarranted as its current 

proposed application would not accomplish the desired goals. In addition, it is feared 

that the proposed fuels reduction treatments would promote further weed 

establishment and increase the area of existing weed populations, resulting in future 

proposals for even more widespread herbicide treatment to control an escalating weed 

problem. Until further exploration of intensive weed management is considered, the 

use of herbicide, as described in the PEIS, is futile, insufficient and exposes the public 

lands to vast amounts of toxics unnecessarily. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-421 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0646-222 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

RMC-0040(2)-004 

Resource Concepts, 

Inc. 

Response: Integrated weed management is expanded on in Chapter 2 of the PEIS and 

PER under Vegetation Treatment Standard Operating Procedures and Guidelines. The 

Prevention of Weeds and Early Detection and Rapid Response section reiterates that 

the BLM is required to develop a noxious weed risk assessment when an action may 

introduce or spread noxious weeds, that modification of actions must take place to 

reduce likelihood of infestations when the risk is determined to be moderate or high, 

and that control measures to be implemented be identified if weeds do infest the site. 

This direction is required under BLM Manual 9015 (Integrated Weed Management). 

Direction on determining treatment method is found in BLM policy in BLM Manual 

9011 (Chemical Pest Control). Integrated weed management will be used as the 

decision process for determining appropriate treatments and appropriate revegetation 

at the site-specific, local level. The very factors mentioned in the comment will be 

taken into account when designing a treatment project. 

Comment: In addition to the proliferation of vegetation, the fuels treatment areas will 

experience reduced surface fuel moisture and increased flammability (Countryman 

1955 as cited in Weatherspoon 1996). The greater the stand opening, the more 

pronounced the change in microclimate is likely to be. Increased ladder fuels and 

decreased surface fuel moisture can be a catastrophic combination. These effects must 

be analyzed within the PEIS (or PER). 

Response: The concept that when a stand is opened up it will result in reduced surface 

moisture and thus increased flammability is not necessarily true across all vegetation 

types, all climate categories, or all times of the year. Land use and project plans may 

propose site-specific management actions, including successive treatments or 

maintenance treatments, following an initial fuel treatment. In some areas, 

microclimatic conditions could temporarily become somewhat drier between 

successive treatments of a single project or during actual treatments. These sitespecific changes are more transitory and occur at a smaller scale than changes that 

would occur following a wildfire. 

The concept is less applicable to dry site ponderosa pine stands in the inland northwest 

that have been encroached upon by short-needled conifers. In these areas, in late 

summer and early fall before the onset of fall rains, the forest floor is dry regardless of 

whether short-needled conifers are present. Should a fire occur, these short needled 

conifers would contribute to the fire’s intensity because they are ladder fuels. 

Therefore, the goal of many treatments in dry-site ponderosa pine areas is to reduce 

encroachment by short-needled conifers, in order to lessen wildfire intensity and 

preserve the pines. Effects of short-needled conifer removal would be evaluated in a 

site-specific environmental assessment. 

Comment: Pg [Page] 4-123 [of the Draft PEIS], in the fourth paragraph on this page, 

herbicide treatments are being proposed to reduce the risk of future catastrophic 

wildfire for weeds of concern including downy brome, Russian thistle, kochia, oak, 

and pinyon/juniper. Herbicide applications of tebuthiuron or other herbicides could 

actually increase the risk of catastrophic wildfire. Leaving standing dead trees and tree 

branches on-site after application of herbicide treatment could result in higher 

quantities of low-moisture fuels that carry fire faster and hotter than live vegetation. 

Reducing the percentage of live pinyon and juniper trees in an area through chemical 

treatment should result in less competition for native grass and forb species, which is a 

benefit of treatment. However, increases in grass, forb, and shrub fuels are expected 

and can negate the supposed fuel reduction purpose behind the treatment. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-422 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0042-084 

Asher, Jerry 

RMC-0042-085 

Asher, Jerry 

RMC-0042-086 

Asher, Jerry 

RMC-0106-030 

Public Employees for 

Environmental 

Responsibility 

Response: The BLM does not agree with this comment. In some cases herbicides are 

applied to prevent emergence of the plant to begin with. In cases where plants are 

treated and killed, a secondary treatment is planned to remove any remaining dead 

plant material. After the initial treatments, monitoring and follow-up treatments (which 

can be of any type, not necessarily chemical), if necessary, will occur. Also see 

response to Comment RMC-0069-016 under PEIS Proposed Action and Purpose and 

Need, Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action. 

Comment: “Today, the rapid expansion of invasive species (that includes animals. Do 

you mean plants?) across public lands is one of the primary threats to ecosystem 

health...”. (first para [paragraph] pg [page] 4-42 [of the Draft PEIS]). The word threat 

tells the reader that maybe the weeds will keep expanding. Is there any doubt that they 

will keep expanding. 

Response: The text of the PEIS has been changed for clarity in response to this 

comment. See the section on Vegetation in Chapter 4. 

Comment: Delete threat and change sentence to read: “Today the rapid expansion of 

invasive plants across public lands is causing massive and often permanent (with 

today’s economics and technology) damage to ecosystem health and is one of the 

greatest challenges to ecosystem management” 

Response: The text of the PEIS has been changed for clarity in response to this 

comment. See the section on Vegetation in Chapter 4. 

Comment: The first [P]EIS full para. [paragraph] pg. [page] 4-65, needs to be more 

accurate. Replace likely spread with will spread. Insert “permanent” before 

“damage”.... And, add “steep rocky terrain” in the “e.g. parenthetical para. 

Response: The text of the PEIS has been revised in response to this comment. See the 

discussion of impacts to vegetation under Alternative C, in Chapter 4, under the 

Vegetation subheading. 

Comment: It is stated that “In the majority of cases, toxicological data do not exist for 

the specific plant receptors of concern. Consequently, toxicological data for surrogate 

species...were evaluated and used to establish quantitative benchmarks...for the 

ecological receptors of concern.” In addition (p. [page] 4-45 [of the Draft PEIS]) most 

of the assessments relate to crop plants, not native species. Considering the fact that 

the BLM and the USFS [U.S. Forest Service] have been conducting herbicidal 

treatments on public lands for two decades, this indirect approach to risk assessment 

for the particular herbicides in question should by now have been replaced with real, 

relevant data. 

Response: There are several thousands of species on public lands in the western U.S. 

Toxicity studies are typically performed on a few species of principal economic 

interest; for herbicide toxicity studies these species include crops and selected animal 

species. Interspecies extrapolation is a standard practice in toxicology and risk 

assessment. See responses to Comment EMC-0640-037 and Comment EMC-0585-199 

under PEIS Environmental Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-423 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0106-032 

Public Employees for 

Environmental 

Responsibility 

RMC-0144-022 

Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department 

RMC-0200-011 

Lindsay, Dianne 

RMC-0208-018 

California Oak 

Foundation 

RMC-0208-023 

California Oak 

Foundation 

Comment: p. [Page] 4-45 [of the Draft PEIS]. Under Non-target Plants, an incident of 

extensive crop damage from use of Sulfometuron Methyl (Oust® formulation) is 

described as resulting from drift. This is apparently incorrect as reports indicate it was 

caused by wind erosion of sprayed burn areas, spreading ash contaminated by the 

herbicide. Label instructions apparently call for application before rain, but, although 

the season was right, the weather did not cooperate. This event should provide a headsup warning that use of this herbicide in burn areas should not be allowed—unless the 

BLM improves its weather forecasting. 

Response: The text under Impacts Common to All Treatments (Non-target Plants) in 

the Vegetation Section of Chapter 4 of the PEIS has been revised to correctly describe 

the factors that resulted in crop damage. Further guidance on the application of Oust® 

under Impacts of BLM-evaluated Herbicides, Sulfometuron Methyl. 

Comment: [Page] 4-45 [of the Draft PEIS]: We recommend adding post treatment 

management as another factor relative to the success of the treatments over both the 

short and long-term. 

Response: See text added to Impacts Common to All Treatments in the Vegetation 

section of Chapter 4 of the Final PEIS concerning the role of post-treatment 

maintenance activities in short- and long-term success of vegetation treatments. 

Comment: The PEIS fails to use the most recent information regarding forest health. 

The use of herbicides to kill all but the conifers greatly reduces the soil building 

capabilities of other very important trees and plants. 

Response: The use of herbicides to kill all but conifers is not the BLM’s main intent. 

Under the proposed program of work outlined in the PEIS and PER, herbicides would 

be used primarily to control non-native species, such as downy brome and tamarisk, 

and invasive native species that have invaded native shrub and grasslands due to the 

exclusion of fire, such as juniper. Also, see Vegetation Treatment Planning and 

Management in Chapter 2 of the PEIS. Land use plans guide land use and vegetation 

management decisions within the geographic area they cover, and provide specific 

goals, standards, and objectives to apply to vegetation treatment projects and activities. 

The overriding goal is to treat vegetation on lands only where necessary, and to 

prioritize treatment methods based on their effectiveness and likelihood of having 

minimal impacts on the environment. Also see response to Comment EMC-0584-066 

under PER Effects of Vegetation Treatments, Vegetation. 

Comment: The BLM’s proposal to increase the use of herbicides on its lands adjacent 

to oak woodlands will only further accelerate the loss of this essential habitat. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0208-003 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management. 

Comment: The PEIS fails to disclose the extent to which the BLM’s use of herbicides 

on its lands in California will impact the state’s oak woodland habitats. Indeed, the 

PEIS provides the public with virtually no information by which it can determine the 

extent to which the BLM’s proposed use of herbicides will impact this vital resource. 

And, although the Draft PEIS contemplates additional NEPA documents will be 

prepared at the local level that will address specific areas to be treated and assess 

potential effects, the time to assess these impacts at the regional level is now. 

Otherwise, the current NEPA review process is an empty exercise that allows the BLM 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-424 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0213-006 

California Native Plant 

Society 

RMC-0213-013 

California Native Plant 

Society 

to charge ahead with a massive program to vastly increased use of herbicides but 

without assessing whether that increased use could potentially effect resources, 

including oak woodlands, and specifically including oak woodlands in California. 

Response: The PEIS discusses potential impacts from the program to oak woodlands 

in California and other western states in Chapter 4 under Vegetation Resources. In 

California, treatments would be limited in oak woodlands and would focus on weedy 

species. However, more detailed information on impacts to woodlands is best assessed 

once the project is developed and potential treatment methods identified. This 

information would be addressed on a site-specific basis, using information that is 

provided in this broad programmatic document. 

Comment: The sulfonylurea herbicides such as sulfometuron methyl (Oust®) and 

chlorsulfuron (Glean©) are known to cause significant reductions in fruit and seed 

production in a variety of plant species, even at 1000 times lower than the 

recommended application rate. Current EPA registration requirements do not include 

testing for reproductive effects, yet more than 230 formulations containing these 

chemicals had been registered by 1987. Reproductive damage to rare plant populations 

could severely threaten rare and endangered species’ long-term survival. Although rare 

plant species have been directly impacted by this herbicide, no monitoring has been 

done to determine whether surviving individuals have been reproductively affected, 

even though these impacts could lead to severe impacts to the species as a whole. 

Response: Actually, USEPA-mandated registration tests do measure plant 

reproductive endpoints, including germination and seed emergence. While improper 

herbicide use may pose a risk to rare plants, these plants are being crowded out by 

invasive weeds; proper herbicide application is intended to help restore native plants. 

The Biological Assessment discusses the risks to threatened and endangered plants 

from herbicide use, and provides Standard Operating Procedures and mitigation 

measures to help avoid or reduce these risks. 

Comment: CNPS [California Native Plant Society] is concerned about native plants 

that provide important food sources for birds, deer, and other wildlife. The impacts to 

rare plants described above, especially from chlorsulfuron and sulfometuron methyl, 

are of concern because reproductive damage to food-source plants is likely to have 

detrimental effects for animal species that rely on these plants for food. Of particular 

concern are threatened, endangered, and sensitive species, and we believe that these 

potential negative impacts must be considered in any proposed use of herbicides, but 

especially aerial and broadcast ground spray plans. 

Response: The potential indirect effects to wildlife associated with impacts to plants 

that serve as a source of food are discussed in Chapter 4 of the PEIS, under the 

Wildlife Resources subheading. In addition, the Biological Assessment provides 

background information on all threatened, endangered, and proposed for listing (TEP) 

wildlife species, including specific diet needs that must be maintained in order for the 

species to survive. Protection of habitat was considered when developing conservation 

measures for special status species. In addition, there are conservation measures 

specific to rare plant species, including those that are important components of wildlife 

habitat. At the local level, development of treatment programs and the analysis of their 

potential effects will be more detailed as far as which special status species and 

associated habitat could potentially be affected by treatments. This information will be 

used to develop additional conservation measures, as appropriate. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-425 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0218-045 

Blue Mountains 

Biodiversity Project, 

League of Wilderness 

Defenders 

RMC-0222-100 

Salvo, Mark 

(Sagebrush Sea 

Campaign), Cox, 

Caroline (Northwest 

Coalition for 

Alternatives to 

Pesticides), and 

O’Brien, Mary 

RMC-0222-101 

Salvo, Mark 

(Sagebrush Sea 

Campaign), Cox, 

Caroline (Northwest 

Coalition for 

Alternatives to 

Pesticides), and 

O’Brien, Mary 

Comment: We are also concerned that there are references in the DEIS [Draft PEIS] 

to setting back the successional stage of “rangeland” and forest to an earlier 

successional stage through the use of herbicides – for what? So that livestock graze on 

grasses rather than sagebrush and the sage grouse is eliminated as a restriction on 

livestock use? So that trees are more “vigorous” to grow for timber uses and 

“decadent” old growth habitat is eliminated, along with old growth-dependent species? 

This is not fulfilling the full public use and enjoyment mandate for public lands, which 

should not be managed as commercial private enterprises. 

Response: A large percentage of BLM-administered lands evolved with repeated fires. 

Fire was a predominant factor in creating successional stages that provided the broad 

mosaic of habitat to which many native wildlife species are adapted. Where the 

exclusion of fire has altered the native plant community mosaic, treatments may be 

used to create conditions that more closely resemble the native plant community, 

including early several stages where they are uncharacteristically underrepresented, as 

compared to the native plant community. 

Comment: Nonlethal effects on plants (effects on plants other than mortality): 

Although the DEIS [Draft PEIS] claims that in the evaluation of herbicide effects on 

nontarget plants the assessment endpoints include “adverse direct effects on growth, 

reproduction, or other ecologically important sublethal processes,” the DEIS [Draft 

PEIS] omits important recent research in this area. For example, the DEIS [Draft 

PEIS] omits evaluation of recent research showing nonlethal effects of 2,4-D occur at 

exposure levels far below normal application rates. A recent study published in the 

journal Mutation Research showed that concentrations of 2,4-D “that did not have any 

visible physiological effects” caused genetic damage in plants. The study was 

conducted by biologists at the University of Lethbridge. (Folkowski et al 2003) 

Response: The BLM relied on the Forest Service’s ecological risk assessment (ERA) 

for 2,4-D (Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. 1998; full reference in 

PEIS Reference section). The study referred to in the comment was published after the 

Forest Service’s ERA. However, the toxicity analyses in the PEIS focus on sublethal 

effects that are likely to reduce plant populations (e.g., growth and reproduction 

impacts). It is difficult to determine whether observations of genetic effects would 

produce adverse impacts to the individual plants (since no physiological impacts were 

observed) or to the larger plant population. 

Comment: The DEIS [Draft PEIS] omits evaluation of a series of studies that showed 

glyphosate increases the frequency of disease in a variety of non-target plants. These 

diseases include fusarium head blight in cereal crops, sudden death syndrome in 

soybeans, root rot in sugarcane, and white mold in soybeans. The studies were 

conducted by scientists at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Iowa State University, 

Louisiana State University, and Michigan State University, and were published in the 

Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology, Phytopathology, and the Agronomy Journal. 

(Hanson and Fernandez 2003, Sanogo, Yang, and Scherm 2000, Dissanayake, Hoy, 

and Griffin 1998, and Nelson, Renner, and Hammerschmidt 2002) 

Response: The plant toxicity analyses in the PEIS focus on sublethal effects such as 

growth and reproduction. It is recognized that land managers may need to consider 

other potential adverse effects (e.g., fungal infection) in the timing and selection of 

herbicide to be applied. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-426 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Environmental Consequences, Fish and Other Aquatic Organisms 

EMC-0585-221 Comment: BLM fails to provide data and analysis of impacts to springsnails and 

Western Watersheds aquatic insects. 

Project 

Response: Springsnails and aquatic insects are aquatic invertebrates. At the 

programmatic level, the BLM provides risk assessment data for aquatic invertebrates 

in Appendix C and analyzes potential impacts to aquatic invertebrates from herbicide 

treatments in Chapter 4 of the PEIS, under the subheading Fish and Other Aquatic 

Organisms. In addition, the Biological Assessment addresses the potential effects of 

treatments on threatened, endangered, and proposed for listing aquatic invertebrates. 

EMC-0601-002 Comment: Do you know about fish uptake of herbicides and pesticides when these 

Kampmeyer, Al chemicals are introduced into their waters? 

Response: Chemical-specific effects information can be found in Chapter 4 of the 

PEIS under Fish and Other Aquatic Organisms, as well as on the USEPA’s website at 

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ecosystem/ecorisk.htm. The Ecological Risk 

Assessment in Appendix C of the PEIS includes a detailed discussion of the ecological 

effects of these chemicals on fish and the aquatic environment. The Biological 

Assessment that was prepared for the PEIS describes the effects of herbicide 

treatments on federally-listed endangered and threatened fish and aquatic invertebrates 

and their critical habitats. 

EMC-0643-079 Comment: Triclopyr BEE [butoxyethyl ester], diuron, and tebuthiuron products are 

California Indian among those under a court ordered restriction for use in listed salmonid habitat; similar 

Basketweavers precaution is needed for non-listed species. Court ordered restrictions on the use of 

Association these products are not found on product labels and were not addressed in the D[raft] 

EIS. Currently, these three herbicides cannot be applied within 20 yards of federally 

listed salmonid bearing streams or within 100 yards in the case of aerial application. 

Washington Toxics Coalition et al. v. EPA, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 2005. 

Similar cautionary restrictions are necessary for non-listed aquatic species, including 

amphibians. 

Response: Buffers for non special status species fish and aquatic invertebrates are 

identified in Chapter 4 of the PEIS in Table 4-19. The buffers identified are as 

conservative as those for special status fish species (see Table 4-21) for all herbicide 

applications, except for diuron at the maximum application rate via high boom. In this 

case, the high-boom buffer for special status fish is more conservative than the buffer 

for non special status fish. 

The ecological risk assessments developed for this PEIS typically did not assess risks 

to amphibians from herbicide treatments. Based on guidance from the Council on 

Environmental Quality, when information is incomplete or unavailable, the PEIS states 

the level of information available, the relevance of the information, and the potential 

impacts derived from that information. The PEIS assumed that risks to fish represent 

risks to aquatic amphibians (see Chapter 4 under Special Status Wildlife Species in the 

Wildlife Resources section). This assumption is supported by a study by Berrill and 

Bertram (Berrill, M., and S. Bertram. 1997. Effects of Pesticides on Amphibian 

Embryos and Larvae. Pages 233-245 in Amphibians in Decline: Canadian Studies of a 

Global Problem (D.M. Greene, ed.). Society for the Study of Amphibians and 

Reptiles), which states that “aquatic stages of amphibians are generally comparable to 

fresh-water fish in their vulnerability to exposure to low levels of pesticides.” Under 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-427 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0646-084 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

RMC-0106-034 

Public Employees for 

Environmental 

Responsibility 

the Preferred Alternative, more herbicide options are available to the BLM for use, 

which increases the ability of the BLM to use herbicides with less potential for impact 

to amphibians and their habitat. In addition, the BLM could use other treatment 

methods, such as mechanical or manual methods, in areas with sensitive species. 

Comment: A 2005 study from Marc has verified their earlier findings. POEA 

[polyoxyethylene-alkylamine] facilitates the toxic effects of the AI [active ingredient] 

glyphosate, as well as providing it’s own toxicity. 

“The adverse effect on transcription involves the commercial product and therefore is 

the result of a combination of the formulation products. The contribution of glyphosate 

to the adverse effect of Roundup was investigated and demonstrated by two lines of 

evidence. On the one hand, four different glyphosate-based formulations provoked a 

delay in hatching at glyphosate concentration within similar range. On the second 

hand, an additional effect on hatching was observed when a threshold amount of 

Roundup was supplemented with pure glyphosate. However, our results do not 

exclude a contribution of the formulation products to the Roundup effect: first, because 

permeabilizing agents are required for glyphosate effect as a herbicide (Williams et al., 

2000) or as a cell cycle deregulator (Marc et al., 2002), for the intracellular access of 

the chemical to its molecular targets. Second, because the major component of 

Roundup, polyoxyethylene amine (POEA), was found to be highly toxic to the 

embryos and led to lethality. Such higher toxicity of POEA compared to Roundup has 

been observed on other aquatic organisms (Tsui and Chu, 2003). Altogether, the 

adverse effect of Roundup on hatching is due, at least in part, to the active herbicide 

component glyphosate, which reaches its intracellular molecular target through the 

synergic effects of the formulation ingredients. Regarding the potential human health 

concern, it is important to note that glyphosate is never sprayed for herbicide usage 

without the formulation compounds (Williams et al., 2000)” (Marc et al 2005). There 

is a wealth of studies and information available concerning the toxicity of the inert 

surfactant POEA in certain glyphosate formulations. What has been presented here is 

only the tip of the iceberg. 

Response: Based on public comment and additional analysis, the BLM proposes to 

either avoid using any glyphosate formulations with POEA, which may be the toxic 

component in glyphosate, or seek to use the formulation with the lowest amount of 

POEA available. Also see response to Comment RMC-0106-037 under PEIS 

Environmental Consequences, Fish and Other Aquatic Organisms. 

Comment: [Pages] 4-74 to 4-75 [of the Draft PEIS]. The characterization of risk 

assessment (Step [bullet] 4) as “quantitative” is grossly misleading as the resultant risk 

category assignment is the result of artificial manipulation of toxicological unknowns, 

surrogates, and guesswork about predicted environmental concentrations. The whole 

assessment protocol covers only part of the potential problems—leaving out inerts and 

degradates. It further assumes that SOPs [Standard Operating Procedures], label 

instructions will be followed, and that applications will be “typical.” 

Response: The risk assessments are quantitative; they project numeric estimates of 

risk. See response to Comment EMC-0585-192 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis for information on inert ingredients. See 

responses to Comment RMC-0106-048 under PEIS Appendix C, Ecological Risk 

Assessment, Comment EMC-0623-017 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, 

Herbicide Effects Analysis, and Comment RMC-0191-009 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis for information on degradates and 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-428 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0106-035 

Public Employees for 

Environmental 

Responsibility 

RMC-0106-036 

Public Employees for 

Environmental 

Responsibility 

RMC-0106-037 

Public Employees for 

Environmental 

Responsibility 

formulations. The mitigating and performance measures in herbicide application, 

including training, site reviews on application rates and delivery, and contractor 

oversight, are designed to ensure proper use, as discussed in response to Comment 

EMC-0267-002 under PEIS Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Federal Laws, 

Regulations, and Policies that Influence Vegetation Treatments. 

Comment [Page] 4-72 to 4-87 [of the Draft PEIS], Impacts of individual herbicides. 

No information is provided on herbicide formulations to be used, or on inerts and 

degradates. The assessments are larded with qualitative terms such as tendency, 

appreciable, likelihood, minimal, majority, normal use, appropriate use, typical 

application, normal application scenario, relative toxicity, plausible, appear, and the 

like. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0585-192 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis for information on inert ingredients. See 

responses to Comment RMC-0106-048 under PEIS Appendix C, Ecological Risk 

Assessment, Comment EMC-0623-017 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, 

Herbicide Effects Analysis, and Comment RMC-0191-009 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis for information on degradates and 

formulations. 

Comment: p. 4-81. Under Overdrive, benefits to aquatic organisms are claimed “...if 

it is used...selectively...provided herbicide use is seen as an acceptable vegetation 

treatment method in these sensitive areas.” This proviso indicates that Overdrive 

should not be used at all. 

Response: The BLM examined Overdrive®, which is comprised of two active 

ingredients—diflufenzopyr and dicamba. The herbicide is selective and systemic, and 

has a low residence time in water bodies and a low bioconcentration potential. 

Diflufenzopyr and dicamba application does not pose a risk to fish or aquatic 

invertebrates under the application scenarios analyzed in the ecological risk 

assessments prepared for these herbicides (see the ecological risk assessments on the 

CD included with the Final PEIS). In addition, there is no implication that this 

herbicide will be applied directly to water, since it is not USEPA-registered for aquatic 

applications at this time. The risks analyzed were associated with the potential for this 

herbicide to be exposed to an aquatic environment through some unforeseen pathway, 

as identified in the PEIS Appendix C, Ecological Risk Assessment. 

Comment: [Page] 4-83 [of the Draft PEIS]. It is stated that “some formulations (of 

glyphosate) are more toxic to fish than technical grade glyphosate.” It is incumbent on 

the DPEIS [Draft PEIS] to identify these and to provide direction on selection of the 

least harmful formulation. It is likely that this problem applies also to various 

commercial formulations of other herbicides. The DPEIS [Draft PEIS] must a) 

evaluate all commercial formulations to establish least harmful mixtures, and b) 

provide unequivocal guidance on selection. 

Response: Polyoxyethylene-alkylamine (POEA) is the only inert compound of known 

aquatic toxicity in glyphosate formulations. The BLM has evaluated a number of 

glyphosate formulations for content of POEA; see Appendix D in the Final PEIS. The 

BLM proposes to either avoid using any glyphosate formulations with POEA or use 

glyphosate formulations that have the least amount of POEA. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-429 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0222-098 Comment: Nonlethal effects on fish (effects on fish other than mortality): the DEIS 

Salvo, Mark [Draft PEIS] ([page] 4-82) states, in reference to 2,4-D, “Routine acute and chronic 

(Sagebrush Sea exposure scenarios do not result in risk to fish.” However, the DEIS [Draft PEIS] 

Campaign), Cox, omits research published in the journal Marine Environmental Research by scientists 

Caroline (Northwest from the University of Maryland showing concentrations as low as ten parts per billion 

Coalition for cause proliferation of peroxisomes in fish. (Ackers, Johnston, and Haasch, 2000) In 

Alternatives to addition, the DEIS [Draft PEIS] (4-86) states with respect to picloram, “An acute 

Pesticides), and LC50 value for trout ranges from 0.8 mg/L to 19.3 mg/L.” However, the DEIS [Draft 

O’Brien, Mary PEIS] omits research showing that concentrations as low as 0.04 mg/L reduce the size 

and survival of trout fry. This research was published by D. F. Woodward at the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service in the Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada. 

(Woodward, 1976) 

Response: The BLM relied on the Forest Service’s ERA [ecological risk assessment] 

for 2,4-D (Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. 1998; full reference in 

PEIS Reference section). The study referred to in the comment was published after the 

Forest Service’s ERA. However, toxicity analyses in the PEIS focus on sublethal 

effects that are likely to reduce fish populations (e.g., growth and reproduction 

impacts). Although peroxisome proliferation was observed at the 10 ppb [parts per 

billion] level after 21 days, the study did not determine whether this level would 

produce long-term or irreversible adverse impacts to the individual fish or to the larger 

fish population. The Woodward study was referenced and considered in the toxicity 

review for fish in the picloram ERA conducted for the Forest Service (Syracuse 

Environmental Research Associates, Inc. 2003b; full reference in PEIS Reference 

section). The data presented by Woodward was not considered in the 1995 Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for picloram and was not necessarily consistent 

with other studies reviewed in the Forest Service ERA. Woodward prepared stock 

solutions in acetone rather than water, did not monitor picloram concentrations in all 

test solutions, and did not include an acetone control in the evaluation. USEPA Office 

of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. 1996. Ecological Effects Test Guidelines OPPTS 850.1400 Fish Early-Life 

Stage Toxicity Test. Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. EPA 712– 

C–96–121. April. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/opptsfrs/publications/OPPTS_Harmonized/850_Ecological_Effect 

s_Test_Guidelines/Drafts/850-1400.pdf). Test guidelines for fish early life stage 

toxicity studies require the use of a solvent-only control because the solvent can impact 

the test organism directly and can impact the uptake of the test compound by the 

organism. The Woodward study would not be classified as acceptable using the test 

criteria and was therefore not used as the basis of the fish toxicity value in the Forest 

Service ERA. 

Environmental Consequences, Wildlife Resources 

EMC-0046-002 Comment: The pesticides that would be used include persistent and mobile chemicals, 

Picone, Chris including known developmental and reproductive toxins. Recent research on 

amphibians has shown that these same pesticides can cause developmental 

abnormalities and mortality at concentrations formerly thought safe, such as 1 part per 

billion. I assume you are aware of the recent literature in this area. 

Response: The BLM is aware of these studies, including studies that have shown 

effects at 0.1 parts per billion (atrazine). Two herbicides used by the BLM or available 

for use, atrazine and glyphosate, have been identified as being potentially harmful to 

amphibians. However, the BLM has not used atrazine since 1990s, and under 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-430 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0214-015 

Vollmer, Jennifer 

(BASF) 

EMC-0238-004 

California Partners in 

Flight 

Alternatives B (Preferred Alternative), D, and E (see Chapter 2 of the PEIS, 

Description of the Alternatives), the BLM would not use atrazine on BLMadministered lands in the future. Risks to amphibians associated with glyphosate are 

primarily associated with two adjuvants: R-11 and polyoxyethylene-alkylamine 

(POEA). As discussed under Mitigation in Chapter 2, and Wildlife Resources in 

Chapter 4, the BLM proposes to not use glyphosate formulations that include R-11 in 

the future, and would either avoid using any formulations with POEA, or seek to use 

the formulation with the lowest amount of POEA available, to reduce risks to 

amphibians. We have expanded the discussion of effects of herbicides on amphibians 

in the Final PEIS under Wildlife Resources and Cumulative Effects Analysis (Wildlife 

Resources) in Chapter 4 of the PEIS to address concerns related to the use of 

herbicides on BLM-administered lands and the potential for herbicides to adversely 

affect amphibians. 

Comment: The claim that “All treatments could kill or harm wildlife and adversely 

impact their habitats,” is false, unless it is the actual application – tractor running over 

grouse or planes crashing in to herds of elk – that is being referred to. What incidences 

can be sited where any of the purposed terrestrial herbicides, used according to label 

directions, have killed or harmed wildlife? Examples for herbicide benefits to wildlife 

are numerous and are mainly attributed to increasing or rehabilitating habitat. Benefits 

versus adverse impacts are misleading for all alternatives. Example: No action 

alternative would have greater impact than the Purposed alternative due to the number 

of applications that would be needed to accomplish the same vegetation management. 

In addition, less acres treated means greater adverse impact to those lands that are left 

to further degrade due to lack of tools for beneficial treatment. The section also 

neglects to quantify the benefits versus adverse effects. Example: on a scale of 0 to 

100, Where Wildlife Benefits for the Purposed action may be “87”, adverse effects 

may be “4”, as compared to No Action Alternative where Benefits may be “34”, 

adverse effects “3.9”. 

Response: As stated, herbicide treatments could kill or harm wildlife and adversely 

impact their habitats, as demonstrated for most herbicides in the risk assessments 

(although risks were very small for some herbicides). By the very nature of the 

treatment, vegetation will be altered by herbicide treatments, thus impacting habitat 

that was used by wildlife prior to treatment. Although it is difficult to quantify the 

costs and benefits of treatments, a comparison of costs and benefits for all treatment 

methods, including herbicides, was provided in the PER, and also discussed in detail in 

the Cumulative Effects Analysis of the PEIS. As noted in the text, treatments could be 

quite beneficial for some wildlife species, and may be much greater under the 

Preferred Alternative than the No Action Alternative. However, for species that 

depend upon the vegetation that is treated, costs would likely outweigh benefits and 

would be greater under the Preferred Alternative than the No Action Alternative. 

Comment: While CalPIF [California Partners in Flight] does not support the adoption 

of Alternative E [in the Draft PEIS], we share some of the concerns over the 

widespread use of herbicides that Alternative E attempts to address. One component of 

Alternative E that we believe should be incorporated as part of Alternative B is the 

adoption of amphibian area avoidance measures. Under Alternative E, herbicide use is 

not encouraged in areas populated by amphibians. We believe that is a wise measure to 

adopt as part of any Alternative. There is concern today about significant declines in 

numbers of amphibians encountered on public lands and elsewhere. One of the 

potential causes for those declines is the chemicals that amphibians are exposed to. 

CalPIF believes the evidence that chemical exposure contributes to declines in 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-431 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0238-007 

California Partners in 

Flight 

amphibian populations is significant enough to justify avoiding the use of herbicides in 

and around riparian and wetland areas that support amphibians. Areas supporting 

amphibians are also important feeding and nesting areas for land birds that may also be 

vulnerable to herbicide exposure. Amphibians also represent a prey base that supports 

birds and other terrestrial species. For those reasons and others we think it a wise and 

modest measure to incorporate Alternative E’s amphibian area avoidance measures 

into the final planning document. 

At the same time, CalPIF is not espousing the elimination of herbicides in areas where 

amphibians may reside. Riparian areas are some of the most severely invaded habitats 

in the West. To completely exclude herbicides as a tool is not prudent when it can be 

shown for specific project areas that other tools are not practical, are likely to be 

unsuccessful, or may cause more damage to the habitat than can be justified. We 

recommend that the final planning document emphasize the avoidance of herbicide use 

in areas populated by amphibians. Manual or mechanical measures to remove invasive 

species should be given priority, and only when such measures are shown to be 

ineffective or not practical should herbicides be used in those areas – and then only by 

crews using a targeted approach. In that respect we agree with the emphasis in 

Alternative E that herbicide treatments must be of lower priority than non-chemical 

treatments in areas where the use of herbicide may impact riparian or wetland areas. 

Under no circumstance should chemicals be applied aerially in areas known to be 

populated by amphibians. We recommend that the final planning document emphasize 

the use of non-aerial application techniques where there is a risk that herbicides will be 

applied to water, either directly or through drift. 

Response: The PEIS recommends buffer zones near aquatic bodies to protect plants, 

fish, and wildlife in the Standard Operating Procedures from ground-based and aerial 

spraying. Additional measures to protect amphibians are given in Table 2-9, Mitigation 

Measures. These measures include providing additional protection to all terrestrial 

animals by following mitigation identified in the Biological Assessment to protect 

species of concern. As noted in Chapter 4 of the PEIS under Wetland and Riparian 

Areas, Alternative D, 98% of all treatments associated with wetland and riparian areas 

would be ground-based, based on information provided by field offices. Thus, risks 

from aerial spraying would minor. In addition, the BLM only plans to treat about 

10,000 acres of wetland and riparian habitat using herbicides annually; another 20,000 

acres would be treated annually using other methods. 

Comment: The use of 2-4D is of concern for CalPIF, perhaps more so than with any 

other of the active ingredients listed for use under the Alternatives. 2-4D poses a high 

exposure risk for some categories of wildlife. We recommend that 2-4D not be applied 

aerially unless there is absolutely no other practical means for its application, and 

where the use of the other available active ingredients has little chance for success. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0159-014 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Herbicide Active Ingredients Evaluated under the Proposed Alternatives. As discussed 

under Site Selection Priorities in Chapter 2 of the PEIS, the BLM would first use nonchemical methods where feasible, and would use herbicides only after considering 

their effectiveness and potential for impacts on the environment. The BLM would also 

follow Standard Operating Procedures and mitigation discussed in Chapter 2 to 

minimize or avoid risks associated with the use of 2,4-D and other herbicides proposed 

for use by the BLM. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-432 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0239-002 

Kimmel, Reida 

EMC-0257-005 

Lockridge, Ross 

EMC-0324-007 

Rachel Carson Council 

EMC-0324-018 

Rachel Carson Council 

Comment: Researchers are now finding that herbicides, even the older, “safer” 

chemicals like atrazine and Roundup, have adverse, or deadly, effects on wildlife, 

especially invertebrate species and cold blooded vertebrates. In addition, the use of 

herbicides will harm native species struggling to compete with the invasive plants. 

Response: All chemicals may potentially have adverse effects on organisms; it is the 

dose that determines whether it is adverse or not. Herbicide application is done in such 

a way to minimize the exposure (the dose) of herbicide on non-target organisms. 

Herbicides are intended to protect native species from the competition from invasive 

species. This is done using careful application of herbicides so that they target invasive 

plants. 

Comment: Weed Out Round-Up: The worldwide die-off of amphibians has been 

partly attributed to the “properly applied” and “safe” Monsanto herbicide, Round-up 

(see article, study & discussions in the Notes). Yet Round-up mixed with Arsenal is 

said to be “successful”. The recent discovery in 2005 that there are far-reaching 

impacts from the use of Round-up upon frogs is evidence that caution is needed. What 

don’t we yet know about Garlon 4 and Arsenal? 

Response: RoundUp® contains the herbicide active ingredient glyphosate. As 

suggested by the commentor, glyphosate may be harmful to amphibians, although 

harmful effects may be attributable to two compounds, R-11 and POEA, found in 

formulations containing glyphosate. As discussed under Comment EMC-0046-002 

under PEIS Environmental Consequences, Wildlife Resources, the BLM would 

severely limit or prohibit use of glyphosate formulations containing R-11 or 

polyoxyethylene-alkylamine (POEA). Garlon 4® contains the herbicide active 

ingredient triclopyr, while Arsenal® contains the active ingredient imazapyr. Although 

risk assessments done for the PEIS found that imazapyr should not be harmful to 

aquatic organisms under most application scenarios, risks were greater with 

applications of triclopyr. As discussed under Mitigation in Chapter 2 of the PEIS, the 

BLM would strive to apply triclopyr at typical rather than maximum application rates, 

and would continue to monitor the scientific literature to determine if triclopyr, 

imazapyr, or other herbicides used or proposed for use by the BLM cause harm to 

amphibians. Under Alternative B, the BLM would treat only about 10,000 acres of 

wetlands annually using herbicides under the Preferred Alternative, and 2,4-D, 

glyphosate, picloram, and tebuthiuron would comprise the majority of herbicide use. 

Comment: When present in a formulation with surfactants, glyphosate can be highly 

toxic to certain frog species. Frogs or toad populations living and reproducing in the 

areas treated by aerial spraying of glyphosate formulations could be adversely affected 

by such applications. Amphibians can reproduce in shallow pools that can be 

vulnerable to overspraying with glyphosate formulations. According to Dr. R. Relyea, 

“Anyone spraying pesticides from an airplane would probably not avoid such puddles 

because they appear to be inconsequential.” (Hileman, B., “Common Herbicide Kills 

Tadpoles,” Ecotoxicology, V83, #15, April 11, 2005) Much more testing needs to be 

performed on all formulations and their additives before they can be considered as not 

posing a threat to these types of wildlife. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0046-002 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Wildlife Resources. 

Comment: The immune system is very important for wildlife in protecting them from 

disease, including some conditions that can spread to humans, the so-called zoonoses. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-433 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0338-013 

Dow AgroSciences 

EMC-0364-003 

Noble, Emily 

EMC-0457-004 

Ryan, Eleanor (North 

American Butterfly 

Association) 

There is evidence that exposure to 2,4-D in combination with picloram can decrease 

the mammalian immune response. Combinations of 2,4-D and picloram have been 

used to control vegetation and both are listed as intended for use by BLM. The 

combination has been tested for adverse effects on immune function in laboratory 

animals. The exposure of laboratory mice to a product mixture with active ingredients 

consisting of 94% 2,4-D and 6% picloram by weight was found to generate results 

suggesting that chronic exposure to the formulation at normal application levels may 

cause immune dysfunction. (Blakley, BR, “Effect of Roundup and Tordon 202C 

Herbicides on Antibody Production in Mice,” Vet Human Toxicol., 39 (4), August 

1997). Livestock may be at risk from such applications on their grazing lands. 

Response: See responses to Comment EMC-0640-036 under Environmental 

Consequences, Wildlife Resources, and Comment RMC-0222-104 under PEIS 

Environmental Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis. 

Comment: In the risk characterization it appears that tebuthiuron is generally assumed 

to be applied as a liquid spray, yet the formulation most commonly applied to 

rangeland is a granular pellet, Spike 20PTM. The use of a pellet dramatically affects the 

risk assessment regarding drift and off-site effects to non-target organisms. Drift would 

be minimal with Spike 20P, and pellets would not pose any risk to pollinating insects 

since the pellets fall onto the soil allowing for little deposition on foliage. The LD50 

[lethal dose at which half of organisms die] on honeybees is > 100ug/bee, which is in 

the least toxic [US] EPA category for insect toxicity. Therefore, it is incorrect to 

assume low to moderate risk for pollinating insects from tebuthiuron. 

Response: The BLM recognizes that there is a difference between the liquid and 

granular formulations of the tebuthiuron as it relates to many application parameters. 

In order to assess risk, however, the situation posing the greatest risk was selected for 

analysis (i.e., the liquid formulation, rather than the granular formulation of 

tebuthiuron). Results of the analysis are presented in Appendix C of the PEIS under 

the heading Non-target Species Risk Characterization for Tebuthiuron. As the 

commenter points out, data from USEPA indicates that the LD50 for the honeybee is 

greater than 100 micrograms/bee. This information is acknowledged in the tebuthiuron 

ecological risk assessment, which cites a report from the Department of Energy stating 

that the LD50for the honeybee is 30 micrograms/bee. In order to run a more 

conservative risk analysis, the 30 micrograms/bee value was selected as the Toxic 

Reference Value (TRV) for tebuthiuron and the honeybee. 

Comment: I am also concerned about the immune systems of birds now that they can 

be vectors for very serious diseases humans can catch. What is the official word out (if 

any) on this situation? 

Response: This comment is beyond the scope of the PEIS. 

Comment: The Elimination of Dwarf Mistletoe. The elimination of trees with dwarf 

mistletoe is contrary the health of the butterfly population in the forest. Three species 

of butterflies use dwarf mistletoe as their obligatory host plant. Great Purple Hairstreak 

(Atildes halesus) Exists in CO, NM, NV, TX, OK, OR. The mistletoe species 

Phoradendron is the specific host plant for this butterfly. This is found especially on 

oaks and cottonwoods. Of greater concern in Conifer forests, the following butterflies 

use dwarf mistletoe on conifers as obligatory host plants. Thicket Hairstreak 

(Callophrys spinetorum). Exists in WA, OR, CA, ID, MT, NV, CO, UT, AZ, NM,. 

Obligate use of the mistletoe Arceuthobium of species vaginatium, americorum, 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-434 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0457-005 

Ryan, Eleanor (North 

American Butterfly 

Association) 

EMC-0525-053 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0525-067 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

tsugense, abietum, and campylopoduim. Each of these mistletoes grows on a specific 

conifer including true firs (Abies), Ponderosa Pine, Lodgepole Pine, Western Yellow 

Pine, Douglas Fir, and Hemlock. Johnson’s Hairstreak (Callophrys johnsoni) Only 

exists in WA, OR, and CA. The host mistletoe is Arceuthobium tsugense and 

abietinum growing on Hemlock and Abies fir. In WA and OR it has a habitat 

preference for ancient forest which has led to its extirpation in much of its former 

range. I didn’t see this listed in the biologically sensitive species but clearly it is rare. 

These butterflies benefit from the preservation of the above mistletoe species on BLM 

land. Please include these butterflies in vegetative planning considerations. 

Response: The BLM proposes to use the conservation measures outlined in the 

Biological Assessment to protect sensitive and federally-listed species. Potential 

impacts from individual projects will be subject to NEPA analysis, and impacts to 

BLM special status species will be assessed. Project design criteria will be used to 

minimize impacts. The BLM will also conduct local surveys for species of concern 

before implementing any vegetation treatment projects, as discussed under Special 

Precautions (Special Status Species) in Chapter 2 of the PEIS and PER. 

Comment: Twelve species of Blue Butterflies are “listed”. You probably know that 

many of these butterflies are tended by ants. The Larva of the Butterflies may actually 

be cared for in the ant colony. What does herbicide spraying do to these important ant 

colonies? 

Response: There is little extant information or studies on the effects of herbicides on 

ant colonies. Typically, insecticides lethally affect insects, but no insecticides are 

proposed for use to treat vegetation under this PEIS. The PEIS assesses the effects of 

herbicides on pollinating insects and aquatic invertebrates. Refer to Appendix C 

(Ecological Risk Assessment) of the PEIS. The honeybee was considered the most 

sensitive insect for the purposes of analysis in the risk assessment, which concludes 

that only imazapic poses a low toxicity hazard to terrestrial invertebrates. In general, 

herbicides act on vegetation and do not significantly affect insects as an insecticide 

would. 

Comment: Thus, for many of these birds, the very actions that BLM proposes under 

the [P]EIS and PER are Threats, and when conducted in the past, have destroyed, 

altered and fragmented habitats. These threats (livestock grazing, herbiciding, 

chaining, fire, mowing and other alteration of sagebrush and other native vegetation 

communities) have not been honestly addressed by BLM in the [P]EIS or PER. Since 

best Available Science recognizes them as Threats, (see also Knick et al. 2003, 

Connelly et al. 2004). 

Response: The PEIS and PER discuss both the adverse effects and benefits of the 

treatments in Chapter 4. Also see response to Comment RMC-0126-002 under PEIS 

Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. 

Comment: It is WWP’s [Western Watershed Project’s] experience that BLM 

constantly ignores the importance of these habitats, and knowingly conducts projects 

to purposefully destroy them so as to increase livestock forage on depleted lands. As 

an example, the very small areas of Utah juniper and Utah juniper and pinyon pine in 

SE Idaho are the only places in Idaho where several species of birds occur. A report 

(CD: Pinyon-juniper and Juniper Birds”, prepared by Red Willow Research for the 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game), documented importance of intact riparian and 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-435 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0525-091 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0525-135 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0525-165 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

pinyon-juniper habitats for several bird species of concern. 

Response: The PEIS and PER note in Chapter 4 under Wildlife Resources that 

pinyon-juniper woodlands provide important habitat for wildlife, but can also form 

dense stands, or crowd out more desirable vegetation, reducing their value to wildlife. 

The adverse effects and benefits of pinyon-juniper treatments would be evaluated at 

the local level before conducting pinyon-juniper removal. 

Comment: It is critical that BLM examine the already complex interspersion of plant 

communities across the landscape. Sagebrush communities often exist as complex 

mosaics with inherent natural diversity (Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and 

Parks 1995, Welch and Criddle 2003). BLM fails to address the inherent complexity 

and complex interspersion of vegetation across the landscape, and instead claims that 

its artificially imposed chaining and other disturbance is necessary to create more of a 

mosaic, or for greater diversity. 

Response: Much of the discussion in Chapter 4 of the PEIS and PER under Vegetation 

and Wildlife Resources focuses on the importance of a mosaic of cover types (e.g., 

openings interspersed with vegetation of varying size and species composition). 

Although Condition Class 1 lands likely have a good mosaic of cover types (see 

Vegetation Condition and Fire Regimes in the Vegetation section of Chapter 3 of the 

PEIS), lands that have been altered may be dominated by only 1 or a few cover types 

and may have poor vegetative structure and complexity. The purpose of treatments is 

to improve the complexity and structure of plant communities in degraded areas to 

improve habitat for wildlife. 

Comment: BLM must assess how the presence of cheatgrass may affect special status 

species. For example, how do cheatgrass-dominated understories and interspaces affect 

reptile species occurrence and abundance - (lizards may be prey species for small 

mammals)? How does cheatgrass affect the pygmy rabbit? Which of BLM’s proposed 

treatment disturbances maximize chances of increased cheatgrass dominance of 

undestories? 

Response: Because downy brome (cheatgrass) is not native to North America, it is 

expected to have limited habitat value for native special status species. Although 

weeds do provide seeds, other forage, and cover for some wildlife, the intent of BLM 

vegetation treatments is to reduce or eliminate invasive species to promote native plant 

species diversity and foster a healthy ecosystem. It is not the intent of the BLM to 

conduct any treatment activities that foster the growth of downy brome or other weeds 

and nonnative species. 

Comment: An increasing body of science demonstrates that fences are harmful to 

sage grouse and many other species of native wildlife, and that sage grouse may avoid 

use of areas near fences. BLM’s post-treatment actions may in fact further fragment 

habitats beyond removal of vegetation, and rendering patches of remaining untreated 

or native vegetation unusable by grouse, while creating extended wasteland areas in 

their surroundings, causing expanded environmental harm. 

Response: The Cumulative Effects Analysis, Wildlife Resources, in Chapter 4 of the 

PEIS discusses the need to restore native vegetation and link islands of habitat to 

reduce habitat fragmentation. This section also discusses the need to remove fencing 

and other barriers to encourage wildlife movement among habitats. It is possible that 

treatment actions may further fragment habitats short term, but as sites are revegetated 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-436 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0559-003 

Daniel, Bill 

EMC-0585-210 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-211 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

it would become less likely that islands of good habitat would be surrounded by less 

desirable habitat. 

Comment: Protect the Sage grouse by banning herbicide use and sagebrush clearing 

in their habitats. 

Response: Vegetation treatments that open up dense stands of sagebrush, including 

mechanical and prescribed fire treatments, benefit sage-grouse by providing areas for 

leks and increasing forb production that benefits adults and young. Use of herbicides 

can benefit sage-grouse if the treatments remove weeds and are followed by 

revegetation of treatment sites with forb and grass seed mixtures. A more detailed 

discussion of adverse effects and benefits of treatments to sage-grouse and other 

wildlife is given in Chapter 4 of the PER under Wildlife Resources. 

Comment: The sub-lethal effects of herbicide use on wildlife (biochemical disruption) 

may greatly increase their vulnerability to predation, their ability to find food, etc. 

BLM fails to describe the real environmental setting that exists for wildlife in wild 

land settings, and the many sub-lethal or mortality-related effects of herbicides or other 

chemical (degradates), and the great uncertainty that exists in understanding effects of 

chemical use o wild land settings. See, for example, “Factors influencing estimation of 

pesticide-related wildlife mortality” 

http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/Pesticidemortalityestimation.htm, “The influence 

of the natural history of the poisoned species on search intensity encompasses factors 

such as physiology, life cycle, and behavior. Laboratory and field studies show adult 

songbirds to be 2 to 137 times less sensitive to OP [organophosphate] insecticides than 

their nestlings”. How are nestling songbirds affected by the various herbicides to be 

used??? How might herbicides inflict sub-lethal effects on adults, and reduce their 

ability to provide forage for nestlings? 

Response: See Section 4.1.5 (Identification of Risk Characterization Endpoints) of the 

ecological risk assessments (available on the CD that accompanies the PEIS). It is 

typical that adults are less sensitive than juveniles, and some of the surrogate species 

used represent sub-adults. Herbicides could inflict sub-lethal effects on adults and 

reduce their ability to take care of their young. However, by not treating vegetation, 

habitat could be lost or degraded, or result in a catastrophic fire that would be harmful 

or cause death to young and adults. To protect juvenile birds, the BLM would avoid 

treating vegetation using herbicides during time-sensitive periods, such as nesting (see 

Table 2-8 in PEIS Chapter 2). 

Comment: BLM also fails to assess both: effects of loss or cover or food resulting 

from herbicide application (especially as BLM plans to use many non-specific 

herbicides). Not only may reproduction be directly impaired through chemical actions, 

loss of food and cover may result in fewer young being produced, and predation 

mortality being greater. 

Response: The adverse effects and benefits of using herbicides on wildlife and their 

habitats are discussed in Chapter 4 of the PEIS under Wildlife Resources. For 

example, this section notes that herbicides may cause loss of nesting and brood habitat 

for sage-grouse, and that picloram can damage sensitive grasses as well as broadleaf 

plants, and can substantially alter wildlife diets. In general, non-specific herbicides 

would primarily be used in areas where removal of most or all vegetation is desirable, 

such as along rights-of-ways and roadways. Herbicides that treat only certain types of 

grasses, forbs, or shrubs would be used most often for habitat improvement treatments. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-437 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0585-213 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-216 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0590-018 

Western Slope 

Environmental 

Resource Council 

EMC-0623-018 

Defenders of Wildlife 

Comment: BLM ignores analysis of impacts of herbicides (and all their components 

and breakdown products) on bird eggs. If birds eggs are sprayed (as would happen if 

incubating parents are flushed by spray application or are off foraging), how does this 

affect developing embryos? Will hatching success be affected? Will developing 

embryos be killed? What might the indirect effects of chemicals and their breakdown 

products be on eggs or nestlings? 

Response: Certain pesticides can harm the developing embryo; however, no such 

information was found for the BLM herbicides. Vegetative cover would provide some 

protection to nests and eggs. The potential for loss of eggs and young could exist if 

loss of vegetative cover from herbicide treatment were to make eggs or young more 

susceptible to predation. Also see response to Comment EMC-0585-210 under PEIS 

Environmental Consequences, Wildlife Resources. 

Comment: If BLM was serious about protecting many wildlife and TES [threatened, 

endangered, and sensitive] species, this EIS would mandate no treatment during 

nesting/birthing season, or in specific targeted treatment of invasives only. 

Response: Timing of vegetation treatments is determined at the project-specific level 

through site-specific NEPA analysis. Restrictions on treatments during critical 

breeding periods for wildlife are taken into consideration in the NEPA analysis. The 

BLM will follow all Standard Operating Procedures and mitigation identified in the 

PEIS, as well as any additional mitigation requirements identified through the sitespecific NEPA analysis and any applicable Endangered Species Act consultation. In 

addition, BLM policies regarding migratory bird nesting would be followed to prevent 

unintentional disturbance to these species during critical periods in their life cycle. 

Comment: The ENSR Exposure Assessment that is part of the PER identifies the 

components of an exposure pathway that results in human exposures at points of 

contact, following release of chemicals to the environment and transport via an 

environmental medium (e.g. air, water, soil). While the focus is on human “receptors”, 

there exist in our county both plant and other animal “receptors” that are also at risk of 

exposures due to chemical applications. Pesticides have been shown to be harmful to a 

multitude of animals, including fish, turtles, amphibians, birds, butterflies and moths, 

mammals, reptiles, and beneficial insects. Animals can be exposed by eating other 

contaminated plants, insects or animals, by inhalation, absorption through skin, or 

drinking or bathing in contaminated water. 

Response: The BLM conducted ecological risk assessments to assess the risks to 

plants and animals from the herbicides used and proposed for use by the BLM. Risk 

assessments were included on the CD that accompanied the Draft (and Final) PEIS. 

The BLM also used several risk assessments prepared by the Forest Service to assess 

risks to plants and animals. As part of the risk assessments, the BLM evaluated the 

different pathways by which plants and animals could be exposed to herbicides, 

including absorption through skin or leaves, consumption of contaminated plants, 

insects, or animals, inhalation, or ingestion of contaminated water. 

Comment: Include better evaluation of wildlife impacts, including impacts to 

nontarget species that might be important wildlife habitat or feeding species. For 

instance there is evidence the tebuthiuron can negatively impact sage grouse for up to 

ten years following application. All herbicide use must consider potential direct and 

indirect impacts to the full suite of wildlife in the proposed area, particularly federal or 

state listed species, declining species and species of concern. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-438 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0640-030 

Animal Welfare 

Institute 

EMC-0640-036 

Animal Welfare 

Institute 

EMC-0640-34 

Animal Welfare 

Institute 

Response: A discussion of impacts to nontarget species, including vegetation, aquatic 

resources, and other wildlife is given in Chapter 4 of the PEIS under each of these 

respective sections. Information on the risks of each herbicide to different taxa of 

wildlife is given in the Wildlife Resources section of Chapter 4, and in more detail in 

the risk assessments prepared for each herbicide. Direct and indirect impacts to 

wildlife species of concern are discussed in Chapter 4 under Wildlife Resources, and in 

greater detail in the Biological Assessment that accompanied the PEIS and PER. 

Comment: The BLM must clearly delineate, using the best available science, the 

impacts of invasive exotic species on wildlife (including protected species) and 

wildlife habitat before implementing management treatments to resolve the problem. 

These suggested evidentiary needs are not intended to hinder BLM management 

efforts or to promote the continued expansion of invasive exotic species across the 

western United States. Rather, they are intended to ensure that the invasive exotic 

species are indeed harming wildlife, to ensure that the BLM remains accountable for 

its actions, to focus BLM resources on areas where there is a specific and resolvable 

problem, and to ensure BLM considers the impact of its actions on native species who 

may have adapted to living with the invasive exotic species before implementing its 

proposed treatments. 

Response: The PEIS and PER note in Chapter 4 under Wildlife Resources that 

invasive species harm some wildlife species, but also provide benefits for other 

species. The adverse effects and benefits of treating vegetation, including the removal 

of weeds or other invasive vegetation, would be considered when developing sitespecific plans to ensure that there is a net benefit to wildlife from the vegetation 

treatment project. 

Comment: The BLM’s assessment of the potential impact of the proposed herbicides 

on wildlife (including fish, amphibians, invertebrates, and protected species) is 

insufficient and likely does not represent a full and fair evaluation of such impacts. 

These assessment data are the product primarily of toxicity tests apparently required by 

the EPA to register herbicidal products for use in the field, to determine application 

rates, and to determine impacts to both target and non-target species. 

Response: The BLM conducted state-of-the-science ecological risk assessments 

(ERAs) to evaluate the potential impacts to wildlife from the use of herbicides. The 

BLM worked closely with risk assessment scientists with USEPA, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to develop the BLM risk 

assessment methodology. Sources of information used in the ERAs included product 

registration information, the scientific literature, BLM local experience, and modeling. 

Information from the ERAs was used in the PEIS to assess adverse and beneficial 

impacts to wildlife and their habitat, including special status species, at a level of 

analysis appropriate for a PEIS. No fish or wildlife would be targeted for treatment, 

although their habitats would be treated. Additional analysis will be conducted at the 

field level prior to project implementation, where site characteristics and species can 

be better evaluated. 

Comment: The BLM, at a minimum, should have attempted to construct models to 

assess the impact of its proposed program by vegetation treatment method used and by 

ecoregion to help those commenting on the PEIS and associated documents quantify 

the potential impact to species or other ecosystem components. As currently written, 

all the PEIS provides to facilitate an evaluation of the quantitative impact of herbicidal 

and non-herbicidal treatments on wildlife are scores of no effect, low effect, moderate 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-439 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0643-022 

California Indian 

Basketweavers 

Association 

EMC-0643-036 

California Indian 

Basketweavers 

Association 

effect, high effect, or not evaluated. While such scores may be accurate, it would be 

more valuable to those reviewing the PEIS and associated documents to be able to 

quantify the meaning of, for example, a high effect of a particular herbicide in a 

particular environment. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0525-111 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis. 

Comment: Recently a team of scientists from University of California, Berkeley, 

found highly significant increases in adverse effects to tadpoles exposed to mixtures of 

pesticides at low concentrations. Frog tadpoles were exposed to nine pesticides and 

herbicides individually, and to mixtures with all nine chemicals. While an average of 4 

percent of the tadpoles died when exposed to a single pesticide, an average of 35 

percent of the tadpoles died when subjected to mixtures. The frogs developed an array 

of health problems also, including meningitis, because the chemicals suppressed their 

immune systems. They also took longer to complete the transformation from tadpole to 

frog, which reduces their chances of survival (Hayes et al. 2006). In the paper, 

published in January, 2006 in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, the 

authors conclude: “the current study revealed that estimating ecological risk and the 

impact of pesticides on amphibians using studies that examine single pesticides at high 

concentrations, only, may lead to gross underestimations of the role of pesticides in 

amphibian decline.”(emphasis added). 

Response: The Hayes et al. (2006) study did find that a mixture of nine pesticides 

resulted in greater effects than effects from each herbicide alone. However, when 

testing each herbicide alone, the authors used 0.1 parts per billion (ppb) of the 

herbicide. When testing the mixture, the authors combined 0.1 parts per billion of each 

herbicide, resulting in a mixture of 0.9 ppb herbicide. As suggested by LeBlanc and 

Wang (LeBlanc, G. A., and G. Wang. 2006; Chemical Mixtures: Greater-thanAdditive Effects. Environmental Health Perspectives 114; available at: 

http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2006/9188/letter.html), adverse effects to herbicides 

associated with the mixture may have been the result of a higher concentration of 

herbicides, not due to a synergistic effect (but also see Hayes, T. 2006. Chemical 

Mixtures: Hayes Responds. Environmental Health Perspectives 114). Of interest, only 

one of the compounds tested, atrazine, has been used by the BLM in the past (atrazine 

has not been used by the BLM for several years) or is proposed for use in the future, 

and under alternatives B (Preferred Alternative), D, and E (see Chapter 2 of the PEIS, 

Description of the Alternatives) would not be used on BLM-administered lands. The 

discussion of effects of herbicides on amphibians has been expanded in the Final PEIS 

under Wildlife Resources and Cumulative Effects Analysis (Wildlife Resources) in 

Chapter 4 of the PEIS to address concerns related to the use of herbicides on BLMadministered lands and the potential to adversely affect amphibians. 

Comment: The DEIS [Draft PEIS] did not include any research and analysis of 

impacts to wildlife from herbicides due to inter-species variability. Recent studies 

demonstrate the likelihood of serious harm resulting from extrapolation from a limited 

number of test organisms in laboratory settings. For example, researchers at University 

of Pennsylvania found that different species of frogs react differently to the same 

chemical exposures. For example, in Relyea 2005a, Roundup exposure at realistic 

concentrations killed all leopard and gray tree frog tadpoles and 98 percent of wood 

frog tadpoles, but did not significantly effect spring peeper and American toad 

tadpoles. The DEIS [Draft PEIS] did not include any analysis or provide evidence for 

this type of environmental impact. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-440 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0643-070 

California Indian 

Basketweavers 

Association 

EMC-0643-076 

California Indian 

Basketweavers 

Association 

EMC-0643-077 

California Indian 

Basketweavers 

Association 

Response: The toxicity reference values did encompass interspecies variability in 

several ways. For each ecological risk assessment (ERA), out of the17 ecological 

receptor categories, 10 used a Level of Concern (LOC) adjustment (also known as an 

uncertainty factor) from 2 to 20 to address uncertainties including interspecies 

variability (the ERAs are included on the CD that accompanies the PEIS; also see 

Appendix C of the PEIS). Of the remaining seven receptor categories that did not use 

an uncertainty factor, four were for plants, and three were for chronic risk to birds, 

mammals, and aquatic invertebrates, respectively, where there is less likelihood of 

underestimating effects levels. In addition, interspecies variability was evaluated in the 

uncertainty analyses of the risk assessments. An uncertainty factor of 10 generally 

addresses up to 95% of the variability among species. 

Comment: The DEIS [Draft PEIS] fails to accurately document cumulative impacts 

from the use of pesticides at this scale. The [P]EIS must include an ecological risk 

assessment that captures the impacts to wildlife species from herbicide uses occurring 

on private lands and from other sources that may cumulatively pose a threat to their 

continued viability. The high amount of herbicides used on private timber lands, 

agricultural lands, from roadside or rights-of-way clearing, and private range lands 

presents a cumulative risk issue for all native frogs and amphibians, pollinators, avian 

shrub-dependent species, deer, and other wildlife. 

Response: Because some wildlife travel long distances and may be exposed to 

herbicides from many areas, quantifying this effect is extremely difficult because the 

types, amounts, and characteristics of the herbicides that wildlife would be exposed to 

on non-public lands are unknown. The BLM would comply with Standard Operating 

Procedures and mitigation in the PEIS to reduce risks to wildlife while they use public 

lands. In addition, many of the herbicides used by the BLM degrade rapidly and/or are 

excreted by wildlife, and most do not bioaccumulate (see herbicide ecological risk 

assessments). We have included a discussion of these risks, however, in Chapter 4 of 

the Final PEIS, under Cumulative Effects Analysis, Wildlife Resources. 

Comment: Insufficient data relative to species in project area. Research has shown 

that different species react very differently to the same chemical exposures. For 

example, in Relyea 2005a, Roundup exposure at realistic concentrations killed all 

leopard and gray tree frog tadpoles and 98 percent of wood frog tadpoles, but did not 

significantly effect spraying peeper and American toad tadpoles. The DEIS [Draft 

PEIS] relies upon laboratory to ecosystem extrapolation. The DEIS [Draft PEIS] does 

not contain available relevant data for assessing impacts for amphibians. 

Response: There are several thousands of species present on BLM lands. It is 

impossible to perform risk assessments for them all, so indicator receptor categories 

were used based on taxonomic and trophic or feeding guild considerations. To address 

uncertainties from interspecies extrapolation, see response to Comment EMC-0585-

199 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis. 

Comment: Berrill et al. (1993) tested the formulations of triclopyr to determine their 

impacts on frogs and concluded, “Ranid tadpoles are likely to be paralyzed or killed by 

residues of the ester formulation [BEE or Garlon 4] of triclopyr that could occur in 

small ponds as a result of forest management spraying programs. Paralysis is likely to 

render tadpoles more vulnerable to predation, and when it is associated with slower 

growth it could also reduce later reproductive fitness.” The DEIS [Draft PEIS] fails to 

adequately mitigate for impacts to amphibians. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-441 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0049-023 

Wilson, Robert E. 

(University of Nevada 

Cooperative Extension) 

RMC-0095-005 

New Mexico 

Department of Game 

and Fish 

Response: In response to concerns brought up by the public during the Draft PEIS 

review, the discussion of effects of herbicides on amphibians has been expanded in the 

Final PEIS under Wildlife Resources and Cumulative Effects Analysis (Wildlife 

Resources) in Chapter 4 of the PEIS to address concerns related to the use of 

herbicides on BLM-administered lands and the potential to adversely affect 

amphibians. See responses to Comment RMC-0205-018 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Special Precautions, and Comment EMC-0257-005 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Wildlife Resources for a discussion of the effects of triclopyr on 

amphibians and BLM practices that would be implemented to protect amphibians in 

areas where triclopyr is used. Interestingly, the authors cited in the comment found that 

hexazinone had no effect on frog embryos or tadpoles, which is consistent with the 

results of the risk assessment for hexazinone done by the Forest Service and 

summarized under Fish and Other Aquatic Resources in Chapter 4 of the PEIS. Also 

see Comment EMC-0643-079 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, Fish and 

Other Aquatic Organisms for information on a study by Berrill and Bertram (1997) in 

which they noted that “aquatic stages of amphibians are generally comparable to freshwater fish in their vulnerability to exposure to low levels of pesticides” and a 

discussion of measures the BLM would implement to protect fish and other aquatic 

organisms from herbicide applications. 

Comment Page 2-13 Alternative E [of the Draft PEIS] does not address effects on 

amphibians, but then none of the alternatives adequately address the effects of the 

invasive species on amphibian populations. 

Response: The focus of the PEIS and PER were on the effects of treatments on the 

resources, rather than how the lack of treatment [i.e., spread of invasives] would affect 

resources (especially since all alternatives involve some level of treatment using 

several treatment methods). Additional information on the effects of herbicides and 

other treatment methods and the spread of invasive vegetation on amphibians has been 

included in the Final PEIS and PER in Chapter 4 under Wildlife Resources. 

Comment: The first of these two major omissions is that the PDEIS fails to address 

the potential lethal impacts to amphibians from glyphosate, one of the herbicides 

proposed for use by the Preferred Alternative, and which is also currently used. Recent 

research has demonstrated that Roundup, a glyphosate formulation, applied at the 

manufacturer’s recommended rate, may cause extremely high rates of mortality to 

anuran amphibians (frogs) at both the larval (aquatic tadpole) and post-metamorphic 

(terrestrial adult and juvenile) stages, which could lead to population declines (Relyea 

2005a, b, c). Therefore, we request that additional information be included to address 

these potential impacts, and that modified or additional standard operating procedures 

and mitigation actions be considered in light of this research. 

Response: See responses to Comment EMC-0643-077 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Wildlife Resources, and Comment EMC-0643-079 under PEIS 

Environmental Consequences, Fish and Other Aquatic Organisms. Several references 

to the risks to amphibians, including tadpoles, from the use of herbicides, including 

glyphosate, were included in Chapter 4 of the PEIS under Wildlife Resources. The 

Final Biological Assessment and PEIS recommended under mitigation for herbicide 

treatment impacts that glyphosate be using sparingly or not at all in habitats used by 

amphibians. In addition, the BLM proposes to avoid using glyphosate formulations 

containing R-11 or polyoxyethylene-alkylamine (POEA), as discussed in Comment 

EMC-0257-005 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, Wildlife Resources. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-442 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0095-006 Comment: Ecological research has also established that many pesticides (including 

New Mexico herbicides) can adversely affect amphibian behavior, growth and reproduction 

Department of Game (Bridges 1997, 1999, Hayes et al. 2002, in Relyea 2005c). However, the PDEIS does 

and Fish not identify, analyze or address any of these potential impacts of proposed herbicide 

uses on amphibians, as indicated by these studies. 

Response: See responses to Comment EMC-0643-077 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Wildlife Resources and Comment EMC-0643-079 under PEIS 

Environmental Consequences, Fish and Other Aquatic Organisms. 

RMC-0106-011 Comment: It is appropriately recognized (p. [page] 4-99 [of the Draft PEIS]) that 

Public Employees for there is a potential for herbicides to “...harm wildlife individuals, populations, or 

Environmental species”—whether “used properly or improperly.” [emphasis added]. It is further 

Responsibility stated (p. [page] 4-24 [of the Draft PEIS]) that misapplications caused by failure to 

follow label instructions are the leading cause of impacts on nontarget resources. 

Therefore, assessments based entirely on the assumptions that herbicide label 

instructions and Standard Operating Procedures are followed, are incomplete (p. 4-190 

to 4-191 [of the Draft PEIS]). Potential and likely impacts of improper use must be 

assessed—this goes well beyond the “accident” scenarios set up in the D[raft] PEIS. 

The analysis should address likely impacts if label and SOP [Standard Operating 

Procedure] instructions are not followed—presumably the herbicide manufacturer has 

quantitative information on which to base label limits. The extent of what is not known 

to make such assessments must be completely spelled out. This identifies the extent to 

which the BLM proposes to continue running uncontrolled experiments on the 

environment, and should greatly restrict application of all herbicides to situations of 

special, documented need for chemical treatment with legally defensible oversight. 

Response: The BLM identified worst-case scenarios (accidental spill scenarios), 

evaluated their risks, and identified SOPs and mitigating measures to prevent spills and 

accidents. The worker accidental spill scenario for the human health risk assessment 

assumes that the worker’s skin is exposed to the herbicide, while the public receptor 

spill scenario assumes that an individual is accidentally sprayed. Both scenarios are 

conservative. For more information, see Appendix B (Human Health Risk 

Assessment) of the PEIS under Occupation Receptors and Public Receptors in the 

Exposure Assessment section, and Appendix C (Ecological Risk Assessment) under 

Non-target Species Exposure Characterization. 

RMC-0106-038 Comment: [What] if the SOPs [Standard Operating Procedures] are not adhered to [on 

Public Employees for pages 4-96 and 4-97 of the Draft PEIS]? 

Environmental 

Responsibility Response: The BLM intends to follow all SOPs listed in the PEIS that apply to 

treatment activities conducted by the BLM. 

RMC-0106-039 Comment: [On] p. [page] 4-116 [of the Draft PEIS], 3 of 5 mitigations are permissive, 

Public Employees for which experience shows are rarely employed. 

Environmental 

Responsibility Response: Two of the five mitigations are permissive. Currently, the BLM can apply 

the herbicides identified in these two mitigations (except Overdrive®) over large areas 

and using broadcast methods. These mitigations allow this activity to continue, based 

on the analysis of risks to wildlife, but encourage the BLM to reduce risks to wildlife 

by limiting the application area and using spot treatment methods. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-443 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0113-003 

Grewal, Martha 

RMC-0115-002 

Maple, Susan 

RMC-0129-003 

Noble, E.A. 

RMC-0159-003 

Proctor, Gradey 

Comment: One of my most exciting bird sightings was when I saw a flock of pinyon 

jays working through a stand of pinyon/juniper trees near Buena Vista Colorado. The 

only other sighting I’ve had of the pinyon jay was a few weeks ago near my home in 

Cedaredge Colorado, as they were feeding on the junipers. So I am concerned to read 

that the BLM is going to remove the pinyon/juniper forest. Other birds I have found in 

the pj forest are the brown creeper, pygmy nuthatch and bushtit. I understand that they 

might be a fire hazard, but I am at a loss to justify the removal of these trees for that 

reason. 

Response: As discussed in Chapter 4 of the PEIS under Impacts of Herbicide 

Treatments on Wildlife and Habitat by Ecoregion, Subtropical Desert, “healthy 

pinyon-juniper woodlands, with a full complement of understory grasses, forbs, and 

shrubs, provide excellent wildlife habitat. However, in many areas, pinyon-juniper has 

increased in density to the point that understory vegetation is excluded, to the 

detriment of wildlife.” In addition, broad-scale herbicide use in pinyon-juniper woodlands has not been popular over the past several decades, especially when used to open 

up pinyon-juniper stands. The possibility of destroying midstory shrubs that are 

important food sources is a major disadvantage to herbicide use. As noted, the BLM 

would remove pinyon-juniper trees where there would be benefits to wildlife and 

would avoid treatments in healthy pinyon-juniper woodlands. 

Comment: My first thoughts are for the effects these sprays or powders?, will have on 

our wildlife and the reproduction of their young. Then there’s the concerns of the 

grasses that a lot of these animals depend on for food and what do they use for 

sustenance when you kill it all off? 

Response: The effects to wildlife from herbicide treatments were discussed in Chapter 

4 of the PEIS under Vegetation and Wildlife Resources. Although the BLM recognizes 

there would be short-term impacts to wildlife and their habitats, the intent of 

treatments is to improve habitat for wildlife over the long term, leading to increases in 

wildlife production and numbers. 

Comment: What do you estimate to be the costs incurred by effects of aerial Spraying 

on the immune systems of birds in this day of West Nile virus and bird flu? Has any 

scientific literature in Asia shown evidence of massive use of herbicide/pesticide? We 

know about the initial cover-up of the water supply for cities near the river in China. 

Do we have any known evidence of the causes of weakening birds’ immune systems 

correlated with West Nile and the bird flu? DDT certainly affected birds: why not 

currently ‘cides? 

Response: The BLM is not aware of any such literature. This is speculation and is 

beyond the scope of the PEIS. 

Comment: Amphibians are already experiencing a global decline, in part, scientists 

say, due to herbicide exposure. (Amphibians uptake oxygen through the skin, which 

allows these chemicals to be spread throughout their bodies). This is also the case with 

fish. In fact, the Region 6 District of the US Forest Service found that 12 of the 18 

herbicides the BLM plans to use “likely to adversely effect” almost all federally 

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive species. 

Response: See responses to Comment EMC-0643-077 and Comment EMC-0046-002 

under PEIS Environmental Consequences, Wildlife Resources and Comment EMC0643-079 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, Fish and Other Aquatic 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-444 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0200-010 

Lindsay, Dianne 

RMC-0208-028 

California Oak 

Foundation 

RMC-0208-034 

California Oak 

Foundation 

Organisms regarding effects of herbicides to amphibians and how this issue is 

addressed in the Final PEIS. The Biological Assessment (BA) prepared in support of 

the PEIS/PER addresses the potential effects of herbicides on threatened and 

endangered species. According to risk assessments, and as summarized in the BA, 

many of the herbicides proposed for use by the BLM would potentially have an 

adverse effect on listed species. For this reason, conservation measures have been 

developed to avoid risks associated with herbicide use. These conservation measures 

are presented in the BA and incorporated into the mitigation measures found in the 

PEIS. When determining conservation measures, the BA takes into account the 

declining populations of certain species, as well as the levels of herbicide exposure that 

would be harmful to these species. Additional conservation measures would be 

developed at the local level, as appropriate. 

Comment: The PEIS fails to show value for animals. It follows that spraying wildlife 

forage areas is of little or no concern in this proposal; the consciousness is consistent 

with research that is cited from work that is completed by administering poisons to 

helpless research animals. 

Response: Chapter 4 of the PEIS under Wildlife Resources discusses the adverse 

effects and benefits of herbicide treatments on wildlife habitat, including forage and 

cover. As discussed in Appendix C of the PEIS under Uncertainty Analysis, Toxicity 

Data Available, most toxicological data is for laboratory test organisms. The reasons 

for selecting these organisms rather than wildlife are provided in this section. 

Comment: The Draft PEIS does not include all the state and federally protected 

species likely inhabiting BLM-owned land or land adjacent to BLM-owned land in its 

catalog of Special Status Species. (See Draft PEIS, App. H.) That short-coming 

indicates a failure by the BLM to adequately analyze the impacts of its proposed use of 

herbicides within California’s oak woodland habitats. Based on this data, a far greater 

number of species are likely to be affected by the anticipated use of herbicides on 

BLM lands within oak woodland habitats, and the Draft PEIS does not sufficiently 

address this fact. 

Response: The BLM received a list of federally-listed species and species proposed 

for listing from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries 

Service to use in consultation. This list contained all of the listed species known or 

suspected to occur on BLM-administered lands in the program area as of September 

2005. The BLM also queried all BLM State Endangered Species Coordinators for any 

additional species that may have not been included on the lists provided by the 

Services. The Biological Assessment acknowledges that such a list can be fluid. It is 

important to recognize that because the PEIS and Biological Assessment are 

programmatic and addresses species over such a wide geographic range, information 

on species, listing status, and critical habitat is likely to change over time. However, 

the Biological Assessment is still able to provide guidance for local BLM offices, since 

effects analyses are done largely by group of species, rather than individual species. 

Most importantly, consultation is still required at the local, site-specific level. 

Therefore projects such as those suggested in the oak woodlands would require this 

additional level of consultation. 

Comment: Moreover, all four of these active ingredients, hexazinone, 2.4-D, triclopyr, 

and [glyphosate] are specifically designed to kill plants, which certainly has the 

potential for significant environmental impacts in the short and long term to both 

native flora and wildlife species that rely on such flora for forage and habitat. This 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-445 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0208-036 

California Oak 

Foundation 

RMC-0208-037 

California Oak 

Foundation 

impact is particularly pernicious for oaks, which in some cases are the direct targets of 

the herbicide use. (See e.g. Draft PEIS at pp. [pages] 4-63, 4- 1 12; Draft PER at p. 

[page] 4-42). Obviously, the intended destruction of native oaks will impact the oak 

woodland ecosystem, which, as discussed above, is home to numerous endangered, 

threatened, or protected species or species of concern. The effect of BLM’s proposed 

herbicide use within or near these ecosystems must therefore be assessed in terms of 

potential to impact ESA [Endangered Species Act] species and their habitats. 

Response: All herbicides are designed to kill vegetation, and thus can harm vegetation 

used as habitat for wildlife. However, most of the herbicides used by the BLM or 

proposed for use, are selective and kill only certain types of plants and would have less 

harm on wildlife habitat (except the habitat of those species that use the vegetation 

being treated). Herbicides would not be used to destroy oaks, but if used in oak 

woodlands, would likely be used to improve range habitat by reducing weed 

infestations. 

Comment: The PEIS also is deficient for failing to assess the potential of different 

herbicides to interact cumulatively and/or synergistically in both the aquatic and 

terrestrial environments. (Exhibit 29. [exhibits provided with comment]) Research 

suggests that these cumulative and synergistic effects are responsible, at least in part, 

for the precipitous decline in yellow-legged frogs and the Yosemite toad over that last 

two decades. (Exhibits 30 & 31.) Indeed, these studies show that frogs and toads are 

susceptible to environmental contaminants, even at low Levels (Exhibits 11, 13, 22, 

24, 32, 33, 34), and that environmental contaminants may disrupt amphibian endocrine 

functions (Exhibits 11 & 13), increase the risk of disease by harming amphibians’ 

natural immune system from viruses, fungi and bacteria (Exhibit 24), and/or disrupt 

the natural food chain by killing algae or aquatic invertebrates (Exhibit 23). 

Response: The BLM has reviewed these and other documents and recognizes that 

herbicides may be harmful to amphibians and other organisms. In response to concerns 

from the public, the discussion on effects of herbicides on amphibians has been 

expanded in Chapter 4 of the Final PEIS under Wildlife Resources and Cumulative 

Effects Analysis (Wildlife Resources) to include information cited above and from 

other sources on the potential for herbicides to act synergistically and cumulatively and 

harm amphibians. Also see responses to Comment EMC-0643-077 under PEIS 

Environmental Consequences, Wildlife Resources and Comment EMC-0643-079 

under PEIS Environmental Consequences, Fish and Other Aquatic Organisms for a 

discussion of measures the BLM would use to protect amphibians from herbicides. 

Comment: Additionally, the PEIS fails to adequately address the extent to which 

BLM’s proposed herbicide use will effect regions outside of the application zone. 

Several studies on pesticide and herbicide drift reveal that application of these toxic 

active ingredients impacts more area than just the application target. For example, 

patterns of decline among the federally protected red-legged frog indicate that 

pesticide drift may be playing a role in that species’ decline in the Sierra Nevada. 

(Exhibit 23 [“wind-born agrochemicals may be an important factor in declines of the 

California red-legged frog.” Note: exhibits provided with comment].) Indeed, concern 

for herbicide impacts to amphibians led the U.S. Forest Service to conclude that 

herbicides may not be applied within 500 feet of any yellow-legged-frog and Yosemite 

toad habitat. (Exhibit 35.) Moreover, recent U.S. Forest Service decisions have 

declined to allow the use of hexazinone and atrazine due to the likelihood that these 

persistent and mobile chemicals will find their way into aquatic environments. (Ibid.) 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-446 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0208-041 

California Oak 

Foundation 

RMC-0208-053 

California Oak 

Foundation 

RMC-0213-012 

California Native Plant 

Society 

Response: The BLM evaluated the potential for herbicides to drift off-site via air or 

water and impact non-target plants and other organisms. Based on this analysis, which 

was done as part of the ecological risk assessment for each herbicide, the BLM 

developed buffer guidance for each herbicide to minimize the risk of drift affecting 

organisms outside the treatment area. This information is also provided in the 

Vegetation, and Fish and Other Aquatic Organisms sections of Chapter 4 of the PEIS, 

and in the Biological Assessment. Under the Preferred Alternative and alternatives D 

and E in the PEIS, the BLM would not use atrazine. 

Comment: And, while efforts at establishing buffer zones have been viewed as an 

appropriate solution − and indeed, is identified as a mitigation measure in the Draft 

PEIS (see e.g. Draft PEIS, at pp. [pages] 2-1 7 to 2-24: 4-23 to 4-35), “small lakes and 

ponds, often favored by amphibians as breeding sites, are not protected from 

contamination by buffer zones, and the eggs and tadpoles of the resident species are 

likely to be exposed to low concentrations of the sprayed chemicals.” (Exhibit 25 

[provided with the comment].) Therefore, even this accepted mitigation measure is 

ineffective in some instances. 

Response: It is possible that some areas used by amphibians could be sprayed. 

However, effects to eggs and tadpoles could be avoided by conducting pre-project 

surveys to identify areas with amphibian populations that are susceptible to herbicide 

spraying; applying herbicides outside of the breeding period; using herbicides of little 

or no toxicity to amphibians; using herbicide treatment methods (e.g., spot 

applications) that minimize risks to amphibians; and using non-herbicide treatment 

methods. These Standard Operating Procedures were discussed in Chapter 2 under 

Herbicide Treatment Standard Operating Procedures Guide. 

Comment: Despite this compelling evidence of the damaging effects of certain active 

ingredients on amphibians, the Draft PEIS “did not assess risks to amphibians from 

herbicide treatments.” (Draft PEIS, at p. [page] 4-111.) Rather, the BLM appears to 

rely on the conclusion of the USEPA, which found the data “inconclusive regarding 

the risks to amphibians from atrazine.” (Ibid.) That the USEPA found the data 

inconclusive, however, does not absolve the BLM from considering, as a policy 

matter, the potential effects of compounded herbicide use in environments inhabited by 

amphibians. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0208-036 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Wildlife Resources. 

Comment: In addition to direct and cumulative impacts to rare plant species, pesticide 

use constitutes a significant threat to pollinators of rare plants. Research has shown 

that pesticide damage to native pollinators—either from direct exposure or from 

foraging on contaminated plants—can cause significant reductions in seed set. 

Pesticide use in rangelands and agricultural regions also threatens rare plant survival 

by reducing pollinator populations. In the case of butterflies and moths, detailed 

information on host (larval and nectar) food sources is crucial to assess impacts to 

plants that rely on these species for pollination services. Studies have found that 

herbicides negatively impact pollinators’ eggs as well as their host plants. Herbicide 

use can have adverse impacts to pollinators necessary for reproduction in native plant 

populations. Studies have also found that use of herbicides over large landscapes can 

deplete pollinators that may depend upon exotic species for nectar and pollen in order 

to survive during migrations. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-447 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0218-014 

Blue Mountains 

Biodiversity Project, 

League of Wilderness 

Defenders 

RMC-0222-099 

Salvo, Mark 

(Sagebrush Sea 

Campaign), Cox, 

Caroline (Northwest 

Coalition for 

Alternatives to 

Pesticides), and 

O’Brien, Mary 

Response: Very little information is available on the effect of herbicides on native 

pollinators. Most information is on the non-native honeybee, which is the subject of 

most dose-response studies. The BLM proposes to use the conservation measures 

outlined in the Biological Assessment to protect special status species and federallylisted species. Some of those conservation measures relate to pollinators. At the project 

level, direct and indirect effects (including effects on pollinators and their larval plants 

that may be present in the project area) from the proposed action will be analyzed. If it 

is determined that the proposed action “May Affect” Endangered Species Act-listed 

species, Section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National 

Marine Fisheries Service will be initiated. Mitigation measures for non-listed special 

status species will also be incorporated into project designs in an effort to avoid the 

need to list these species in the future. 

Comment: We are especially concerned about the fate of amphibians, which are 

experiencing a global decline, in part, scientists suspect, due to herbicide exposure, and 

about herbicide threats to fish populations. Region Six of the Forest Service found 

their proposed use of 12 of the 18 herbicides the BLM plans to use would be “likely to 

adversely affect” almost all federally listed Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive fish 

species in the region and all commercially important fish species, including salmon, 

steelhead trout and Bull trout. There should be no herbicide use in riparian areas or 

aerially. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0159-003 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Wildlife Resources for a discussion of how herbicides impact 

amphibians, how this issue is dealt with in the Final PEIS, and what mitigation and 

other protection measures the BLM would follow to protect amphibians. Only about 

1% of herbicide treatments would occur in riparian and other aquatic areas, and in 

many cases these treatments would occur in areas without amphibians, or involve spot 

applications that would have limited impact on amphibians. 

Comment: Nonlethal effects on amphibians (effects on amphibians other than 

mortality): The DEIS [Draft PEIS] ([Appendix C on page] C-10) states that “mammals 

and birds were used as the surrogate species for reptiles and amphibians because of the 

lack of data for these taxa (fish were used as surrogates for juvenile amphibians).” 

However, scientific accuracy requires that, at a minimum, available data should be 

used. For example, a study showing that 2,4-D interferes with normal hormone 

function and maturation of eggs in frogs should not be omitted. Such a study was 

conducted by researchers at Willamette University and published in the journal 

Molecular Reproduction and Development. (Stebbins-Boaz et al. 2004) In addition, a 

study conducted by biologists at Trent University, and the University of Victoria and 

published in the journal Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry showed that 

environmentally relevant concentrations of Roundup (glyphosate) herbicides caused 

the development of intersex in frogs. (Howe et al. 2004) 

Response: The BLM did not include an ecological risk assessment (ERA) of 2,4-D or 

Roundup® (glyphosate) in Appendix C of the PEIS. The BLM relied on the Forest 

Service’s ERAs for these two herbicides and presented the results of the Forest Service 

assessments in Chapter 4 of the PEIS. The studies referred to in the comment were 

published after the Forest Service’s ERAs. The BLM evaluated potential endocrine 

disrupting herbicides in Appendix D of the Final PEIS. Also see response to Comment 

RMC-0221-070 under PEIS Alternatives, Herbicide Active Ingredients Evaluated 

under the Proposed Alternatives. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-448 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0222-102 Comment: Effects on birds of herbicide damage to habitat: In reference to 

Salvo, Mark chlorsulfuron, the DEIS [Draft PEIS] ([page] 4-100) states, “Its use in forested 

(Sagebrush Sea rangeland and other wildlife habitat areas could benefit wildlife over the long term by 

Campaign), Cox, controlling invasive plant species and promoting the establishment and growth of 

Caroline (Northwest native plant species that may provide more suitable wildlife habitat and forage.” 

Coalition for However, the DEIS [Draft PEIS] omits discussion of a series of studies showing that 

Alternatives to minute of amounts of chlorsulfuron can disrupt the production of seeds and fruits by 

Pesticides), and many species of plants, destroying an important food source for birds. The studies 

O’Brien, Mary were conducted by researchers at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the 

University of Oklahoma, and published in the journals Environmental Science and 

Technology, Pysiologiia Plantarum, and Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 

(Fletcher, Pfleeger, and Ratsch 1993, Fletcher, Pfleeger, and Ratsch 1995, Fletcher, 

J.S. et al 1996). 

Response: As noted in Chapter 4 of the PEIS under Vegetation, chlorsulfuron is 

highly active with only small concentrations needed to kill target plants. It is primarily 

used on perennial broadleaf weeds and grasses, but can harm non-target vegetation. 

Thus, the PEIS recommends that chlorsulfuron be applied at the lowest possible dose 

and with buffer distances of at least 900 feet from non-target plant populations to 

protect plants used by birds and other wildlife. 

RMC-0222-103 Comment: In addition, the DEIS [Draft PEIS] ([page] 4-102) states that “tebuthiuron 

Salvo, Mark is used to thin shrubs, creating a more favorable habitat for shrub-dependent species.” 

(Sagebrush Sea However, the DEIS [Draft PEIS] ignores research showing, for example, that lesser 

Campaign), Cox, prairie-chickens prefer untreated nesting areas to those treated with tebuthiuron. This 

Caroline (Northwest research was done by scientists at Texas Tech University and published in the journal 

Coalition for Great Basin Naturalist. (Haukos and Smith 1989). 

Alternatives to 

Pesticides), and Response: The PEIS attempted to provide a reasonable review of the literature on 

O’Brien, Mary herbicide use that showed both the adverse and positive aspects of herbicide use. Thus, 

not all studies done on wildlife and herbicides were included in the PEIS. However, 

the PEIS does note in Chapter 4 under Wildlife Resources that tebuthiuron may persist 

in the soil for several years and injure understory grasses, and that broadcast 

applications are often not effective. The PEIS cites a study by Doerr and Guthery 

(1983) in which tebuthiuron controlled shinnery oak without harming forbs required 

by lesser prairie chickens. 

RMC-0222-119 Comment: The following information on the effects of herbicides on sage grouse is 

Salvo, Mark excerpted from Rowland (2004), which was not referenced in the DEIS [Draft PEIS]. 

(Sagebrush Sea 

Campaign), Cox, Until the 1980’s, herbicides such as 2,4-D were the most common method of 

Caroline (Northwest eliminating large blocks of sagebrush (Connelly et al. 2000b). Lands after 

Coalition for treatment often were planted with crested wheatgrass or other non-native perennial 

Alternatives to grasses for livestock forage. Application of herbicides affects all seasonal ranges of 

Pesticides), and sage-grouse (Connelly et al. 2000b), and its effects have been widely reported 

O’Brien, Mary compared to other land management practices (e.g., Gill 1965, Martin 1970, Carr 

1967, Klebenow 1970, Pyrah 1970, Braun and Beck 1976, Rowland and Wisdom 

2002). 

Response: This reference is not cited in the PEIS. However, the PEIS includes more 

specific information on the adverse and beneficial effects of 2,4-D and other herbicides 

on sage-grouse and other wildlife in Chapter 4 under Wildlife Resources, Impacts of 

Herbicide Treatments on Wildlife and Habitat by Ecoregion. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-449 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0222-120 

Salvo, Mark 

(Sagebrush Sea 

Campaign), Cox, 

Caroline (Northwest 

Coalition for 

Alternatives to 

Pesticides), and 

O’Brien, Mary 

RMC-0222-122 

Salvo, Mark 

(Sagebrush Sea 

Campaign), Cox, 

Caroline (Northwest 

Coalition for 

Alternatives to 

Pesticides), and 

O’Brien, Mary 

RMC-0222-134 

Salvo, Mark 

(Sagebrush Sea 

Campaign), Cox, 

Caroline (Northwest 

Coalition for 

Alternatives to 

Pesticides), and 

O’Brien, Mary 

RMC-0230-003 

Cushman, Robin 

Comment: Spraying of herbicides primarily degrades habitat for sage-grouse by 

increasing fragmentation and removing shrubs used as nesting cover. Long-term 

studies in North Park, Colorado, revealed that applying 2,4-D resulted in reduced 

cover of sagebrush, fewer sagebrush plants and forbs, and lek abandonment (Braun 

and Beck 1976, 1996). Production of sage-grouse, as measured by percentage young in 

the harvest and chicks per hen, declined in the 5 yr following treatment but rebounded 

by 15 year post-treatment (Braun and Beck 1996). Hens with broods avoided sprayed 

blocks while moving toward traditional brood-rearing habitats (Carr 1967, Carr and 

Glover 1971). In another study in North Park, in which >120 flocks (>3,000 birds 

total) were observed during two winters, only 4 flocks were found in altered (by 

spraying with 2,4-D, plowing, burning, or seeding) sagebrush habitats, although >30% 

of the study area had been treated (Beck 1977). 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0222-103 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Wildlife Resources. 

Comment: Herbicides may also be toxic to sage grouse, although sage grouse are not 

mentioned once in the DEIS [Draft PEIS] Ecological Risk Assessment (DEIS [Draft 

PEIS] II, Appendix C) or draft Biological Assessment. Wallestad (1975) and Blus et 

al. (1989) have noted the detrimental effects on sage grouse populations from 

application of herbicides and pesticides. Besides their acute effects, many herbicides 

have chronic effects, and may act as endocrine disrupters. Further, sage grouse in areas 

that have been treated with tebuthiuron (Spike) have been observed engaging in 

atypical behaviors. For example, during a period when most males were flocking, “one 

male [was] consistently alone in an area where sagebrush has been treated with Spike” 

(Brigham 1995). Another male was observed sitting out “in the open” in “the heat of 

the day” even though a sagebrush provided shade only 50 meters away (Brigham 

1995). Although anecdotal, such observations may reflect contaminant mediated 

behavioral alterations. 

Response: Because sage-grouse are not federal threatened or endangered species, they 

were not covered in the Biological Assessment. The risk assessments primarily 

focused on impacts to animal guilds, including birds. Again, since sage-grouse are not 

afforded special protection, they were not included in the rare, threatened, or 

endangered sections of the risk assessments. However, Chapter 4 of the PEIS and PER 

under Wildlife Resources include information on the risks and benefits of herbicide 

and other treatment methods to sage-grouse and other wildlife. 

Comment: As described in these comments and other sources, habitat manipulation 

(by fire and mechanical methods), herbicides, and land uses, such as livestock grazing, 

harm sage grouse. 

Response: Chapter 4 of the PER and PEIS under Wildlife Resources discusses the 

adverse and positive impacts of habitat manipulation, including use of fire and 

herbicides, on sage-grouse. 

Comment: Open forest re-growth areas and roadsides are prime environments for 

butterflies and moths. These lepidoptera utilize a wide range of host and nectar plants, 

both of which are essential for the successful reproduction and continuation of these 

animals – in larval and mature stages. Many of the plants your agency deems as 

competing with trees, hence as being “weeds,” are crucial for the life cycle – for 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-450 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0230-004 

Cushman, Robin 

RMC-0233-011 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

example, Chinkapin is the specific host plant for Golden Hairstreak in the larval stage. 

Other host plants include: willows, alders, bitter cherry, chokecherry, amelanchier, 

stinging nettles, salal, Oregon grape, ceanothus, manzanita, ribes, and bearberry. There 

are even more roadside species that function as host and nectar sources: coltsfoot, 

grasses, sedges, etc. Have you ever experienced seeing ceanothus vibrating with the 

feeding larvae? It is amazing! 

Response: The BLM proposes to use the conservation measures outlined in the 

Biological Assessment to protect special status species and federally-listed species. 

Some of those conservation measures relate to pollinators. At the project level, direct 

and indirect effects (including effects on pollinators and their larval plants that may be 

present in the project area) from the proposed action will be analyzed, and if it is 

determined that the proposed action “May Affect” Endangered Species Act-listed 

species, Section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National 

Marine Fisheries Service will be initiated. Mitigation measures for non-listed special 

status species will also be incorporated into project design in an effort to avoid the 

need to list these species in the future. The PEIS/PER also includes a Standard 

Operating Procedure (see Chapter 2) that requires that damage be minimized to nontarget plants by using a selective herbicide and a wick or backpack sprayer. 

Comment: Massive, indiscriminant spraying in re-growth areas will deprive the 

lepidoptera of their habitat. A policy of backpack spraying of herbicides that target 

specific non-native plants would be a healthy compromise. Aerial spraying of more 

generic herbicides would be a death knell for many species within the sprayed areas. 

Response: The BLM proposes to use the conservation measures outlined in the 

Biological Assessment sent to the USFWS as part of Endangered Species Act Section 

7 consultation on the PEIS to protect special status and federally-listed species. Some 

of those conservation measures relate to Lepidoptera and have the potential to be 

incorporated into project design during the NEPA analysis at the local level. The 

PEIS/PER (see Chapter 2) also includes a Standard Operating Procedure that requires 

that damage be minimized to non-target plants by using a selective herbicide and a 

wick or backpack sprayer. 

Comment: Migratory birds would be adversely impacted by these proposed projects, 

given the estimated 6 million acres proposed to be treated annually. To help meet 

responsibilities under Executive Order 13186 (Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to 

Protect Migratory Birds), for the final PEIS/PER, we recommend the BLM evaluate 

each proposed project for its impacts on migratory birds, specifically the Service’s list 

of Birds of Conservation Concern (2002) and the Partners in Flight priority list species. 

Specifically, for projects that occur within breeding seasons for migratory birds, we 

recommend the PER provide for pre-treatment surveys. These would support the preand post-monitoring that would be an integral part of the projects. Finally, for the final 

PEIS/PER, we recommend that a goal of avian habitat improvement be encouraged 

and designed for each of the proposed project designs. This conceptual approach could 

result in the development of various pro-active treatment prescriptions that would 

focus on improving bird habitat. 

Response: Much of the discussion in Chapter 4 of the PEIS and PER, under Wildlife 

Resources, focuses on improving habitat for birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians, 

and other wildlife. As noted in this section, treatments could have short-term adverse 

effects on birds, but should provide long-term benefits in terms of improved habitat 

and a reduced risk of weed infestation and loss of habitat due to wildfire. Standard 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-451 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Operating Procedures and mitigation measures given in Chapter 2 of the PEIS and 

PER recommend that treatments occur outside of critical periods, including the 

breeding season for birds when feasible, and that monitoring be conducted to assess 

the successes and failures of treatments needed to improve treatments over time. The 

potential effects of vegetation treatments on migratory birds would be evaluated at the 

local level prior to implementing treatment activities. 

RMC-0233-014 Comment: Please use the following information on greater sage-grouse for your final 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife analysis in the final PEIS/PER: Chemical control of sagebrush has resulted in declines 

Service Region 6 of sage-grouse breeding populations through the loss of live sagebrush cover 

California/Nevada (Connelly et al. 2000). Herbicide treatment also can result in sage-grouse emigration 

Operations Office from affected areas (Connelly et al. 2000), and has been documented to have a 

negative effect on nesting, brood carrying capacity (Klebenow 1970), and winter shrub 

cover essential for food and thermal cover. 

Response: Similar information on the adverse effects of herbicides on sagebrush cover 

and sage-grouse habitat was included in Chapter 4 of the PEIS and PER under Wildlife 

Resources. However, we have included the Connelly et al. 2000 review mentioned 

above in the Final PER. 

Environmental Consequences, Livestock 

EMC-0214-016 Comment: Effects on livestock, effects on wild horse and burros. As with the effects

Vollmer, Jennifer on wildlife section, these sections are very poorly represented and misleading.

(BASF)

Response: The general nature of this comment makes it very difficult to respond. One 

purpose of a PEIS is to disclose the “potential” impacts of an action that is being 

considered. In this case the potential impacts are identified, along with potential 

benefits and mitigation measures that could be useful for avoiding or reducing those 

impacts. All actions have some potential impact, and although potential impacts are 

disclosed that does not mean the agency is rejecting that alternative or is prohibited 

from accepting that alternative. The information in the PEIS is simply used to help the 

agency consider potential impacts, both adverse and beneficial, and allow the BLM to 

make an informed decision. 

EMC-0338-014 Comment: Comments about risks to large herbivores and livestock: In various places 

Dow AgroSciences throughout the PEIS, a concern is expressed regarding large herbivores and livestock 

grazing herbicide treated forage. There appears to be a general misunderstanding on 

exposure to large herbivores, including livestock, due to the presence of grazing or 

haying restrictions on the labels. Grazing and haying restrictions are in place to 

regulate pesticide residues in meat and milk tissue, they are not a function of the 

herbicide’s toxicity to the grazing animal. Any grazing restriction is to ensure residue 

levels in meat tissue are within the tolerances established by USEPA. Therefore it is 

erroneous to imply a danger to livestock or large herbivores from grazing treated 

forage (within the label allowances for range and pasture applications) for triclopyr, 

picloram, tebuthiuron or other herbicides approved for use on grazed areas. 

Response: For each chemical used, the label identifies the period of time after which it 

is safe for grazing animals to return to the treated area. The BLM will communicate 

with the grazing permittee and follow those label instructions, which require the 

temporary removal of livestock from the area following treatment. Although the 

amount of time varies for each chemical, typically livestock can return within 24 to 96 

hours. Additional rest from livestock grazing over and above the amount listed for the 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-452 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0493-002 

Blankenship, Jill 

EMC-0525-010 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0533-018 

EMC-0548-035 

Colorado Farm Bureau 

Utah Farm Bureau 

Federation 

chemical may be necessary to allow recovery of non-target plants, and to reduce the 

opportunity for the treated vegetation to reestablish on the site. We have modified the 

discussions in the PEIS for specific chemicals to make it clear that livestock health 

would not be affected as a result of exposure to these chemicals at the recommended 

rates of application, but that restrictions are identified to regulate pesticide residues in 

meat and milk products. 

Comment: But anyways, my question is, I live near Beale Air Force Base in 

Smartville, California. I see a lot of cattle grazing on what I believe to be BLM land, if 

you spray after a waiting period will it be safe for the cattle to graze on that land again? 

Grazing land for ranches is getting scarce; I would hate to see any more lost. 

Response: Yes. For each chemical used the label identifies the period of time after 

which it is safe for grazing animals to return to the treated area. The BLM would 

communicate with grazing permittees and follow label instructions, which could mean 

temporary removal of livestock from the area. Although the amount of time varies for 

each chemical, typically livestock can return within 24 to 96 hours. 

Comment: How has this depletion affected livestock patterns of use, acres per AUM 

[Animal Unit Month], invasion of hazardous fuels like cheatgrass, increased densities 

of woody vegetation, etc? What are the acres per AUM across vegetation types at 

present, and how do they compare to stocking rates of good or better ecological 

condition communities? How many acres per AUM are required to sustain cattle or 

sheep in the lower salt desert shrub or Wyoming big sagebrush communities, and how 

does this compare to current stocking rates on these lands? 

Response: Because of the nature of the comment, it is only possible to respond in very 

general terms. If land health is degraded, livestock patterns do change. First of all, the 

livestock themselves may spend less time in degraded areas because forage, and 

possibly other resources like shade and water, may be less available. In addition, these 

conditions may result in modification to the permitted season of use and/or the total 

amount of use measured in AUMs. The question of how may acres per AUM are 

required to sustain cattle or sheep in lower salt desert shrub or Wyoming big sagebrush 

communities is difficult to answer because these allocations are very site-specific and 

can vary from one ecological site to the next depending on soil conditions, climate, 

slope, etc. The allocations on public lands are often more conservative and prescribe 

more acres per head of livestock than the suggested stocking rates for good or better 

ecological condition communities. 

Comment: BLM should consider how it will carry out its multiple use mandate during 

treatments under this plan. The proposal to increase the area of treatment has the 

potential to disrupt or displace existing uses, such as livestock grazing. Suspension of 

grazing permits for the 2-3 years required for range restoration work could result in 

many livestock producers being forced out of business. Any proposals in the [P]EIS 

that consider displacement of livestock grazing permits for any period of time must 

also consider ways to keep permittees in business during the time that their allotments 

are treated. These proposals could include providing alternative pastures for grazing 

during the time that a permittee’s allotment is being treated, using vacant allotments 

for alternative use, using a permittee’s livestock to control weeds or reduce fire loads 

in a nearby sector, or other creative ways to not reduce livestock grazing. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-453 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0040(2)-003 

Resource Concepts, 

Inc. 

RMC-0040(2)-005 

Resource Concepts, 

Inc. 

RMC-0061-003 

Resource Concepts, 

Inc. 

Response: The BLM does communicate with grazing permittees when planning 

vegetation management treatments. Notifying the permittee, and providing alternative 

forage sites for livestock “if possible” were both identified as Standard Operating 

Procedures in Table 2-5 of the PER. The BLM does consider vacant pastures or 

allotments when planning vegetation treatment projects, but vacant allotments or 

forage reserve areas are often not available. The BLM recognizes the potential 

advantages of using forage reserve areas to help facilitate the needed rest following 

vegetation treatments, including the potential benefits to grazing permittees by 

providing more options during the rest period when allotments are unavailable due to 

vegetation treatment projects, or natural events such as wildfire or drought. 

Comment: Pg [Page] 4-123 [of the Draft PEIS], in the first full paragraph of the page, 

it is stated that spot treatments of vegetation could be applied at any time. Caution 

should be taken when treating vegetation adjacent to livestock water sources. Spot 

treatments should not be applied around water sources in pastures with limited water 

when livestock are grazing in the pasture. Instead, a standard operation procedure 

addition could include not allowing treatment of vegetation within close proximity to 

water sources (especially springs, tanks, ponds, and other developed water sources) 

while livestock are grazing in water, limited pastures. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0061-003 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Livestock. 

Comment: Pg 4-126 [of the Draft PEIS], in the paragraph concerning diquat, it was 

stated that the chemical could be of most concern if used in riparian areas where 

livestock are exclusively grazing. The document goes on to state that the unlikely 

scenario of this happening was not modeled. It should be a standard operating 

procedure, or part of the regulated use on diquat, that diquat will not be used in a 

riparian pasture while livestock are held in the same riparian pasture. Grazing duration 

is generally short in most riparian pastures and should allow sufficient time for 

livestock to be removed from the pasture before diquat treatments are applied. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0061-005 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Livestock. 

Comment: Pg. [Page] 4-123 [of the Draft PEIS]. In the first full paragraph of the page, 

it is stated that spot treatments of vegetation could be applied at any time. Caution 

should be taken when treating vegetation adjacent to livestock water sources. Spot 

treatments should not be applied around water sources in pastures with limited water 

when livestock are grazing in the pasture. Instead, a standard operating procedure 

addition could include not allowing treatment of vegetation within close proximity to 

water sources (especially springs, tanks, ponds, and other developed water sources) 

while livestock are grazing in water, limited pastures. Another standard operating 

procedure for small infestations and large spot treatments should include temporary 

fencing to prevent livestock from grazing the weed infested area, when optimal 

herbicide treatment times conflict with grazing plan schedules. 

Response: The BLM agrees with the majority of this comment, and the text has been 

revised to reflect the comment. The second suggestion of including temporary fencing 

as a Standard Operating Procedure has not been included in the text, however. 

Although temporary fencing may be useful in many situations, it is not appropriate for 

every situation and therefore is not included as a Standard Operating Procedure. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-454 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0061-004 

Resource Concepts, 

Inc. 

RMC-0061-005 

Resource Concepts, 

Inc. 

RMC-0061-006 

Resource Concepts, 

Inc. 

RMC-0115-003 

Maple, Susan 

Comment: Pg [Page] 4-123 [of the PEIS] In the fourth paragraph on this page, 

herbicide treatments are being proposed to reduce the risk of future catastrophic 

wildfire for weeds of concern including downy brome, Russian thistle, kochia, oak, 

and pinyon juniper. Herbicide applications of tebuthiuron or other herbicides could 

actually increase the risk of catastrophic wildfire. Leaving standing dead trees and tree 

branches on-site after application of herbicide treatment could result in higher 

quantities of low moisture fuels that carry fire faster and hotter than live vegetation. 

Reducing the percentage of live pinyon and juniper trees in an area through chemical 

treatment should result in less competition for native grass and forb species, which is a 

benefit of treatment. However, increases in grass, forb, and shrub fuels are expected 

and can negate the supposed “fuel reduction” purpose behind the treatment. In my 

opinion, chemical treatment of selected species such as cheatgrass, pinion-juniper, and 

some other species should only come as a last resort, unless protecting a new seeding 

from invasive species, for example. Fuels management grazing and biomass harvest 

plans should be a prerequisite to chemical applications whenever possible. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0069-016 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action. 

Comment: Pg [Page] 4-126 [of the Draft PEIS]. In the paragraph concerning diquat, it 

was stated that the chemical could be of most concern if used in riparian areas where 

livestock are exclusively grazing. The document goes on to state that the unlikely 

scenario of this happening was not modeled. It should be a standard operating 

procedure, or part of the regulated use on diquat, that diquat will not be used in a 

riparian pasture while livestock are held in the same riparian pasture. Grazing duration 

is generally short in most riparian pastures and should allow sufficient time for 

livestock to be removed from the pasture before diquat treatments are applied. 

Response: The text has been modified for diquat in the Livestock section of Chapter 4 

of the PEIS in response to this comment. 

Comment: Pg. 4-130 [of the Draft PEIS]. In the paragraph regarding Triclopyr, there 

is a statement that it is important to limit exposure of cattle and horses to triclopyr 

sprayed vegetation until residual activity has tapered off. A time frame should be given 

indicating a typical time for removal of livestock from treated rangelands. If treatment 

areas are small, they should be temporarily fenced, or scheduled during a period of rest 

in the standard grazing system for the allotment affected. 

Response: The label for this product indicates that all livestock except for lactating 

dairy animals can graze at any time, but they do recommend that livestock be 

withdrawn from grazing treated forage 3 days prior to slaughter. The Livestock section 

of Chapter 4 of the PEIS under Triclopyr was modified to reflect these 

recommendations. 

Comment: You mention cattle grazing lands that are in BLM acres, what effect do 

these herbicides have on our beef steer? 

Response: The potential effects of herbicide use on livestock are discussed in the 

Chapter 4 of the PEIS under Livestock. This discussion includes Standard Operating 

Procedures and mitigation measures designed to reduce impacts to livestock. In 

general, the timing of herbicide application can be scheduled to occur when livestock 

are not present, or livestock can be specifically removed when herbicide is applied to 

reduce the potential effects on livestock. Each chemical prescribes a period of time 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-455 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

when grazing animals are allowed to return to the treated area. Although the period of 

time varies depending on the chemical applied, in general grazing animals can safely 

return within a few days. 

RMC-0164-015 Comment: The only herbicide the WDA [Wyoming Department of Agriculture] has 

Wyoming Department concern with is diquat. The use of this product could be detrimental to cattle grazing 

of Agriculture on BLM lands post-application. Pesticides with diquat as the active ingredient 

typically have label restrictions on grazing, and the use of the treated area as food crop. 

Therefore, we request diquat only be used in areas or situations where livestock will 

not be exposed to treated vegetation. However, it is evident that the application of 

diquat at the labeled rate, will have little to-no effect on the environment, and therefore 

we support its inclusion on the BLM approved pesticide list. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0061-003 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Livestock. 

RMC-0222-036 Comment: The DEIS [Draft PEIS] does estimate that more herbicide use will mean 

Salvo, Mark more livestock grazing potential ([page] 4-123): “In cases where herbicide treatments 

(Sagebrush Sea are able to reduce the cover of noxious and unpalatable weeds on grazed lands, this 

Campaign), Cox, would create short- and long-term benefits to livestock by increasing the quality of 

Caroline (Northwest forage” [emphasis added].; However, the DEIS [Draft PEIS] then claims that 

Coalition for analyzing whether more livestock grazing will mean even more herbicide use is 

Alternatives to beyond the scope of the DEIS [Draft PEIS] ([page] 2-12: “...restrictions on [livestock 

Pesticides), and grazing] would only be considered to the extent that they are consistent with BLM 

O’Brien, Mary vegetation and land use management practices”). Thus, the DEIS [Draft PEIS] 

discusses the linkage of herbicide use to increased livestock forage, but refuses to 

consider the link of livestock grazing to increased herbicide use. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0080-004 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Alternative E - No Use of Sulfonylurea and other Acetolactate Synthase-inhibiting 

Active Ingredients. The analysis under Summary of Herbicide Impacts in the 

Livestock section of Chapter 4 of the PEIS is correct. Reducing the cover of noxious 

and unpalatable weeds would increase the quality of the forage. It does not necessarily 

follow that increased quality of forage leads to increased livestock grazing activity. See 

response to Comment RMC-0222-035 under PEIS Proposed Action and Purpose and 

Need, Scope of Analysis. There is no established relationship between livestock 

grazing use and herbicide use. 

Environmental Consequences, Wild Horses and Burros 

EMC-0585-104 Comment: [Page] ES-5 [of the Draft PEIS] mentions Diquat in relation to wild horses,

Western Watersheds and wrongly concludes they are “unlikely” to be exposed to it. Wild horses may seek

Project out limited desert water sources, and they eat water cress and other aquatic plants (K.

Schultsmeier, per comm. to Fite). If the only water source for wild horses is sprayed,

exposure would be certain. Here, as throughout the [P]EIS and PER, BLM ignores the

realities of wild arid landscapes. 

Response: The Final PEIS at page ES-5 summarizes the direct and indirect impacts to 

livestock and wild horses from herbicide use. The risk assessment identifies diquat as 

being toxic to these animals; however, frequent exposure of livestock and wild horses 

to diquat would be unlikely, since it is applied as an aquatic herbicide. Diquat is 

typically applied to large water bodies, such as streams, rivers, and large ponds or 

lakes with interconnectivity. It is used to control invasive species such as giant 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-456 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0585-249 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-250 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

salvinia, which is found in the Colorado River system and has the potential to spread 

throughout the aquatic system. Water sources for livestock and wild horses in arid 

environments are usually localized spring sources and seeps, which are not typically 

treated with herbicides, including aquatic herbicides such as diquat. See the Standard 

Operating Procedures in Table 2-5 of Chapter 2 of the PER for buffer distances for 

terrestrial herbicide applications around all water sources. The BLM agrees that if the 

only water source for wild horses were treated with diquat, exposure of the animals to 

diquat would be certain. This scenario, as an accidental spill or direct application, was 

modeled in the risk assessment, which determined that it would not result in the 

frequent exposure necessary to have a toxic effect on the animal. Furthermore, this 

scenario is unlikely, since desert water sources utilized by grazing animals are not 

typically sources of invasive plant infestations with the potential to spread into other 

areas or systems. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that a treatment program using diquat 

would target such a water source, as speculated. In the event a treatment program was 

identified in which an aquatic herbicide could affect grazing animal water sources, 

appropriate mitigation of impacts to the grazing animals would be identified in the 

site-specific NEPA analysis, and mitigation would be implemented to protect the 

animals from direct or indirect exposure. 

Comment: What we have been seeing happen is that BLM is purposefully rounding 

up/clearing off horses in advance of the “hazardous fuels” projects that are already 

being conducted. This appears to be aimed at allowing domestic livestock to get all the 

grass and weeds that grow up after their haz fuels/weed “treatments”. Yet, the stocking 

rate of domestic livestock on the treated lands is not changed. Nowhere is there an 

analysis of how the ecological balance is affected by significant reductions in horse 

numbers accompanying treatments, and only a year or 2 removal of livestock and only 

from the immediate area of the treatment – if even that occurs. 

Response: In planning hazardous fuels treatment projects, the BLM identifies specific 

vegetation management goals and objectives to be accomplished as a result of the 

treatment, as well as any interim management actions necessary to assure those goals 

and objectives are attained. These management actions may include resting an area 

from livestock or wild horse or burro use for a period of time, temporary fencing, or 

other actions. As stated in Chapter 1, Purpose and Need, these site-specific actions are 

addressed in National Environmental Policy Act documents prepared by local BLM 

offices and tiered to this document. 

Comment: No assessment is provided of the lethal infrastructure (to horses) that may 

accompany treatments. For example, Nevada BLM has recently killed wild horses by 

constructing fences around GBRI [Great Basin Restoration Initiative] cheatgrass 

“treatments” that cut wild horses off from water. Fences and other impediments to 

wild and free roaming horses are common accompaniments to BLM “treatments”. 

Fences shift or alter horse use, force them into sub-optimal habitats, heighten conflicts 

with livestock or wildlife, and may cause injury or death by entanglement. 

Response: The BLM is required to undertake management activities with the goal of 

maintaining free-roaming behavior of wild horses and burros. In considering interim 

management actions to protect vegetation treatment areas, BLM assesses the sitespecific impacts of these actions, such as fencing, removal of livestock grazing, etc. 

together with the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the project. As noted in 

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need, site-specific impacts, including impacts to the wild and 

free roaming behavior of wild horses and burros, are analyzed in a site-specific 

National Environmental Policy Act document prepared by local BLM offices and 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-457 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

tiered to this document. 

RMC-0211-023 Comment: BLM’s plan to remove wild horses during herbicide application did not 

Ghandi, Theresa Marie seem practical. What is the plan for the 240,000 antelope in Wyoming the endangered 

K. prairie dogs, bison and migrating birds that can not read the herbicide labels, accepting 

liability in deciding to eat herbicide contaminated food sources that have been safe in 

the past? This is a big assumption. 

Response: As noted under Standard Operating Procedures in Chapter 2 of the PEIS, 

the BLM would try to remove wild horses and burros from a treatment area, if feasible. 

More importantly, the BLM would focus on using herbicides and herbicide treatment 

methods with the least impact to wildlife. Thus, risk assessments were conducted by 

the BLM to determine which herbicides were most safe to use around wildlife, 

including special status species. As noted in Chapter 4 of the PEIS under Wildlife 

Resources, and in the Biological Assessment, additional restrictions would be placed 

on herbicide use by the BLM in areas with species of concern. 

Environmental Consequences, Paleontological and Cultural Resources 

EMC-0203-003 Comment: The vegetation treatments and [P]EIS reports inadequately address impacts 

Institute For Culture to thousands of tribal and nontribal people who gather nontimber forest products 

and Ecology (NTFP) (aka [also known as] Special Forest Products) in the region for commercial, 

subsistence, and recreational purposes. This is true for both Native American tribal 

users and nontribal rural and urban users. For example, impacts are not addressed for 

the pinon seed (aka pinenut) industry, the native seed collection industry, the wild 

medicinals industry, and for recreational users who are generally under the assumption 

that products they gather on public lands are free of chemicals. Nontimber forest 

products occurring in these areas include hundreds of species (processed into 

thousands of products) including native seeds, edible foods, medicinal plants, 

decorative products and plants harvested for saps, resins, and fragrances. The cultural 

value as well as the economic value of these products in the areas covered by the EIS 

is known to be highly significant to individuals and communities. They are significant 

culturally and economically, for full-time harvesters and businesses as well as the 

occasional harvester. As an example the NTFP species database at www.ifcae.org/ntfp/ 

lists 472 commercially harvested species for Colorado alone. However, the EIS does 

not adequately discuss these values, nor does it include a sufficient discussion of the 

impacts of the proposed vegetation treatment policy on either the economic or cultural 

values of NTFP harvesting. 

Response: The Final PEIS and PER provide discussions of the effects of treatments in 

Chapter 4 in the section on Paleontological and Cultural Resources and Human Health 

and Safety and in Appendix D of the PER (Native American and Alaska Native 

Resource Uses). The PEIS and PER provide a broad assessment of the impacts of 

BLM vegetation treatment activities on nontimber forest products that are harvested by 

Native Americans and others. However, the BLM will consult on the impacts of 

specific treatment projects on the various NTFPs that are harvested and used by 

members of the tribal communities as a part of the federal government’s governmentto-government relationship with the Tribes and their members. 

EMC-0621-002 Comment: The Draft PEIS and PER inadequately address impacts to thousands of 

Alliance of Forest tribal and nontribal people who gather nontimber forest products (NTFP) (aka [also 

Workers and known as] Special Forest Products) in the region for commercial, subsistence, and 

Harvesters recreational purposes. This is true for both Native American tribal users and nontribal 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-458 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0643-034 

California Indian 

Basketweavers 

Association 

EMC-0643-048 

California Indian 

Basketweavers 

Association 

rural and urban users. Nontimber forest products occurring in these areas include 

hundreds of species (processed into thousands of products), including native seeds, 

edible foods, medicinal plants, decorative products and plants harvested for saps, 

resins, and fragrances. Both the cultural and economic value of these products in the 

areas covered by the Draft PEIS is known to be highly significant to individuals and 

communities. They are significant culturally and economically for Native American or 

cultural harvesters, subsistence harvesters, full-time harvesters and businesses, as well 

as for the occasional harvester. However, the Draft PEIS does not adequately discuss 

these values, nor does it include a sufficient discussion of the impacts of the proposed 

vegetation treatment policy on either the economic or cultural values of NTFP 

harvesting. 

Response: See responses to Comment EMC-0621-006 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Vegetation, and EMC-0203-003 under Environmental Consequences, 

Paleontology and Cultural Resources. Also see Chapter 5 in the PEIS under 

Government-to-government Consultation and Appendixes D and E in the PER, which 

discuss Native American and Alaska Native Resource Use and Cultural Resources. 

The BLM consulted with the tribes (see Appendix G of the Final PEIS) to identify 

culturally and economically important vegetation resources. The economic benefits of 

NTFP products is provided in Chapter 4 of the PEIS and PER under Social and 

Economic Values. It is anticipated that treatments that improve ecosystem health 

would benefit NTFP quality, abundance, and value. 

Comment: A recent study in California, conducted by the California Department of 

Pesticide Regulation, examined herbicide residues on plants of importance to Native 

Americans resulting from forest plantation spraying (Ando et al. 2003). One thing that 

became clear to us after analysis of the data was that the residues found on forest 

plants used by Indian people exceeded the EPA residue tolerances set for the same 

chemicals used on crop plants--certain fruits, berries, herbs, and grains. These residues 

were exceeded by many times, sometimes hundreds or even thousands of times, the 

amounts of residue that are allowed on foods you could buy in the grocery store. The 

EPA regulatory system fails to provide the same level of protection for traditionally 

used plants gathered by Indian people, on public lands. 

Response: USEPA tolerances are established partially based on the percentage of the 

food item in the average diet. The forestry items listed in Ando et al. (2003) are not 

listed in tolerances because of their specialized subsistence use. Hence, the Ando et al. 

(2003) paper does not claim that USEPA tolerances are exceeded. Some of the BLM 

exposure scenarios did show risk associated with Native American use of plants, 

notably for diquat. However, diquat would only be used in aquatic bodies. Thus, the 

risk of Native Americans coming into contact with diquat would be minor. 

Comment: Also, the DEIS [Draft PEIS] claims that impacts to Native Americans are 

further mitigated because “Three of the four herbicides proposed for use are relatively 

harmless to native peoples and other human receptors.” (p. [page] 2-34, Table 2-8 [of 

the Draft PEIS]). This statement is without factual basis and is misleading. The 

preparers of the DEIS [Draft PEIS] have confused a lack of published studies with a 

lack of harm. As noted under the discussion of Monsanto and glyphosate (see 

Attachment 4 [provided with the comment]), it is not factual to state that any of the 

chemicals are “relatively harmless to native peoples.” Further, the DEIS [Draft PEIS] 

states that 70% of applications will be 2,4-D, picloram, tebuthiuron, or diuron--all of 

which are moderate to highly toxic chemicals. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-459 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Response: The BLM proposes to use diflufenzopyr, diquat, imazapic, and fluridone. 

Risks to Native Americans were rated as none to low for these herbicides (see Human 

Health and Safety and Table 4-28 in Chapter 4 of the PEIS). 2,4-D and tebuthiuron are 

rated as moderately toxic under several exposure scenarios, and glyphosate and diuron 

are rated as slightly toxic via ingestion, and picloram is rated as slightly toxic via 

exposure by consumption of contaminated water (see Tables 4-28 and 4-30 in PEIS 

Chapter 4). 

EMC-0643-058 Comment: We note that impacts to plant materials used by Native American people 

California Indian for maintenance of tribal cultural traditions may occur anywhere on BLM lands. 

Basketweavers Impacts to these resources are not limited to known gathering areas. Indian people may 

Association gather plants for traditional uses anywhere where such plants are found to occur 

naturally. Thus, the possibility of impacts to Native people through exposure to 

chemicals is a certain outcome from this proposal, with direct impacts to culture 

through the loss of native plant materials, resulting in significant impacts that are not 

been mitigated in this DEIS [Draft PEIS]. 

Response: This comment raises issues recognized in the PEIS with regard to the 

potential for impacts to plant materials used by Native Americans. However, the PEIS 

is a broad-scale document and does not consider specific effects to Native Americans 

and traditional resources, which must be identified and addressed by following 

appropriate consultation and mitigation at the project level, as discussed in Chapter 2 

of the PEIS in the sections on Special Precautions (Cultural Resources) and 

Coordination and Education. As discussed in Chapter 4 of the PEIS under Cultural 

Resources, although short-term losses in Native American plant resources may occur 

as a result of treatments, it is anticipated that native plant resources would improve 

over the long term, to the benefit of Native people. Also see response to Comment 

EMC-0643-044 under PEIS Alternatives, Mitigation. 

EMC-0643-059 Comment: The DEIS [Draft PEIS] has failed to accurately analyze the impacts to 

California Indian Native American health and culture and has not mitigated impacts to an acceptable 

Basketweavers level. The DEIS makes claims that are not supported by the record and has failed to 

Association demonstrate that the benefits of herbicide use outweigh the harm from their use. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0643-043 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Cumulative Effects Analysis. 

Environmental Consequences, Visual Resources 

EMC-0139-008 Comment: The VRM [Visual Resource Management] statement that “domestic 

Troutman, Doug animals are common and expected” does not improve the public view of the land. 

Deer, elk, pronghorn, wild horses, these excite the recreation or casual visitor, not 

more cows and cow poop! VRM quality is highly degraded by livestock and “range 

improvement” projects. Degraded, trampled streams and lakeshores are not positive 

VRM management. Water features are the most critical VRM issue, and rare on BLM 

lands, which makes their preservation from livestock abuse very critical. 

Response: We agree that livestock may degrade VRM quality. We have revised the 

text in Chapter 4 of the PER under Effects of Beneficial Effects of Treatments as 

follows: 

“The controlled use of domestic animals to contain undesirable vegetation may create 

a short-term visual impact associated with trampling and consumption of vegetation. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-460 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

These impacts would be dealt with on a case by case basis and mitigated as appropriate 

at the project level. The visual effects of containment by domestic animals would be 

short term in nature and would create a positive visual effect with the regrowth of 

desirable vegetation in a healthy, productive condition.” 

EMC-0214-017 Comment: Effects on Visual Resources. This section does not take in to account that a 

Vollmer, Jennifer new herbicide in the Preferred Alternative is applied pre-emergence to the vegetation 

(BASF) to be controlled, meaning no unsightly dead vegetation. Compared to the No Action 

Alternative where the vegetation treatment will need to be a post-emergence nonselective herbicide, burning, or disking, leaving an unsightly landscape to achieve 

lesser results. Under the No Action Alternative fewer acres may be treated, but that 

means hundreds of thousands of acres left in their unsightly state. 

Response: Each of the alternatives involves a range of methods both pre-emergence 

and post-emergence. The visual contrast of the proposed method will be analyzed at 

the project level and visual Standard Operating Procedures will be applied. The visual 

impacts of dead zones, prescribed fire and other methods as well as the impacts of 

leaving an area untreated are covered in Chapter 4 under Visual Resources. The shortterm visual impacts of the preferred alternative will generate larger dead zones than 

those that would be generated under Alternative A because more acres of existing 

undesirable vegetation would be treated. 

Environmental Consequences, Wilderness and Special Areas 

EMC-0220-005 Comment: We are especially concerned about and strongly opposed to any use of 

Friends of the Inyo aerial application and increased application within units of the National Landscape 

Conservation System, most notably designated Wilderness Study Areas [WSAs]. As 

the BLM is aware, “preservation of wilderness values within a WSA is paramount and 

should be the primary consideration when evaluating any proposed action or use that 

may conflict with or be adverse to those wilderness values. The concept of considering 

wilderness values first asserts, with few exceptions (e.g., valid existing rights, 

grandfathered rights, etc.), that wilderness resource management objectives within a 

WSA should take precedence over all other resource management program objectives” 

(WSA Interim Management Policy H-8550-1). Large-scale application of herbicide to 

“manage” vegetation within a WSA seem wholly counter to the BLM’s legal 

requirements to manage. 

Response: The use of aerial application and other large-scale applications of 

herbicides in wilderness study areas is addressed in BLM Handbook H8550-1. It 

specifies a very constrained set of circumstances under which such use would be 

permitted. Such use is in accordance with the legal requirements set forth in the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act. Other components of the National 

Landscape Conservation System, such as National Monuments and National 

Conservation Areas, have individual land use plans (Resource Management Plans) that 

provide decisions on how herbicides may or may not be used to meet the requirements 

of their specific enabling legislation. 

EMC-0139-009 Comment: Wilderness management should include prescribed fire, but whether in 

Troutman, Doug wilderness or WSAs [Wilderness Study Areas], mechanical and chemical treatments 

should only be used in emergencies where infestations are starting. Removal of 

livestock from these areas should be immediate if weeds threaten! 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-461 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0513-019 

The Wilderness 

Society 

EMC-0513-023 

The Wilderness 

Society 

EMC-0513-025 

The Wilderness 

Society 

Response: The BLM considers the use of chemical or mechanical treatments as 

preventative management. Treating infestations only after they emerge is often too 

late. Proper management of stock levels and periods of use (seasons, length of use), 

will prevent encroachment of invasive species. Proper management can involve 

immediate removal of livestock but it can also involve other alternatives. The BLM 

prefers that controls using prescribed fire be minimized, and other measures taken if 

possible. 

Comment: By their very nature, herbicides pose a substantial risk of changing the 

character of ecosystems. Based on the law and policy governing the need to protect the 

naturalness of lands with wilderness values, BLM should prioritize using methods to 

control vegetation that function most like natural systems. 

Response: BLM Manual 8560 – Management of Designated Wilderness Areas and 

BLM Handbook H8550-1 – Interim Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands 

Under Wilderness Review establish the methods and priorities to be used to protect the 

wilderness value of naturalness in wilderness and WSAs. 

Comment: The language in the Vegetation Treatments [Draft] PEIS does not contain 

a sufficient analysis of the risks of using herbicides in Wilderness, WSAs or lands with 

wilderness characteristics. For instance, in comparing the different management 

alternatives, the PEIS concludes that the Preferred Alternative will have the greatest 

adverse impacts, including temporary closures of Wilderness, but then also claims that 

visitors could simply be displaced. Vegetation Treatments {Draft} PEIS, Table 2-8, p. 

[page] 2-35. The [Draft] PEIS also concludes that there would be greater ecosystem 

benefits, since use of herbicides will be “most likely” to control weeds and other 

invasive species. [Draft] PEIS, Table 2-8, p. [page] 2-35. However, this comparison 

does not adequately account for the need to first ensure that there is no workable 

alternative to chemical applications, for the importance of temporary impacts to 

wilderness values, or for the importance in preserving both the naturalness of 

Wilderness and the opportunity for use and enjoyment of Wilderness. 

Response: See responses to Comment EMC-0513-022 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Wilderness Areas, Comment EMC-0513-024 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Cumulative Effects Analysis, and Comment RMC-0057-005 under 

PEIS Environmental Consequences, Wilderness and Special Areas. 

Comment: The Standard Operating Procedures for Applying Pesticides reference the 

relevant BLM policies on management of Wilderness and WSAs, but do not 

specifically set out the requirement for a determination that there is “no effective 

alternative” and that the action is needed to maintain the natural ecosystem, and do not 

even mention wilderness management plans. Vegetation Treatments PEIS, Table 2-6, 

p. 2-19 [of the Draft PEIS]. The Standard Operating Procedures also contain no 

reference to applicable BLM policy for management of lands with wilderness 

characteristics. 

Response: Reference to BLM policies is given in Table 2-8 of Chapter 2 of the PEIS 

in the first column of the table and in Chapter 4 under Wilderness and Special Areas. It 

is assumed that the BLM would follow applicable plans, policies and laws when 

conducting vegetation treatments; therefore, elements of the plans, policies, and laws 

are not included in Table 2-8 or Chapter 4. Compliance with plans, policies, or laws is 

discussed in more detail in Chapter 1 of the PEIS. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-462 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0513-027 

The Wilderness 

Society 

EMC-0513-031 

The Wilderness 

Society 

EMC-0513-032 

The Wilderness 

Society 

Comment: The PEIS must acknowledge the need to apply a “no effective alternative” 

and “minimum tool” analysis that takes into account the potential effects of herbicide 

treatments on both the naturalness and freedom from human control that are an 

essential part of wilderness values. In applying these standards, the agency will need to 

balance valid goals for restoring naturalness against the risk of destroying wilderness 

characteristics, assessing the type of disturbance required and the varying impacts, 

both short and long term, on wilderness values. 

Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0057-005, Comment EMC-0513-025, 

and Comment EMC-0513-032 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, Wilderness 

and Special Areas. 

Comment: The analysis of direct, indirect and cumulative effects of use of herbicides 

in the Vegetation Treatments PEIS must be revised to: 1) properly account for the 

importance of temporary degradation of wilderness values; 2) acknowledge and assess 

the risks associated with use of herbicides on lands with wilderness characteristics 

(designated Wilderness, WSAs, or lands not formally designated) and the potential for 

destroying both their naturalness and freedom from human control, and 3) fully 

consider the potential effects of using herbicides on the lands with wilderness 

characteristics both on those lands and on the larger ecosystem and/or adjacent lands 

by answering the following threshold questions: a) is restoration necessary to reestablish natural systems and restore the wilderness characteristics of the area; b) will 

the proposed restoration lead to a natural balance rather than a cycle of ongoing human 

intervention; c) are the wilderness characteristics of the area substantially degraded or 

on a clear trajectory of degradation that will continue without human intervention; d) is 

the area with wilderness characteristics critical to the function of the larger ecosystem 

outside the area, and is its unnatural condition a threat to the integrity of the larger 

landscape; e) are there especially rare or valued natural elements within the area with 

wilderness characteristics that are at risk without intervention? 

Response: The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of herbicide treatments are 

covered in Chapter 4 of the PEIS and PER under Wilderness and Special Areas. The 

suggested analysis identified in number 3 of the comment would typically occur at the 

project level and during NEPA analysis at the local level. 

Comment: Section 2 of the Vegetation Treatments PEIS must contain clear 

prescriptions requiring that: 1) any use of herbicides in Wilderness areas is authorized 

by the applicable wilderness management plan; 2) no use of herbicides in Wilderness 

areas, WSAs [wilderness study areas] or lands with wilderness characteristics will be 

authorized unless there has been a determination that there is no effective alternative 

and that the use is necessary in order to preserve the natural functions of the 

ecosystem; 3) the “minimum tool” policy will be applied in assessing the use of 

herbicides in Wilderness, WSAs or lands with wilderness characteristics, including 

consideration of whether herbicides are the least damaging to wilderness values 

temporarily or permanently; 4) prior to permitting use of herbicides, the agency should 

inventory the wilderness characteristics of the lands proposed for treatment and protect 

lands with wilderness characteristics as recommended above. 

Response: As discussed in Chapter 4 of the PEIS and PER under Wilderness and 

Special Areas, the BLM would comply with guidance in wilderness management 

plans, manuals, and handbooks; would only use herbicide treatments if they do not 

adversely affect wilderness values; would follow the “minimum tool” policy; and 

would consider, and inventory if necessary, the wilderness characteristics of the lands 

before conducting treatments. BLM guidelines prohibit activities that degrade the 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-463 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0585-124 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

RMC-0053-002 

Alderson, George and 

Frances 

RMC-0057-005 

California Wilderness 

Coalition 

RMC-0057-009 

California Wilderness 

Coalition 

quality, character, or integrity of wilderness and special areas. An important objective 

of vegetation treatments would be to preserve or improve ecosystem values. 

Comment: Any treatments in Wilderness should employ minimal disturbances, and 

this [P]EIS should have established a protocol for doing this, but has not. 

Response: A discussion of Standard Operating Procedures to reduce disturbance in 

Wilderness has been included in Chapter 4 of the PEIS and PER under Wilderness, 

Standard Operating Procedures. 

Comment: We oppose the inclusion of BLM-administered national monuments and 

national conservation areas among the lands to be sprayed with herbicides. We believe 

broad herbicide treatments are not consistent with the mandates in the laws and 

presidential proclamations that establish those special units. Those lands have been 

designated for protection of nature and the processes that sustain a natural ecosystem. 

Response: The use of herbicides in BLM national monuments is subject to the 

requirement to protect the objects of scientific and historic interest for which these 

areas were established. Herbicide use can occur if the aforementioned objects are 

protected. National conservation areas are established by law, and there are different 

requirements for managing each area. The use of herbicides could be permitted if it 

was consistent with the enabling legislation for a specific area. 

Comment: The CWC [California Wilderness Coalition] opposes mechanical 

treatments in existing wilderness areas and wilderness study areas. In addition, the 

BLM manages thousands of acres of wilderness quality land that are wild in character 

but not included in existing wilderness study areas or designated wilderness areas. 

These wild places are not appropriate for mechanical treatments. 

Response: As discussed in Chapter 4 of the PEIS under Wilderness and Special Areas, 

the BLM would use the “minimum tool” to treat vegetation, and would use the 

minimum amount of mechanical equipment. In addition, the BLM State Director 

would have to approve or disapprove the use of motorized equipment and mechanical 

transport in writing by letter and a Decision Notice on a one-time, case-by-case basis. 

This process should discourage the use of mechanical equipment in wilderness and 

special areas. 

Comment: The D[raft] PEIS fails to consider that the use of heavy machinery for 

mechanical treatments will likely create de facto off road vehicle routes and lead to 

unauthorized motorized recreation that can jeopardize wilderness values, wildlife 

habitat, and water quality. Mechanical treatments will jeopardize the non-motorized 

recreation uses during and after treatment periods. During the application of 

mechanical treatments, the use of heavy machinery will disrupt wildlife habitat and 

recreational activity. After mechanical treatments are implemented, the heavy 

machinery used for such treatments is likely to leave permanent trails that could 

encourage unauthorized motorized use and jeopardize the isolation, serenity and 

peacefulness of non-motorized recreation areas. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0057-005 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Wilderness and Special Areas. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-464 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0123-002 Comment: We are alarmed to read that herbicides could be used in BLM’s national 

Robinson, Edith and monuments, and possibly in other units of the National Landscape Conservation 

James System such as national conservation areas. All those areas should be excluded 

absolutely from this herbicide program. Surely widespread use of the herbicides would 

be in violation of the laws and proclamations that reserved those lands for conservation 

of nature. 

Response: The use of herbicides is not specifically prohibited in any of the 

proclamations or laws that established BLM’s national monuments and national 

conservation areas. Such use could be authorized as long as it can be demonstrated that 

the requirements of the proclamation or law are being met. Also see response to 

Comment RMC-0053-002 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, Wilderness and 

Special Areas. 

Environmental Consequences, Recreation 

EMC-0585-196 Comment: BLM also utterly fails to put the importance of recreational experiences 

Western Watersheds and wild lands to the public in proper perspective. People visit public lands to seek 

Project solitude, peace, quiet, and get away from civilization and pollution. People also engage 

in arduous activities such as backpacking, bike riding, running, etc. on public lands. 

Exposure to herbicides that may trigger asthma attacks or chemical sensitivities, result 

in feelings of malaise, headache or nausea -- or simply stink up an area with an 

offensive chemical smell -- are antithetical to the public lands recreational experience. 

Response: These types of adverse impacts to the wilderness and recreational 

experience from the use of herbicides and other treatment methods were discussed in 

Chapter 4 of the PEIS and PER under Wilderness and Special Areas and Recreation. 

These sections also noted that large expanses of downy brome, or areas recently 

burned by wildfires, would also have adverse impacts on the wilderness and 

recreational experiences, and that efforts to improve vegetation should benefit these 

visitor experiences over the long term. 

Environmental Consequences, Social and Economic Values 

EMC-0093-003 Comment: Any “herbiciding” is overkill in my mind, when so many viable 

Barrett, Anne Albrecht alternatives are readily available. PLUS, the $ monetary savings to me, the tax payer 

would be enormous! This money could pay for more rangers and firefighters and other 

areas of great need within BLM. 

Response: The BLM considered several vegetation treatment alternatives, including 

Alternative C, which did not allow for the use of herbicides. As noted for this and 

other alternatives, the use of herbicides has both adverse and beneficial effects, but is 

anticipated to comprise only about 16% of all vegetation treatments; prescribed fire, 

and manual, mechanical, and biological control methods would comprise the 

remaining 84% of treatments. Based on analysis provided in Chapter 4 of the PER 

under Social and Economic Values, Beneficial Effects of Treatments, Treatment 

Expenditures by the BLM, costs for treating with herbicides are generally less than for 

mechanical and manual methods, but more than for prescribed fire and biological 

control. 

EMC-0196-008 Comment: I am aware that procurement of pesticides can be multiple times more 

Lamberts, Frances costly, in financial terms, than procurement of biological treatment agents, while their 

unwanted, harmful impacts on public health and our environment (e.g. bird and 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-465 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0203-006 

Institute For Culture 

and Ecology 

EMC-0203-008 

Institute For Culture 

and Ecology 

EMC-0220-007 

Friends of the Inyo 

fisheries losses, water contamination, pollinator insects and other losses) run into the 

billions of dollars every year. From the taxpayer viewpoint, therefore, the less costly 

alternatives are certainly preferable, especially as they redress causative ecosystem 

disturbances and are more effective in the longer term. 

Response: Comment noted. As noted in Chapter 2 of the PEIS under Vegetation 

Treatment Planning and Management, Site Selection Priorities, the BLM would 

consider nonchemical modes of treatment before considering treatments using 

herbicides where feasible. 

Comment: Herbicide spraying will likely have an adverse impact on minorities and 

economically disadvantaged populations and thus is subject to Executive Order 12898 

on environmental justice. The current [P]EIS draft does not include an environmental 

justice analysis, and such an analysis needs to be included in the final [P]EIS. That 

environmental justice analysis must include a discussion of the mitigation measures 

that will need to be implemented to address any adverse impacts on minorities or 

economically disadvantaged populations. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0621-005 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Social and Economic Values. 

Comment: The current draft [P]EIS does not include an assessment of whether the 

proposed actions comply with the Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act, including 

such provisions as informing the Chief Counsel for the Small Business Administration 

on the potential impacts of the decision on existing and future nontimber forest product 

small businesses. Such an assessment needs to be included in the final [P]EIS. 

Response: The Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act applies to federal agencies 

that regulate activities of small businesses. The BLM does not have regulatory 

authority or jurisdiction over small businesses and is not proposing any decisions or 

rulemaking that would regulate small business activities. 

Comment: The PEIS states that “treatments would benefit local communities by 

providing jobs and income.” We must ask, how much greater would these potential 

benefits be if the “vegetation management” goals proposed to be achieved through the 

use of synthetic herbicides were achieved through other means, such as the use of 

specialized livestock and grazing rotations to reduce exotic grasses, the employment of 

large restoration crews to physically remove exotic species such as tamarisk, and the 

reduction of fire danger by manually creating strategic fire breaks around communities 

with hand crews rather than killing large swaths of vegetation with herbicides in the 

back of beyond? 

Response: Under an integrated pest management program, all methods and techniques 

of vegetation treatments are considered, including the techniques described in this 

comment. BLM utilizes crews to remove tamarisk by hand or mechanically, and 

livestock such as sheep, goats and llamas are commonly used around local 

communities to reduce hazardous fuels. Fuel breaks are typically constructed through 

non-herbicidal mechanical means and not through vegetative treatment using 

herbicides. The potential effects from the use of all these non-herbicide methods are 

described in the analysis of Alternative C (No Use of herbicides) under Social and 

Economic Values in Chapter 4 of the PEIS. Non-herbicide treatment methods are 

described in Chapter 2, and the costs associated with treating vegetation using other 

methods are addressed in Chapter 4 (under Social and Economic Values) of the PER. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-466 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0220-008 

Friends of the Inyo 

EMC-0317-006 

Malmberg, Tony 

EMC-0584-080 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

The PEIS specifically assesses the economic impacts from herbicide use. The 

economic benefits from the use of all methods of treatments are discussed in the 

Cumulative Effects section of Chapter 4 of the PEIS. 

Comment: The BLM must abandon is tired practice of justifying unsustainable land 

management strategies with meager, short-term local economic gains. Large-scale 

herbicide application benefits the economies of large chemical corporations more than 

a few short term and toxic application jobs. Employing able-bodied Americans to 

actively restore and steward their public lands would create more jobs than any 

herbicide project. It goes without saying that those “local benefits” may be outweighed 

by a future of unknown consequences. 

Response: The PEIS does not propose large scale herbicide applications in the manner 

described, nor does the BLM justify its land management strategies or approval of 

herbicide projects based on potential employment or local economic gains. Effects on 

a local economy from BLM activities are disclosures required under NEPA, not 

reasons for undertaking an activity. 

Comment: Another consideration is supporting the local community with tax dollars. 

Money spent on chemicals is gone out of our community. Using animals to graze the 

plants builds wealth for the citizens of out community. But even more important, it 

builds the wealth of the biological community. Why not build an alternative program 

for grazers to get paid for effective grazing management rather than pay for poisoning 

the land? 

Response: The BLM has no authority under its regulations at 43 Code of Federal 

Regulations 4100 to pay grazers (permittees) for effective grazing management. 

Grazing animals can be utilized for vegetation control in certain limited situations. 

However, across 17 western states, grazing alone cannot accomplish the extent of 

hazardous fuels reduction and vegetation control required to meet the Purpose and 

Need for the Proposed Action (see Chapter 1 of the PEIS). The hazardous fuels and 

vegetation in many areas of the western United States, and Alaska in particular, cannot 

appropriately be treated through grazing due to a variety of factors including but not 

limited to climate, terrain, water, accessibility, vegetation palatability (or lack of), dead 

fuels, woody species and trees not consumed by grazing animals, discretionary 

closures to grazing in areas of special management or restrictions such as Wilderness, 

Wilderness Study Areas, critical threatened and endangered species habitat, as well as 

community environs making up the wildland urban interface (WUI). Biological and 

cultural control of vegetation under an integrated pest management framework is 

discussed under Vegetation Treatment Methods in Chapter 2 of the PER. 

Comment: BLM must provide an adequate cost: benefit analysis of all actions. For 

example, what are the costs vs. the benefits of spending $100 an acre to treat/restore 

lands where livestock grazing will again soon resume? 

Response: See Impacts Assessment Assumptions in the Social and Economic Values 

section of Chapter 4 of the PEIS for a discussion of the scope and assumptions for the 

economic analysis. A cost-benefit analysis of all BLM actions is beyond the scope of 

this PEIS and cannot be provided at this programmatic scale for all public lands in 17 

states. The analysis cited in the example would be properly completed at the sitespecific level at the time a project is proposed. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-467 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0584-081 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0584-082 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0584-083 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0584-117 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

Comment: What are the costs to recreational uses of public lands of large-scale 

treatments? We have been repeatedly contacted by hunters, hikers and birdwatchers 

who have had recreational outings – or favorite recreational sites - ruined by BLM 

“treatments”. What impact do such losses have on the local and regional economy? 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0584-080 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Social and Economic Values. The costs to recreational uses of a large 

scale treatment would be assessed at the site-specific project level NEPA analysis. The 

BLM is not aware of recreational sites ruined through vegetation treatments. The 

impact to recreational opportunities from herbicide use is discussed in the Recreation 

and Cumulative Effects (Recreation) sections of Chapter 4 of the PEIS. 

Comment: [I]n BLM’s flawed Burley FO [Field Office] Jim Sage EA [Environmental 

Assessment], BLM planned to spend 6 million dollars to kill junipers “hazardous 

fuels” across an entire mountain range, despite widespread weed problems throughout 

the lower and middle elevations, and BLM grazing proposals underway would have 

increased grazing on the “treated” lands. Thus, taxpayers would have been funding 

increased livestock forage under the guise of fuels projects, while receiving only tiny 

amounts of grazing fee dollars in return. This is just the type of thing that we fear will 

occur under [P]EIS/PER. 

Response: The Burley FO Jim Sage EA is not within the scale of this PEIS analysis. 

Comments on a specific EA should be directed to the appropriate Field Office and 

made in relation to the Proposed Action and Purpose and Need for that project. The 

Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action, which is given in Chapter 1 of the PEIS, 

does not include increasing grazing use under the guise of fuels projects. Fuels 

reduction projects do not preclude the continued authorized grazing use or other uses 

on the lands on which the fuels treatments are implemented. 

Comment: BLM must adequately analyze a full range of alternatives based on sound 

economics. All alternatives should include use of federal fire funds to purchase grazing 

permits and permanently remove livestock from degraded lands, as this is a very 

foreseeable action during the life of this plan. We support an alternative that uses 

preventive measures and passive restoration techniques, addresses causal agents of 

fire/fuels/vegetation problems such as livestock and ORV [off-road vehicle] use, and 

which minimizes risks of invasive species spread stemming from any treatment that is 

applied. 

Response: Congress determines how federal fire funds are used. Use of federal fire 

funds to purchase grazing permits and permanently remove livestock from degraded 

lands is outside the scope of the analysis of this PEIS and would violate provisions of 

the annual Appropriations Acts passed by Congress, unless the Act(s) specifically 

direct the BLM to use appropriated funds for this purpose. See response to Comment 

RMC-0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Scope of 

Analysis regarding causes and vectors of weed spread, and Comment RMC-0055-004 

under PEIS Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis regarding 

limitations on public land uses. 

Comment: A complete analysis of the costs and benefits of spray/treatments must be 

provide. What is the per-acre dollar cost of all actions under all alternatives? What are 

the ecological costs/benefits of these actions? 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-468 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0585-253 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0606-008 

Johnson, Kathy 

EMC-0621-005 

Alliance of Forest 

Workers and 

Harvesters 

Response: The economic analysis is discussed in Chapter 4 of the PEIS under Social 

and Economic Values and Cumulative Effects (Social and Economic Values) sections. 

Relative estimates of costs and benefits are provided in the analysis in these sections. 

See the Introduction and Impact Assessment Assumptions in the Social and Economic 

Values section of Chapter 4 regarding the limitations and assumptions for economic 

analysis contained in the PEIS. 

Comment: Nowhere in this [P]EIS is there a fair or accurate accounting of the value, 

including the economic value, of the native vegetation to be killed, altered or destroyed 

by the proposed treatments. 

Response: Vegetation treatments considered in this PEIS are typically accomplished 

on public lands that are degraded or have been disturbed or altered by fire or invasive 

and noxious weed species. As such, the native vegetation component is typically 

minimal or already nonexistent at the time of treatment in most cases. Effects to nontarget vegetation from herbicide applications are described under Vegetation 

Resources in Chapter 4 of the PEIS. The value of native vegetation that may be lost 

through treatments is not calculable at this scale of analysis, as there is no information 

on specific projects and their locations, nor the extent of any native vegetation 

component that could potentially be affected by a treatment. In addition, the metrics 

for valuation of native vegetation are variable across vegetation types and ecoregions. 

For example, native timber in the Northwest states would have a different valuation as 

compared to sagebrush dominated rangelands in the interior west, or tundra grasslands 

in the Arctic. 

Comment: How many tons of herbicides would this equate to and what would be its 

cost and the cost of the application? Who would be responsible for any ill effects of 

these applications? 

Response: The BLM applies an average of 137,612 pounds of herbicide annually on 

lands it administers. The cost of application depends on the type of application, the 

density of the infestation being treated, the area being treated, and several other factors. 

As for liability of the application, any situation involving damage will be analyzed and 

investigated to determine among other things, the extent of and responsibility for 

damage. 

Comment: Herbicide spraying will likely have an adverse impact on minorities and 

economically disadvantaged populations and thus is subject to Executive Order 12898 

on environmental justice. The current Draft PEIS does not include an environmental 

justice analysis, and such an analysis needs to be included in the final PEIS. That 

environmental justice analysis must include a discussion of the mitigation measures 

that will need to be implemented to address any adverse impacts on minorities or 

economically disadvantaged populations. 

Response: An environmental justice analysis was included in Chapter 4 of the PEIS 

and PER under Social and Economic Values, Environmental Justice. As noted in this 

section, it is difficult to determine if minority or low income populations would be 

disproportionately affected at the programmatic level of analysis in the PEIS and PER. 

Thus, analysis of effects to these populations would be done at the local level for each 

project. Issues specific to Native Americans and Alaska Natives have been addressed 

in the Cultural and Paleontological and Human Health and Safety sections in Chapter 4 

of the PEIS and PER. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-469 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0621-007 Comment: The current Draft PEIS does not include an assessment of whether the 

Alliance of Forest 

Workers and 

Harvesters 

proposed actions comply with the Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act, including 

such provisions as informing the Chief Counsel for the Small Business Administration 

of the potential impacts of the decision on Existing and future nontimber forest product 

small businesses. Such an assessment needs to be included in the final PEIS. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0203-008 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Social and Economic Values. 

EMC-0630-006 

Porter, Mark C. 

(Wallowa Resources) 

Comment: Quantifying the impacts that noxious weed can have is also critical to 

evaluating the environmental impact of each of the alternatives. Stating that X number 

of acres will be treated per alternative implies that there are acres that will not be 

treated. Without attempting to calculate the impact of those untreated (and therefore 

spreading) weeds on the landscape, the environmental analysis is incomplete. 

Similarly, the increase in the cost per acre of weed control by alternative (i.e. due to 

the lack of ability to use aerial treatments) with budgets that are not connected to need, 

means less acres are treated. These are environmental impacts that are not well 

addressed in the [P]EIS. 

Response: The PEIS appropriately assesses the environmental impacts of the use of 

herbicides in vegetation treatments on humans and public land resources. Quantifying 

acres of treatments with herbicides provides a comparison of the relative impacts of 

herbicide use among the alternatives. The environmental impacts of not treating acres 

of treatable vegetation with herbicides are assessed in the analysis of Alternative C in 

Chapter 4 of the PEIS. The analyses contained in Chapter 4 also address the treatment 

of fewer acres by alternative due to the constraints outlined in the alternative (e.g., no 

use of herbicides, no aerial spraying, no use of acetolactate synthase-inhibiting 

herbicides). 

FXC-0071-023 

Campbell, Bruce 

Comment: The documents admit environmental justice concerns due to Native 

American uses impacted and Latino workers often involved in herbicide spraying, thus 

violating Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice. 

Response: The BLM recognized that these groups, and in particular Native 

Americans, could face additional concerns related to the use of herbicides, primarily 

through application of herbicides and use of native plants. The risks to Native 

Americans were addressed in Chapter 4 of the PEIS under Paleontological and 

Cultural Resources and Human Health and Safety, and in the herbicide-specific human 

health risk assessments. Also see response to Comment EMC-0621-005 under PEIS 

Environmental Consequences, Social and Economic Values. 

PHC-005-010 

K. Fite 

Comment: And I guess I just wonder, how much will this cost? Is there anywhere in 

these documents where we have a real and honest assessment of the cost, not only of 

the chemicals but also of this massive array of treatments? I do know that, for 

example, in Urban Interface Projects that we have been involved in Nevada in the 

Nevada in the Mt. Wilson area, BLM was proposing to spend 10 to 12 million dollars, 

at least, over three to four years to treat 50 square miles of public land. Of course, they 

weren’t anywhere near any urban areas, a lot of them, but it was just a way to spend 

fire money and increase livestock forage. And that was eventually settles through 

litigation. 

Response: The estimated costs for treating vegetation using the different methods and 

for each alternative are given in Chapter 4 of the PEIS and PER under Social and 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-470 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0049-021 

Wilson, Robert E. 

(University of Nevada 

Cooperative Extension) 

RMC-0055-006 

Lamberts, Frances 

RMC-0200-001 

Lindsay, Dianne 

Economic Values. 

Comment: Alternatives C, D, and E greatly increase costs to the federal government 

and decrease the effectiveness of the invasive weed management program. As such, 

the effect of increased infestations of invasive weeds on the environment needs to be 

included in this [P]EIS and the effects of those increased costs and decreased 

effectiveness need to be addressed in this [P]EIS. 

Response: The economic analysis addressing costs to the federal government 

associated with the use of herbicides, by alternative, is found in Chapter 4 of the PEIS 

under Impacts by Alternative in the Social and Economic Values section (see 

expenditures under each alternative). Only Alternative C (No use of Herbicides) 

indicates the potential for loss of effectiveness in treating invasive species. The 

environmental and economic impacts of the continued spread of invasive species are 

addressed under the various resource programs in the analysis of Alternative C in 

Chapter 4 of the PEIS. 

Comment: I am aware that procurement of pesticides can be multiple times more 

costly, in financial terms, than procurement of biological treatment agents, while their 

unwanted, harmful impacts on public health and our environment (e.g. bird and 

fisheries losses, water contamination, pollinator insects and other losses) run into the 

billions of dollars every year. From the taxpayer viewpoint, therefore, the less costly 

alternatives are certainly preferable, especially as they redress causative ecosystem 

disturbances and are more effective in the longer term. 

Response: As discussed in Chapter 4 of the PEIS and PER, each treatment method has 

adverse and beneficial effects in terms of direct impacts to the environment and human 

health, and in terms of long-term success in controlling invasive vegetation and 

reducing hazardous fuels that lead to wildfires. For example, human health may be at 

greater risk from herbicides than biological control organisms, but herbicides are 

generally more effective in controlling large areas of weed infestations than biological 

control organisms. If weeds spread over large areas, human health and social wellbeing would likely be harmed. Thus, one must consider both short-term and long-term 

costs, which is often difficult to do for many resource values. Also see response to 

Comment EMC-0093-003 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, Social and 

Economic Values. 

Comment: The PEIS/PER fails to consider the real cost when stating that herbicides 

offer a resource efficient means of treating vegetation. [1] The most resource efficient 

means is prevention, by limiting resource extraction. [2] The unconsidered monetary 

costs are: litigation with sick people who will be exposed to these chemicals, and 

communities who do not accept degraded water and soil; increased costs of clean 

water is not resource efficient; and increased health care costs for people exposed to 

chemicals - when it is preventable- is not an efficient use of my taxpayer resources. [3] 

The unconsidered non-monetary costs are increases in illness and anxiety over risk of 

serious illness; loss of wild untouched areas, contamination of soil and water, and loss 

of wildlife, plants, and the other living organisms that are usually overlooked - that 

build soil, and generally support a healthy ecosystem. It is not efficient to lose the 

elements of nature that we depend on. 

Response: Comment noted. The Draft PEIS does not make the statement that 

herbicides offer a resource efficient means of treating vegetation. See Response to 

comment RMC-0055-004 under PEIS Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Scope 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-471 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

of Analysis regarding limitations on uses of public lands. 

RMC-0204-021 

Wroncy, Jan (Gaia 

Vision/Canaries Who 

Sing) 

RMC-0221-009 

Center for Biological 

Diversity 

Comment: When I read on page Exec-7 that “Alternative 5 has the lowest cost per 

acre of any alternative, but it also offers no new employment opportunities” (couched 

in tones of remorse), I became justifiably nervous about the possibility that there are 

hidden goals involved in this BLM Vegetation Treatment program. Is the unstated goal 

of this program to create new jobs? If the program will cause environmental damage 

and then has to “mitigate” the damages, it will also create new jobs. If the program can 

also cause human health effects, the medical community will flourish too. If a good 

proportion of the medical effects are fatal, the morticians will thrive nicely too. If 

species can be forced into extinction, the scientists will surely have to study the 

problem. If the water is contaminated, someone will have to devise a way to 

decontaminate it. Is the hidden goal to increase jobs and economic prosperity? If it is, 

no wonder it is not stated. To propose activities that would cause suffering to the 

Earth’s creatures, human or non-human, to cause the destruction of the Earth’s forms, 

to cause permanent, irreversible damage all in the name of short term (human) 

economic gain would surely appear suspect, if not criminal, in the light of day. 

Response: This comment was previously submitted to the BLM in 1990 in relation to 

a different EIS and has been addressed in that analysis. This PEIS does not have an 

equivalent Alternative 5, nor has the statement to which the comment refers been made 

in this PEIS. Therefore, this comment cannot be responded in the context of the 

analysis presented in this PEIS. The Purpose and Need for the PEIS are stated in 

Chapter 1 under Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action. Job creation is not a goal 

of this PEIS. 

Comment: The Center [for Biological Diversity] also questions the economic 

analysis, or lack thereof, for the proposed action. The D[raft] PEIS fails to identify and 

disclose the costs of the proposed project, both in terms of supplies and labor, and in 

terms of the potential loss of vital ecosystem services such as clean air, water, and 

soils. The BLM attempts to let itself off the hook for preparing a comprehensive 

economic analysis by stating “Concerned individuals should rest assured that more 

detailed, site-specific analyses would be conducted during the development of actual 

projects for the use of herbicides.” The costs of the proposed action are potentially 

enormous, the public has a right to know the up-front cash outlays that will be required 

as well as the potential long-term costs that may be incurred by disrupting or 

destroying essential ecosystem functions on public lands. 

Response: See the Introduction in the Social and Economic Values section of Chapter 

4 of the PEIS concerning the limitations presented by the scale of analysis of the PEIS. 

The sentence preceding the one quoted in the comment states: The EIS is 

programmatic in nature and very broad in scale. A programmatic analysis at this scale 

does not permit the completion of detailed, quantitative social and economic analysis. 

Therefore, only general effects and trends will be addressed...” See the Impact 

Assessment Assumptions of this section for a discussion of the impact assessment 

assumptions used in the analysis. Also see Incomplete and Unavailable Information 

under How the Effects of the Alternatives were Estimated in Chapter 4 of the PEIS. 

The amount of supply and labor to treat vegetation is unknown at this scale in the 

absence of site-specific proposals across 17 western states. The cost of attempting to 

acquire this information at this scale of analysis would be exorbitant and would not 

significantly contribute further to the understanding of impacts relative to the decision 

to be made—which USEPA herbicides would be available for use by the BLM and 

under what circumstances. The BLM does not appropriate or allocate funds as “upBLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-472 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

front cash outlays.” Vegetation treatments are funded through normal resource 

program budget processes. The Purpose and Need of the PEIS is to improve ecosystem 

health, not disrupt and destroy ecosystem function. The general trend predicted in the 

PEIS is a long-term improvement in ecosystem health under the Preferred Alternative 

(Alternative B). 

Environmental Consequences, Human Health and Safety 

EMC-0001-005 Comment: The effect on [people is enormously costly] in terms of medical treatment, 

Sachau, B. injury, and death. 

Response: A discussion of the effects of herbicides and other treatment methods on 

human health was provided in Chapter 4 of the PEIS and PER under Human Health 

and Safety. In addition, the BLM and Forest Service conducted human health risk 

assessments for herbicides evaluated in the PEIS. 

EMC-0007-001 Comment: I lived in the Denny area of California the summer of 1979, as a result of 

Grace, Joanne the spraying of 24D and other poisons used in by the US forest service, many of my 

friends miscarried, there were also children born with severe cleft palates, and one 

baby born without a skull. This from a very small population of river and mountain 

people, trying to live off the land. I thought I had missed that unfortunate situation with 

my unborn child, however, when my son who was born in march 1978 developed 

leukemia at age 10, I realized my son was killed before he was even born. There are 

numerous studies linking 24D and the exposure Vietnam vets received, and an increase 

risk of leukemia in their children. Please, to prove beyond a doubt will never happen, 

because the study would need to purposefully expose innocents and determine the 

increase cancer. 

Response: While it is true that exposure to 2,4-D and other pesticides has resulted in 

harmful health effects, these health effects are usually caused by prolonged exposure 

or exposure to high concentrations of these chemicals. If the herbicides are used at low 

concentrations and in a controlled manner, harmful health effects to people are very 

unlikely to result. Risk assessments, which are based on extensive toxicology studies, 

identify concentrations of chemicals at which no health effects have been observed 

either in people or laboratory animals. If a risk assessment indicates that a chemical 

can be safely used, it is very unlikely that any harmful effects would be seen from 

occasional exposure. The risk associated with exposure to these chemicals is typically 

less than potential risks associated with exposure to typical household products, such 

as cleaning products. 

EMC-0011-006 Comment: Since the use of toxic chemicals, on public land, poses a threat to public 

Kiernan, Barbara health and the environment, and is especially harmful to young children and those with 

compromised immune systems, I hope you can use alternate, non-toxic, means to 

achieve your goals. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0007-001 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Human Health and Safety. 

EMC-0022-002 Comment: Synthetic herbicides are not healthy for humans or animals and are 

Matheson, Paula implicated in some 200 diseases and conditions, including Parkinson’s Disease and 

cancer. It makes no sense to increase the use of these known health hazards. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-473 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0058-002 

White, Kathryn C. 

EMC-0061-003 

Stuckman, Scott 

EMC-0062-002 

Walters, Scott 

EMC-0075-001 

Pearce, Mary 

EMC-0075-003 

Pearce, Mary 

Response: The ability of a chemical to cause harmful health effects is a function of 

how much of that chemical someone is exposed to, and for how long. Risk 

assessments identify concentrations of chemicals and exposure conditions that will not 

pose health risks to people. A herbicide used in an appropriate and controlled manner 

is unlikely to result in health effects. 

Comment: Mounting research indicates that our environment and our very bodies are 

becoming ever more inundated with toxic chemicals and that this chemical overload 

may be at least in part responsible for increasing rates of a number of serious diseases. 

Several of the herbicides proposed by the BLM in the Programmatic EIS have been 

linked to serious health concerns. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0022-002 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Human Health and Safety. 

Comment: In addition to acute or short-term health effects, many of these pesticides 

are also known to cause reproductive and developmental problems including birth 

defects; neurological problems; and cancer. 

Response: All of these effects are considered in a risk assessment. The safe dose 

identified in a risk assessment is a dose that has not been associated with health effects, 

and also incorporates additional safety factors. 

Comment: I have a strong, noticeable reaction to herbicide, which has prompted me to 

do a large amount of reading and research on the subject. Such symptoms are 

commonly listed in the MSDS of these products, but even people with these reactions 

seldom make the connection to which products, of the thousands we're routinely 

exposed, are responsible for their headaches, fatigue, etc. 

Response: Health effects from exposure to herbicides typically occur after exposure to 

high concentrations. If herbicides are applied at low levels and under controlled 

conditions, it is unlikely that people would experience harmful effects, although there 

may be people who are extremely sensitive to a large number of different chemicals. 

Comment: Please help end the use of pesticides that cause such horrific birth defects, 

especially for baby boys. The effects on women and girls are sad increases in cancers, 

especially of the reproductive system. 

Response: The herbicides proposed for use by the BLM have been extensively studied 

in well-defined toxicology studies. The amounts and application methods proposed for 

use have not been associated with harmful health effects in animals or humans. 

Comment: I was so distressed to hear of plans for widespread use of these man-made 

endocrine disrupters. The manufacture and transportation of these substances exposes 

workers and innocents on the highways to terrible risk. 

Response: The BLM conducted an analysis for the Final PEIS to determine whether 

herbicides proposed for use by the BLM have the potential to be endocrine disruptors; 

see Appendix D. Also see response to Comment EMC-0075-001 under PEIS 

Environmental Consequences, Human Health and Safety. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-474 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0080-006 

Winfree, Robin 

EMC-0087-001 

Talpai, Ayala 

EMC-0133-002 

Ryan, Stephanie 

EMC-0145-004 

Wahl, Mark 

EMC-0181-004 

Artley, Richard 

Comment: People and animals who live near application sites exhibit serious health 

effects, and those who live near the places where these substances are manufactured 

have worse health problems. 

Response: The commentor did not provide data to back up these claims. The BLM 

prepared a human health risk assessment (see Appendix B of the PEIS) that evaluated 

the risks to humans from the use of herbicides, including herbicide spray drift. The 

BLM would implement Standard Operating Procedures and mitigation measures, 

including posting treatment areas to prohibit entry, to ensure that risks to humans from 

herbicide applications are none to low. 

Comment: I hear you plan to increase the use of pesticides to deal with invasive plant 

problems. Please don’t do that. They cause cancer (documentation provided upon 

request). Moreover, a neighbor has 2 daughters with malformed reproductive organs--

they were just small when an 80-acre clearcut next door was heavily sprayed. 

Response: See responses to Comment EMC-0075-003 and Comment FL-0001-003 

under PEIS Environmental Consequences, Human Health and Safety. 

Comment: These chemicals are toxic and bio-accumulative, meaning they do not go 

away or dissolve, rather accumulate til they reach thresholds are irreversibly harmful to 

the well being of all. Cancer, neurological disorders, immune systems failures, 

learning disabilities are being traced to the over use of chemicals in our environment. 

Please take a leadership role in reversing the tide of these practices. 

Response: The BLM has a process to adopt newer, less toxic herbicides and this PEIS 

is part of the ongoing process. Also see responses to Comment EMC-0032-002 and 

Comment RMC-0221-070 under PEIS Alternatives, Herbicide Active Ingredients 

Evaluated under the Proposed Alternatives, and Comment FL-0001-003 under PEIS 

Environmental Consequences, Human Health and Safety. 

Comment: Additionally, handlers of the pesticides have been shown to have more 

sterility and other endocrine disruptions; certainly this would be amplified in this kind 

of huge program. 

Response: The USEPA evaluates and registers herbicides according to a health-based 

standard. The USEPA is responsible for ensuring that the product is handled in a safe 

manner. This is usually done through the product label, which states the precautions 

that must be taken as well as how and where to apply a certain herbicide. If these rules 

are followed, it is unlikely that workers would face health effects. Also see response to 

Comment EMC-0075-003 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, Human Health 

and Safety. 

Comment: My family and I love to go berry picking. Our favorite spot is on public 

land managed by the BLM. How will the BLM react when one of my children eats a 

berry that has been soaked in poison? How will the BLM react when one of their aerial 

poison drops is blown by the wind into a creek or lake and all the aquatic life dies? 

Will the BLM guarantee to me that this will never happen? 

Response: The purpose of the PEIS is to manage vegetation on public lands, including 

millions of acres of lands infested with noxious weeds that are replacing native 

species, including native berry bushes. With the exception of diquat, which is an 

aquatic herbicide and is not sprayed on terrestrial vegetation, no risks from herbicides 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-475 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0185-002 

Sverdlove, Jill 

EMC-0185-005 

Sverdlove, Jill 

EMC-0197-003 

Sierra, Claire 

EMC-0233-007 

Dyber, Kenneth James 

were predicted. The BLM will post herbicide treatment areas prior to spraying, as 

discussed in Chapter 2 of the PEIS under Coordination and Education, to notify the 

public of areas to be sprayed and spray dates. 

Comment: The cutting edge research that I have been a part of has recently proven 

that one in four people are genetically susceptible to debilitating toxic injury, from 

things like even small amounts of “drifting” pesticides because of the difference in 

how we metabolize toxins. Exposure to low levels over time, through air, water, food, 

etc or one massive exposure is all we need to become disabled, which I am now. 

Response: The research referenced by the commentor is not cited. The BLM 

evaluated exposure via drift in its ecological risk assessment (ERA) exposure 

scenarios. ERAs predicted no risks for exposure via air and certain food items, except 

for low risk from diquat at the maximum application rate. The BLM will post 

herbicide treatment areas to help people avoid these areas until it is safe to re-enter and 

will limit applications to typical rates, where feasible. Also see responses to Comment 

EMC-0327-006 and Comment EMC-0181-004 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Human Health and Safety. 

Comment: And now there is this awful, sadly ignorant and uninformed plan that will 

take that [open space and hiking and camping] away for me and the millions of 

others...not to mention the fact that 25% of the people affected will also then be 

permanently disabled. Most people and doctors have yet to make the connection but 

the rise in asthma, allergy, chronic illnesses, and cancer is clear and proven to be 

related to pesticides. There is plenty of information out there - from the tribe that was 

split up, one exposed to pesticides and one not, and how all the exposed children 

showed mental disorders or deficiencies. 

Response: The reference mentioned is not cited. None of the herbicides the BLM uses 

or proposes to use are listed as carcinogens by the USEPA. See response to Comment 

EMC-0336-005 under PEIS, Environmental Consequences, Human Health and Safety. 

Comment: Please, please please, look into the impact on pesticides and herbicides that 

are implicated in increased rates of illness such as cancer and immune diseases. The 

statistics are convincing! (depending on where you get your information, likely you are 

reading reports that say otherwise.). 

Response: Cancer and other health endpoints were evaluated in the risk assessments. 

None of the herbicides in the risk assessments are identified in USEPA’s Integrated 

Risk Information System as being carcinogens, or referenced as being carcinogens in 

data provided by USEPA’s Office of Pesticides In accordance with USEPA 

guidelines, cancer tests are done by evaluating two rodent species that are exposed to 

high doses of the herbicide. Also see response to Comment EMC-0185-005 under 

PEIS Environmental Consequences, Human Health and Safety. 

Comment: There has also been a dramatic increase in childhood leukemia since the 

introduction and widespread use of these chemicals. Cancer has been linked to 

multiple herbicides and pesticides in numerous publications as well. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0197-003 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Human Health and Safety. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-476 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0244-002 

Montagne, Joan 

EMC-0308-006 

Damus, Marilyn 

EMC-0310-002 

Morris, John 

EMC-0324-011 

Rachel Carson Council 

EMC-0327-005 

Firstenberg, Arthur 

Comment: I believe the health hazards to humans is something that has be shown to 

be a proven fact. Cancer is found in direct correlation to where herbicides have been 

sprayed even if the federal government has declared them “safe”. Chemicals of this 

lethal dose to kill vegetation also kills humans and other living things. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0197-003 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Human Health and Safety. 

Comment: I also want to point out that what safety testing has been done has most 

likely been on health adult males. What about our children, with their smaller bodies 

and less developed immune systems? What about those among us who have a genetic 

weakness that makes them susceptible to severe health problems upon exposure to 

minute amounts of the these toxic products? There is increasing evidence that the high 

degree of asthma, ADHD [Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder], learning 

disabilities, cancer and other problems we see in our school children and our adult 

population is the result of exposure to more and more toxic chemicals. 

Response: The risk assessments evaluated children. The USEPA toxicity factors do 

address variable response rates in a population. Because of the lack of appropriate 

toxicity studies in humans, toxicity studies are generally conducted on two rodent 

species, which are given doses of chemicals much higher than humans would be 

exposed to. Dose levels that do not cause any effects in these species are then divided 

by multiple safety factors to arrive at a safe dose in humans that accounts for sensitive 

populations, such as children and the elderly. Also see response to Comment EMC0197-003 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, Human Health and Safety. 

Comment: Most pointedly, due to this possible risk to humans, I would like to 

recommend that the PEIS include neurotoxicity and neuroendocrine measures in risk 

assessment of new herbicides. 

Response: All effects reported in the information provided by the USEPA were 

considered in the BLM’s human health risk assessments, including those associated 

with neurotoxicity and developmental toxicity. 

Comment: The herbicide 2,4-D has been associated with a cancer, non Hodgkins 

lymphoma, in people who regularly contact pesticides in the garden, golf course, and 

farm. According to a human health source, 2,4-D has been associated with irritation to 

the skin, eyes, and with intestinal problems. (USEPA, Recognition and Management 

of Pesticide Poisoning, 5th edition) For agricultural workers the no-entry time for areas 

treated with 2,4-D can be up to 48 hours. 

Response: The BLM relied on the Forest Service human health risk assessment 

(http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/risk_assessments/091702_24d.pdf) for the 

BLM’s analysis of effects from the use of 2,4-D. Chapter 3 of this assessment 

discusses the types of adverse effects from use of 2,4-D. These effects are also 

discussed in the PEIS in Chapter 4 under Human Health and Safety, and in Appendix 

B. The USEPA’s 2005 Reregistration Eligibility Decision for 2,4-D has concluded 

there is no basis for the claim that 2,4-D is associated with lymphoma or any cancer. 

Comment: The Rehabilitation Act reads: 

No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States shall, solely by 

reason of his disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-477 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0327-006 

Firstenberg, Arthur 

be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal 

financial assistance or under any program or activity conducted by any Executive 

Agency. 29 U.S.C § 794. 

The BLM must ensure the accessibility of its public lands to persons with disabilities. 

It must ensure that persons with MCS [multiple chemical sensitivity] are not excluded, 

and it must do a qualitative and quantitative assessment of the impact of this proposal 

on this large population. The BLM has not done this. 

Response: A recognized disability is a requirement for bringing suit under the 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (See 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a) (2006)), and the 

Rehabilitation Act provides the same basic framework for claims as the ADA. See 29 

U.S.C. § 701 (2006). There is no precedent recognizing MCS as a disability. Courts 

considering what constitutes a disability under the ADA provide helpful guidance for 

those suffering from MCS who are bringing claims under other statutes, such as the 

Rehabilitation Act. See Homeyer v. Stanley Tulchin Assoc., Inc., 91 F.3d 959, 962 (7th 

Cir. 1996); Whillock v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 926 F. Supp. 1555, 1562 (N.D. Ga. 

1995), aff’d, 86 F.3d 1171 (11th Cir. 1996). A great number of courts have refused to 

allow expert testimony regarding MCS because it lacks scientific reliability, thereby 

failing to meet the standards for expert opinion testimony established by the Supreme 

Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 592-95 (1993). 

See Texler v. County of Summit Bd. of Mental Retardation, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 

14421 (6th Cir. 1994); Gabbard v. Linn-Benton Hous. Auth., 219 F. Supp. 2d 1130 (D. 

Or. 2002); Coffey v. County of Hennepin, 23 F. Supp. 2d 1081 (D. Minn. 1998); Frank 

v. New York, 972 F. Supp. 130 (N.D. N.Y. 1997); Carlin v. Rfe Indus., 1995 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 19035 (N.D. N.Y. 1995); Summers v. Missouri Pac. R.R., 897 F. Supp. 

533 (E.D. Okla. 1995). Therefore, the courthouse door has been mostly closed to 

consideration of MCS as a disability. However, even in the few cases where courts 

have found that “even if” sufferers of MCS were disabled, the accommodations which 

they requested were unreasonable as a matter of law. Patrick v. Southern Co. Serv., 

910 F.Supp. 566, 567 (N.D. Ala. 1996); Whillock v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 926 F.Supp. 

1555, 1556 (N.D. Ga. 1995). 

Since MCS is not a legally recognized disability, the BLM need not specifically 

address how those with this disorder will continue to have access to public lands. 

Comment: The sections on “Human Health and Safety” in the Draft PEIS and the 

Draft PER make no mention of persons with MCS [multiple chemical sensitivity]. 

Standard morbidity and mortality data do not apply to this population, who have a 

sensitivity to most herbicides that is orders of magnitude greater than the sensitivity of 

the average person. The only mention I could find anywhere in the BLM documents to 

varying sensitivities in human populations is, in one single sentence, a statement that 

the impact on “children and the elderly” was considered. The impact on persons with 

MCS is entirely different, and of a different order of magnitude. 

Response: The U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) states that MCS patients often report non-specific symptoms 

from exposure to low-levels of chemical, biological, or physical agents. There seems 

to be no single stimuli or predictor of reactions. The American College of 

Occupational and Environmental Medicine “supports the position that the relationship 

of MCS to environmental contaminants remains unproven. No scientific basis 

currently exists for investigating, regulating or managing the environment with the 

goal of minimizing the incidence or severity of MCS.” The BLM does not take a 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-478 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0327-007 

Firstenberg, Arthur 

EMC-0336-005 

Tipps, Betsy L. 

EMC-0397-003 

Bird, Deanna 

position of whether MCS exists or not, but that it is impossible to evaluate at this time. 

The BLM conducted the risk assessments using currently available methodology and 

toxicity information. 

Comment: In assessing the effects of the BLM’s proposals on this population, it must 

consult with appropriate experts. It must quantify their threshold of harmful effect 

from the herbicides which are planned to be used, the length of time a treated area will 

remain inaccessible to this population, and the methods and duration of planned public 

notification that an area has been treated. If the proposal violates the accessibility 

requirements of the Rehabilitation Act, the BLM must choose Alternative C – No Use 

of Herbicides. 

Response: BLM has used the latest available toxicity factors in its risk assessments 

that considered a variety of receptors. The BLM consulted with appropriate experts, 

including USEPA and other federal agencies (see Appendix B in the PEIS; Human 

Health Risk Assessment Overview) and has quantified the risk to human health and the 

environment in the risk assessments (see Chapter 4 of the PEIS and ecological risk 

assessments found in the CD that accompanies the Final PEIS). The BLM will post 

herbicide treatment areas. Also see response to Comment EMC-0181-004 under PEIS 

Environmental Consequences, Human Health and Safety. 

Comment: Just during my lifetime, I have seen a huge rise in cancer, asthma, 

Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, lupus and other autoimmune diseases, and many other 

terrible disorders. Many of these disorders strike younger and younger people every 

year. Childhood cancer, asthma, learning disabilities, developmental disorders, 

attention deficit disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and autism are at 

levels unheard of when I was a child or even a young adult. Reproductive vitality is at 

the lowest level ever observed in our country. More and more, science is linking the 

great rise in human health problems in our country to the toxic brew of products 

produced and used by Americans each and every day. In one study, more than a 

hundred toxic chemicals were found in the blood of unborn children whose mothers 

had only average exposure to toxic chemicals. Another study, in California, showed 

approximately 100-500 toxic chemicals stored in the fat cells of people enrolled in the 

study; the thing that was most surprising about this study was the people who 

volunteered for the study ate only natural and organic foods, used no chemicals in their 

homes, and actively did what they could to avoid exposure to toxins. Another study, 

done in the Santa Barbara, California area, looked at toxic chemical accumulation in a 

single average family. The frequency and number of chemicals was shocking and 

scary, even to scientists who had expected the worst. At some point, we need to need 

to say enough and find safer means of accomplishing what we want or feel we need to 

do. For herbicides and pesticides, that time is now. 

Response: The BLM assessed the risks to humans and the environment from using 18 

herbicides and found that risks were generally none to low. For scenarios in which 

risks would be higher, the BLM proposed Standard Operating Procedures and 

mitigation measures to reduce these risks to an acceptable level. The use of herbicides 

is but one treatment method available to the BLM, and only about 16% of BLMadministered lands would be treated using herbicides. As discussed in the PER, over 

two-thirds of lands would be treated using prescribed fire and mechanical methods. 

Other treatment methods would include manual and biological control methods. 

Comment: I’m not a chemist but I do know that herbicides act at the cellular level. 

How safe are they to developing fetuses? Safety for women and children are not 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-479 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0432-002 

Keys, Paula 

EMC-0585- 073 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-179 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-184 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0587-004 

Jones, Donna 

measures made in the laboratory and remain unknowns. Why are there increases in 

autoimmune diseases and asthma within the human populations, especially children? Is 

it possible that there is a connection? Is it prudent to gamble with the health and wellbeing of the public by increasing timber yield for the forest products industry? I say it 

is not. 

Response: Reproductive and developmental effects are examined in pesticide 

registration toxicology tests. The BLM used all known effects data in its risk 

assessments. 

Comment: Scientists know what causes 75 to 90% of all cancers and yet refuse to 

curb the use of pesticides and herbicides that are the root cause. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0197-003 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Human Health and Safety. 

Comment: BLM claims ([page] ES-2 [of the Draft PEIS]) that old EISs serve as basis 

for assuming that risks to humans are not significant – based on evaluations done for 

old EISs. Yet, not only was the data for the chemicals used in that time insufficient, so 

was the data for the treatments under these old EISs. 

Response: Appendix B of the PEIS (Human Health Risk Assessment) provides an 

evaluation of five currently-available herbicide active ingredients that were evaluated 

in earlier EISs, but not in recent BLM or Forest Service human health risk 

assessments. As noted, use of more recent toxicity information for these herbicides 

would have shown few differences for two herbicides, and greater risks for three 

herbicides. For two of the herbicides with greater risks (diuron and triclopyr), risks 

were already found unacceptable in the earlier EISs; thus, the conclusions of the risk 

assessment remain the same. The third herbicide, simazine, has not been used by the 

BLM since at least 1997, and would not be available to the BLM under the action 

alternatives. 

Comment: [Appendix] B ([page] B-35 [of the Draft PEIS]) assumes limited public 

exposure, discounting the fact that many of the treatments are proposed to take place at 

WUIs [wildland urban interfaces] inhabited by people, and that herbicidecontamination of ground or surface water in the arid West can result in long-term 

exposure to chemicals. 

Response: Based on a data call to BLM field offices, about 500 acres would be treated 

in the wildland urban interface using herbicides, out of an estimated 932,000 total 

acres of herbicide treatments. Although additional acres may be treated in the WUI 

using herbicides, it is unlikely that many would be given the potential risks to 

inhabitants near public lands. 

Comment: We are also very concerned that inhalation risks from drift or accidental 

exposure of the public are not part of the “public receptor” analysis. 

Response: Inhalation risks from drift, and accidental exposure, such as a direct spill, 

were evaluated for all public receptors. Also see response to Comment EMC-0185-002 

under PEIS Environmental Consequences, Human Health and Safety. 

Comment: Please consider the effects of just one of the chemicals you propose to use. 

http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Monsanto-Roundup-Cancer.htm Monsanto has 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-480 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0590-019 

Western Slope 

Environmental 

Resource Council 

EMC-0621-009 

Alliance of Forest 

Workers and 

Harvesters 

EMC-0638-003 

Kuczora, Carol 

long claimed this product has little or no side effects and does not persist in the 

environment. Yet I personally have known over a dozen individuals who have dealt 

with lymphoma, leukemia, etc. All had regular exposure to herbicides. One of my 

brothers is one of the fortunate survivors of this disease. Three others I've known have 

since died. Do you realize that the highest incident of leukemia is found in farm 

workers and others with herbicide exposure? The second highest incidence is among 

those who work with paints and solvents. My brother has worked with produce in the 

grocery store setting for over 20 years. 

Response: All of the BLM herbicides have been tested for carcinogenicity in 

comprehensive animal studies and are not carcinogenic. Also see response to 

Comment EMC-0197-003 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, Human Health 

and Safety. 

Comment: Humans are exposed to toxics via inhalation, ingestion, and dermal 

contact. The ENSR [Exposure Assessment] identifies and categorizes public receptors 

with potential for exposures as: Hiker/Hunters, Berry Pickers, Anglers, child and 

Adult Swimmers, Child and Adult Nearby Residents, and Child and Adult Native 

Americans. Since children are especially susceptible to the toxic effects of chemicals, 

it is appropriate that they be considered separately for analysis purposes, along with 

other at-risk populations including the elderly, pregnant and nursing mothers, the 

chronically ill, the chemically sensitive, and the immunocompromised. However, any 

human is at risk to the effects of pesticides, and the most risk-averse approach to 

preventing exposures would be to avoid any and all use of the herbicides listed in the 

proposal. 

Response: BLM agrees that there are sensitive subpopulations to address. It is 

standard practice to evaluate children and reproductive effects, which was done in the 

risk assessments. See response to Comment EMC-0336-002 under PEIS 

Environmental Consequences, How the Effects of the Alternatives Were Estimated. 

Comment: Forest workers and NTFP [Non-timber Forest Product] harvesters work 

and harvest in forests where herbicides will be applied. These workers/harvesters will 

be affected by direct exposure or by entering sprayed areas after applications. We have 

witnessed in the case of Basket Weavers who process their materials by hand and 

through their mouths that these chemicals contribute to a high rate of cancer. What 

protections are you going to put in place for these harvesters and workers? Again we 

refer to Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice. This environmental justice 

analysis must be included in the final PEIS. 

Response: The BLM assessed exposure to berry pickers, Native Americans, hikers, 

fishers, and swimmers. The only risks predicted were low risks to these receptors from 

diquat applications at the maximum application rate. None of the BLM herbicides are 

listed by the USEPA as being carcinogens. Mitigation measures and Standard 

Operating Procedures to reduce risk to workers and harvesters are provided in Tables 

2.6 and 2.7 in Chapter 2 of the PEIS. Also see response to Comment EMC-0197-003 

under PEIS Environmental Consequences, Human Health and Safety. 

Comment: The common broadleaf poison 2,4-D and other chlorophenoxy 

compounds, including its contaminants such as 2,4,5-T and dioxin, are known to be 

teratogenic. They also are associated with soft tissue sarcomas, chloracne, porphyria, 

liver damage, polyneuopathies, psychiatric disturbances, paralysis, and ventricular 

fibrillation. Species differ in sensitivity, dogs being more sensitive than other 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-481 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

experimental animals. (Casarett and Doull’s Toxicology, 1986.). 

Response: This reference is out-of-date and out-of-context. These effects are 

associated with the dioxin contaminant of 2,4,5-T, another chlorophenoxy herbicide. 

2,4,5-T is banned by the USEPA and is not used or planned for use by the BLM. The 

potential for a chemical to cause toxic effects depends on the dose to which people are 

exposed. The BLM risk assessments use information on exposure and dose to 

determine the levels at which harmful effects would not be expected. Also see 

response to FXC-0071-025 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, Herbicide 

Effects Analysis. 

EMC-0643-041 Comment: The preparers of the DEIS [Draft PEIS] make identical unfounded and 

California Indian inaccurate claims: “For both workers and members of the general public, there were no 

Basketweavers risks at the typical or maximum application rate” for glyphosate (p. [page] 4-185 [of 

Association the Draft PEIS]). The [Final] [P]EIS must remove this type of language and provide a 

truthful analysis of the risks to Native Americans and to other people from exposures 

to the full formulations of glyphosate products, not simply the active ingredient. 

Response: The sentence has been revised to note that there was low risk in one 

(drinking contaminated water at maximum application rate) of 24 exposure scenarios; 

other application scenarios posed no risk based on the Forest Service risk assessment 

for glyphosate and using BLM application rates. The comment does not cite any 

specific scientific studies or indicate what the risks associated with use of glyphosate 

are. Also see response to Comment EMC-0643-034 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Paleontological and Cultural Resources concerning Native American 

exposures. 

EMC-0643-068 Comment: The DEIS [Draft PEIS] makes repeated claims about harm to human 

California Indian health resulting from invasive species. These claims purport to offset any 

Basketweavers environmental or health harm from the use of herbicides. The BLM must document by 

Association citation to scientific literature any such claims about harm from invasive species to 

human health. 

Response: Invasive species do not generally affect human health, but instead outcompete native species. The BLM has tried to balance the growing and massive 

infestation of invasive weeds on public lands throughout the West with spot treatment 

of herbicides. There are risks from using herbicides just as there are with other forms 

of vegetation control, but the risks of proper application are generally none or low. As 

noted in Chapter 4 of the PEIS under Human Health and Safety, invasive species can 

be poisonous to humans if ingested, can cause rashes and shock if applied to the skin 

of a sensitive person, and their plant parts (brambles, thorns, penetrating seeds) can 

cause harm and discomfort to humans. 

FL-0001-003 Comment: In addition to acute or short-term health effects, many of these pesticides 

are also known to cause reproductive and developmental problems including birth 

defects; neurological problems; and cancer. 

Response: The risk assessment approach evaluates noncancer effects based on a safe 

dose that has not been associated with health effects, and incorporates additional safety 

factors. The safe dose considers reproductive and developmental problems. Cancer 

effects are evaluated using a cancer slope factor to estimate the probability of 

contracting cancer. If the probability of contracting cancer is insignificant, then 

exposure to that chemical is considered acceptable. A limited number of the BLM 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-482 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

FXC-0071-013 

Campbell, Bruce 

FXC-0071-017 

Campbell, Bruce 

RMC-0068-007 

Damus, Marilyn D. 

chemicals are considered potentially carcinogenic, including diuron and simazine. 

Both cancer and noncancer effects were considered, when applicable. 

Comment: Was there any study of possible impacts from contamination of a hiking 

and plant-gathering pregnant woman by aerial or other herbicide Spraying? If not, why 

not? Also, asthma rates have skyrocketed in recent decades. Do any of the evaluations 

take into account a child with asthma exposed to aerial or other herbicide Spraying? 

Response: The PEIS and BLM risk assessments clearly show that exposure of hikers 

and berry-pickers to herbicides were evaluated, as were reproductive effects, and there 

are no risks associated with any of the herbicides except for diquat. The toxicity 

studies used in the risk assessment include reproductive and developmental toxicity 

studies conducted in animals. Also see responses to Comments EMC-0181-004 and 

EMC-0185-002 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, Human Health and Safety. 

Comment: Has BLM examined any studies regarding the volatilization of herbicide 

residue (either as a part of brown-and-burn operations or perhaps in regards to a 

wildlife following herbicide applications) since the 1991 footnote mentioned on page 

4-133 of the Draft Programmatic ER? If so, what did they indicate? Also, it should be 

pointed out that herbicides make vegetation drier and thus could easily increase fire 

danger and risk of catastrophic fire. Was the drying effect of herbicides on vegetation 

taken into account in either the Draft Programmatic EIS or the Draft PER? Why or 

why not? 

Response: Herbicide manufacturers (as well as independent researchers) continually 

analyze and report the potential for volatilization and photodecomposition of their 

formulations. Any future use of herbicides would consider the most recent information 

regarding their use and behavior. 

Herbicide treated vegetation is treated like any other debris created by fuel treatment 

operations. In those cases where plants are treated and killed by herbicide, a secondary 

treatment is planned to remove any remaining dead plant material. After the initial 

treatments, monitoring and follow-up treatments (which can be of any type, and not 

necessarily chemical) will occur if necessary. The management of invasive grass 

species under the BLM vegetation management program involves the use of a 

preemergence herbicide (imazapic), which prevents the selected grass species from 

emerging, thereby reducing the total amount of dry matter present. Postemergence 

application of herbicides is done when the grasses are small, reducing the amount of 

dry matter associated with mature and senescent plants. It is recognized that drying 

induced by herbicide use creates dry matter, but the vegetation will also end up dry and 

brittle as a result of its natural life cycle. 

Also see response to Comment EMC-0646-175 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Vegetation on the drying effect of herbicides on vegetation and 

http://www.bugwood.caes.uga.edu/factsheets/98-021.html for information on the air 

quality considerations of fire and herbicides. 

Comment: I also want to point out that what safety testing has been done has most 

likely been on health adult males. What about our children, with their smaller bodies 

and less developed immune systems? What about those among us who have a genetic 

weakness that makes them susceptible to severe health problems upon exposure to 

minute amounts of these toxic products? There is increasing evidence that the high 

degree of asthma, ADHD [Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder], learning 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-483 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0089-001 

Hardebeck, Larry J. 

RMC-0106-046 

Public Employees for 

Environmental 

Responsibility 

RMC-0106-057 

Public Employees for 

Environmental 

Responsibility 

RMC-0159-015 

Proctor, Gradey 

disabilities, cancer and other problems we see in our school children and our adult 

population is the result of exposure to more and more toxic chemicals. 

Response: The human health risk assessment (HHRA) evaluated children as a 

receptor because of their smaller body weight and higher metabolic rate and 

reproductive effects (pregnant women and birth outcome). Risk assessments do take 

into account the endpoints mentioned in the comment, including cancer, if they have 

been identified in animal testing. 

Comment: I am especially concerned about the aerial applications you have planned, 

which will cause the chemicals to be spread far and wide. Just look at what happened 

on the BLM test plots in Idaho where they used OUST, a supposedly safe chemical 

manufactured by Du Pont. The safety studies on the chemicals you are proposing are 

not thorough enough to demonstrate their safety for all members of our society, and 

they certainly do not address the long-term repercussions that may occur down the 

road (say 20 years), for example, cancer of various types, autoimmune disease, etc. 

Response: Risks from aerial application were generally higher for human health and 

ecological receptors due to the larger areas affected. Drift and leaching was 

specifically evaluated, and under most herbicide-receptor scenarios there was no risk 

or low risk associated with typical application rates. Also see response to comment 

EMC-0185-005 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, Human Health and Safety. 

Comment: P. 4-174 [of the Draft PEIS]. The findings from review of inerts for 6 a.i.s 

[active ingredients] cited on p. [page] 4-174 are not consistent with those cited in 

Appendix C, p. C-83 [of the Draft PEIS]. Appendix C states that inerts for 9 herbicide 

a.i.s (6 in the PDEIS [Draft PEIS]) were evaluated in terms of the USEPA listings 

(again ignoring the subdivisions of List 4), finding 12 inerts in List 3 (6 in the PDEIS 

[Draft PEIS]) and over 50 in List 4 (29 in PDEIS [Draft PEIS]). In addition, Appendix 

C indicates that 9 inerts were not found on the USEPA lists. 

Response: The comment is correct. The BLM revised the wording in Chapter 4 of the 

Final PEIS under BLM Human Health Risk Assessment Methodology in the Human 

Health and Safety section to provide the correct number of inert ingredients for the 

herbicides analyzed as part of the human health risk assessment. 

Comment: P. [Page] 4-193 [of the Draft PEIS]. 4 of the 6 mitigations are permissive, 

and one is after-the-fact evaluation and therefore not a mitigation. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0144-005 under PEIS General Comments 

and Responses. 

Comment: At present application rates, workers would be at serious risk when using 

diquat, 2, 4-d, bromacil, diuron, hexazinone, and tebuthiuron. As it even states in the 

[P]EIS, the preferred alternative contains the most risk to applicators. It is disgusting 

that this is what you would choose to impose on your staff. 

Response: Risks are none to low at typical application levels for all 17 scenarios, 

except 2 scenarios involving mixers of diquat. There are risks associated with all 

occupations. Pesticide worker safety, training, and use of protective clothing is 

regulated by the USEPA and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 

to maintain levels of safety. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-484 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0200-004 

Lindsay, Dianne 

RMC-0200-006 

Lindsay, Dianne 

RMC-0200-009 

Lindsay, Dianne 

Comment: The PEIS/PER fails to include a comparison of the risks to human life 

between the risk of wildfire and the risk of chemically induced illnesses. The statistics 

should include the actual statistics which enumerate the human illnesses from exposure 

to these chemicals. 

Response: The PEIS discusses the risks to human health from the use of herbicides in 

the Human Health and Safety section of Chapter 4. The risks to humans from fire, 

smoke, and herbicides in brown-and-burn operations are discussed in Chapter 4 of the 

PER under Human Health and Safety. The BLM is not aware of statistical data that 

show the number of human illnesses associated with herbicide treatments on BLMadministered lands. 

The state of the science and existing methodology do not permit estimates of the 

number of health effects because one needs to have actual, defined populations and 

exposures. The PEIS uses USEPA methodology with hypothetical application 

scenarios to project hypothetical risks to exposed persons. Most BLM applications are 

in remote locations where there are no residents and few or no visitors. Similarly, risk 

of wildfire is very site-specific. Herbicides are primarily used to control invasive 

weeds and should not be equated with reducing wildfire risk. 

The BLM’s actions (including use authorizations) must comply with applicable local, 

state, tribal, and federal air quality laws, regulations, standards and implementation 

plans. Therefore, potential air quality impacts are managed below scientifically based 

and legally enforced regulatory significance thresholds, which are designated at levels 

with an adequate margin of safety necessary to protect public health, including the 

health of those individuals most sensitive to the effects of air pollution, such as 

asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Statistical risk-based analyses are developed and 

used by the USEPA when establishing and periodically reviewing such standards (see 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ ). 

Comment: The [Draft] PEIS/PER fails to list the full scope of human health risks. 

Monetary health care increases shared by everyone for increasing treatment of kidney, 

liver, lung, and skin problems; The worry, grief, depression and financial stress to 

those families affected’ [and] the mental anguish of friends and neighbors who, as 

taxpayers and voters feel responsible for their suffering and want to find ways to stop 

dumping poisons of all kinds into our lives. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0336-002 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, How the Effects of the Alternatives Were Estimated. 

Comment: The [Draft] PElS/PER fails to use comprehensive studies. The research 

cites “a study” or “3 studies” on mice, rats, rabbits, dogs, birds. I saw no human health 

statistics re the increasing numbers of people who have diseases and problems which 

are linked to petrochemicals in our environment. I saw no wildlife studies or reference 

to the statistics on species extinction. I saw no statistics re cumulative affects. How can 

any study be relevant that leaves this out? 

Response: The PEIS evaluates only selected types of a small category of chemicals— 

specific herbicides—and does not attempt to assess the risk of all petrochemicals in the 

environment. There are few studies definitively linking exposure to any of the BLM 

listed herbicides to human health effects; those that satisfy USEPA scientists have 

been used in the toxicity factors developed by the USEPA’s Office of Pesticides. 

Numerous toxicological studies on laboratory animals are cited. For many reasons, it is 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-485 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0210-001 

MCS Task Force of 

New Mexico 

RMC-0210-002 

MCS Task Force of 

New Mexico 

RMC-0210-003 

MCS Task Force of 

New Mexico 

RMC-0210-014 

MCS Task Force of 

New Mexico 

impossible to perform controlled studies on “wildlife” in a wild environment. It is also 

difficult to draw conclusions on dose and effect from epidemiological studies in 

people. Considerable emphasis was placed on rare, threatened, and endangered species 

in the ecological risk assessments. Effects of mixtures (e.g. tank mixes, Overdrive® 

(dicamba plus diflufenzopyr)) were also included. Also see response to Comment 

RMC-0200-008 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, How the Effects of the 

Alternatives Were Estimated. 

Comment: The draft PEIS fails to analyze the human health impacts of herbicides to 

chemically sensitive individuals, even though the need to do so was identified in 

scoping comments. “Respondents suggested that at-risk groups like infants, elderly, 

sick people, and people with sensitivities to chemicals be specifically addressed” 

([Draft] PEIS 4-172). 

Response: There is no existing methodology to evaluate risk to chemically sensitive 

individuals, but children and reproductive effects (pregnant women and the fetus) were 

evaluated. 

Comment: The omission of analyzing potential adverse impacts to chemically 

sensitive individuals, as well as other vulnerable populations such as infants, unborn 

children/pregnant women, people with asthma and other respiratory conditions, and 

those with other chronic conditions in the draft PEIS is one reason the risk assessments 

vastly underestimate the potential human risks from herbicide exposure and are 

invalid. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0210-001 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Human Health and Safety. 

Comment: Only analyzing impacts to an average child (age and sex unspecified) is 

insufficient to account for impacts to other populations, especially those who are more 

vulnerable to herbicides. For example, unborn children are highly susceptible to 

chemical exposures, particularly during critical periods of development. In addition, it 

appears the risk assessment for the hypothetical 35 kilogram child only treated the 

child as a small adult and did not take into account the increased vulnerability of 

children due to, among other things, their developing nervous and other systems and 

decreased ability to detoxify toxic chemicals. 

Response: The USEPA’s toxicity values are not constructed for different age levels. 

The USEPA reference dose includes any developmental, neurological, or reproductive 

effects. 

Comment: Similarly, the presence of herbicides on public lands can block access for 

people disabled with MCS [multiple chemical sensitivity]. Public lands are required to 

be accessible for all people with disabilities, including those with MCS. Therefore, the 

use of herbicides may, in some cases, violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0327-005 under Environmental 

Consequences, Human Health. See Standard Operating Procedures in Table 2-6 in 

Chapter 2 of the PEIS regarding public notification requirements for herbicide 

application projects. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-486 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0210-018 

MCS Task Force of 

New Mexico 

RMC-0210-019 

MCS Task Force of 

New Mexico 

RMC-0210-020 

MCS Task Force of 

New Mexico 

RMC-0211-003 

Ghandi, Theresa Marie 

K. 

Comment: The bottom line is the draft PEIS should have analyzed the potential 

impact of herbicide exposures to people with chemical sensitivities, as well as other 

vulnerable populations. This should have included an estimate of the dose required to 

elicit an adverse response as well as the nature of the responses for each population. 

Response: See responses to Comments RMC-0210-001 and RMC-0210-002 under 

PEIS Environmental Consequences, Human Health and Safety. 

Comment: There also should have been an acknowledgement of the extremely wide 

range of sensitivity to herbicides, even among people who are chemically sensitive. 

That is, some people are only mildly affected by herbicides, while others are so 

exquisitely sensitive to herbicides they can react severely to even minute traces. The 

risk assessment in the draft PEIS used a factor of 10 to account for intraspecies 

variability ([Draft] PEIS [page] B-57 [of Appendix B]), but this is far off the mark. 

Response: The safety factor is not intended to address quantitatively chemically 

sensitive persons; however, safety factors often consider inter-individual variability. 

This factor of 10 has been recommended by USEPA as being health-protective. Also 

see responses to Comment RMC-0210-001 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, 

Human Health and Safety, and Comment EMC-0327-006 under Environmental 

Consequences, Human Health. 

Comment: Based on the cumulative experience of people with chemical sensitivities 

and a growing body of research on variations in the human genome, gene expression, 

and vulnerability to toxic exposures, the true range of human variability is probably 

closer to 5 to 10 orders of magnitude. Thus, the assumptions used in the risk 

assessments led to vastly underestimating the risk to human health, rather than “to an 

exaggeration of the real risks,” as claimed ([Draft] PEIS [page] 4-178). 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0327-005 under Environmental 

Consequences, Human Health. 

Comment: I find the PEIS estimates of exposure to herbicides by Native American 

receptors and human receptors living and working outside in areas to be sprayed 

grossly lacking in a realistic understanding of the amount of time subsistence living in 

gathering native plants and berries, fishing and such activities as sheep herding 

actually involve time spent and contact with vegetation and water in the proposed 

Spraying areas. The PEIS estimates of low exposure rates combined with proposed use 

of herbicides that are proven endocrine disrupters is a plan for the extinction of Native 

American Receptors (i.e. humans) rather than a plan to reduce wildfires. 

Response: The comment does not refer to specific exposure assumptions (e.g. 

ingestion rate, exposure duration, frequency). Regardless, the BLM risk assessments 

used highly conservative exposure assumptions for Native American subsistence use 

based on work by Harper et al. (2002; see reference in PEIS). Some people are more 

sensitive to herbicides than others, which is true for any toxicant. The variability in the 

sensitivity in humans is also seen in effects on laboratory animals. Toxicity testing 

analyzes effects on samples of populations to determine statistical effects in the doseresponse curve. The exposure assumptions used in the risk assessment were derived 

from toxicity studies and information provided by the USEPA. The BLM will post 

herbicide treatment areas prior to spraying, as discussed in Chapter 2 of the PEIS 

under Coordination and Education, to notify the public of areas to be sprayed and 

spray dates. Also see response to Comment EMC-0327-005 under Environmental 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-487 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0211-034 

Ghandi, Theresa Marie 

K. 

RMC-0211-035 

Ghandi, Theresa Marie 

K. 

RMC-0216-008 

Neff, Jack 

Consequences, Human Health. 

Comment: Assuming that “Native American receptors (adults and children) are 

assumed to be potentially exposed to herbicides via dermal contact with spray, dermal 

contact with sprayed foliage, ingestion of drinking water from sprayed ponds, 

ingestion of berries containing spray, dermal contact with water in sprayed ponds and 

ingestion of fish from sprayed ponds” (6a) is just wrong. Then to assume that “Native 

American receptors will experience exposure only three hours a day of subsistence 

activities in gathering berries” (6b) obviously knows very little about subsistence 

activities and has grossly underestimated exposure. Assuming contact with foliage for 

two hours a day is not realistic for sheep herders or others who work and play outside. 

Harming the living spaces, hunting, gathering places and in general the environment of 

Native American Reservations is economic and racial injustice and potential genocide. 

Response: The first sentence is unclear. In response to the second sentence, the BLM 

assumed a comprehensive set of exposure scenarios for the Native American, as listed 

in the first sentence of the comment. The exposure time of 3 hours per day is taken 

from the peer-reviewed literature: Harper, B.L., B. Flett, S. Harris, C. Abeyta and F. 

Kirschner. 2002. The Spokane Tribe’s multipathway subsistence exposure scenario 

and screening level RME. Risk Analysis: 22(3): 513-526. The assumption used by the 

BLM is that an individual would contact foliage 3 hours per day for every day of the 

year and that sheepherders would contact vegetation for 2 hours per day per year. 

Comment: As one who has gathered berries for native seeds I have never gone out 

picking for less than three hours a day. Other pickers with better health pick from 

dawn until dark. BLM assumptions are greatly underestimated. The PEIS 

underestimates on Native American receptors could be taken as a plan for genocide. 

Endocrine disruption from herbicides decreases fertility, sperm counts and quality of 

health, especially when it comes from the air on to the land, prairies, deserts and 

Continental Divide Basin (the largest unfenced land mass in the United States), 

vegetation, multiple wildlife and aquatic species into ponds, lakes, streams, aquifers 

and groundwater. This is a gross violation of human rights and class injustice to poison 

the vegetation, land, water, air, aquatic and wildlife where Native Americans make 

their homes. 

Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0211-034 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Human Health and Safety, Comment RMC-0211-018 under PEIS 

Environmental Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis. 

Comment: If the BLM is permitted to carry out the Vegetation Management Plan For 

17 Western States, people will be hurt, employees, visitors, travelers and nearby 

residents and any livestock with cancer risk, health problems, on-the-job injuries and 

monetary losses. For example, BLM asserts that “Accidental scenarios involving 

dermal contact with a sprayed waterbody or a waterbody into which herbicide was 

spilled did not result in risk to swimmers.” (second paragraph preceding Table 4-27[of 

the Draft PEIS]). This statement is a lie and in conflict with proven medical 

consequences of the nine active ingredients (2,4-D, chlorsulfuron, clopyralid, 

glyphosate, hexazinone, imazapyr, metsulfuron methyl, picloram, and triclopyr) 

desired by BLM. 

Response: The accidental scenario was evaluated using USEPA-approved risk 

assessment techniques. The second sentence refers specifically to sulfometuron 

methyl. Risk calculation showed that a one-time accidental exposure to sulfometuron 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-488 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0218-056 

Blue Mountains 

Biodiversity Project, 

League of Wilderness 

Defenders 

RMC-0222-105 

Salvo, Mark 

(Sagebrush Sea 

Campaign), Cox, 

Caroline (Northwest 

Coalition for 

Alternatives to 

Pesticides), and 

O’Brien, Mary 

RMC-0222-106 

Salvo, Mark 

(Sagebrush Sea 

Campaign), Cox, 

Caroline (Northwest 

Coalition for 

Alternatives to 

Pesticides), and 

O’Brien, Mary 

RMC-0227-004 

U.S. Department of 

Interior Bureau of 

Indian Affairs 

methyl in a water body receiving a spill from a truck or a helicopter would not result in 

unacceptable risks. Risks to swimmers from other herbicides proposed for use by the 

BLM were none, except for diquat, which poses a low risk to swimmers under an 

accidental spray scenario. Also see response to Comment EMC-0336-002 under PEIS 

Environmental Consequences, How the Effects of the Alternatives Were Estimated. 

Comment: There doesn’t appear to be a safety plan established for human exposure to 

herbicides in either the [Draft] PEIS or Human Health Assessment appendix [B in the 

Draft PEIS]. 

Response: No safety plan per se is required. The BLM will post herbicide treatment 

areas prior to spraying, as discussed in Chapter 2 of the PEIS under Coordination and 

Education, to notify the public of areas to be sprayed and spray dates. 

Comment: Occupational hazards: The D[raft] EIS ([page] 4-173) states that human 

health risks are based on “both acute (short-term) and chronic (long-term) toxicity 

information.” However, the DEIS [Draft PEIS] omits health risks identified through 

epidemiological studies of people exposed to herbicides occupationally. For example, 

occupational exposure to 2,4-D has been associated with genetic damage, changes in 

levels of sex hormones, and increased incidence of cancer. These studies were 

conducted by researchers from the University of Minnesota and the University of 

Saskatchewan and published in the journals Environmental Health Perspectives and 

Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention. (Gerry et al 2001 and McDuffie at 

al. 2001) 

Response: The risk assessment evaluates toxicology studies to identify doses that are 

unlikely to pose health effects even after long-term exposure. In many epidemiology 

studies, it is difficult to determine exactly the concentrations of chemicals to which 

people were exposed. It is possible that the workers in these studies were exposed to 

higher concentrations of herbicides than are being proposed for use. 

Comment: Occupational exposure to glyphosate is associated with increased 

incidence of cancer in a series of studies. The studies were conducted by scientists at 

the University of Saskatchewan, Örebro University, and the National Cancer Institute, 

and published in the journals Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention, 

Leukemia and Lymphoma, and Occupational and Environmental Medicine. (McDuffie 

et al 2001, Hardell, Eriksson, and Nordström 2002, DeRoos et al 2003) 

Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0222-105 and Comment FL-0001-003 

under PEIS Environmental Consequences, Human Health and Safety. 

Comment: Additionally, although the [P]EIS relays that beneficial results, including 

the reduction of wildfire risk and reduction or elimination of non-native or invasive 

plant competitors, can be achieved from application of herbicides, and appears to be 

the overwhelming goal of the analysis presented in the [P]EIS, we encourage careful 

consideration of the health and public safety risks of neighboring tribal and 

surrounding communities in the planning efforts for these vegetation treatment 

projects. 

Response: See responses to Comment FXC-0071-023 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Social and Economic Values, and Comment EMC-0001-005 and 

Comment EMC-0585-179 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, Human Health 

and Safety. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-489 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Environmental Consequences, Cumulative Effects Analysis 

EMC-0446-068 Comment: The cumulative effects section developed for both the PEIS and PER 

The Nature appears to underestimate the potential effects of treating 25 percent of BLM-managed 

Conservancy public land over the next 10 years. Included should be a discussion of potential 

unintended consequences of using the wrong treatment method in areas that are 

already highly altered by past human uses and management practices, the potential 

cumulative effect of treating multiple areas within one ecoregion with different 

treatment methods, and the potential cumulative effects to fish, wildlife, native plant 

communities and water resources of the combined proposed treatments over the next 

decade. 

Response: See Structure of the Cumulative Effects Analysis in the Cumulative Effects 

Analysis section of Chapter 4 of the Final PEIS. The cumulative impacts analysis 

projects out 50 years, not 10 years, and takes into account multiple treatments in 

ecoregions using multiple treatment methods for all public lands resources. The PER 

provides information and context for the cumulative analysis contained in the PEIS. 

The PER does not have a specific cumulative effects analysis associated with it. Little 

to no data exists on potential unintended consequences of using the wrong treatment 

method for any given project. The PEIS assumes, based on an integrated weed 

management framework that any treatment methods proposed would be appropriate 

for the specific situation and objectives to be met, resulting in minimal to no 

unintended consequences. In addition, through the analytical step down process to 

comply with NEPA, each treatment project is analyzed at the site-specific level and 

mitigation is proposed for identified impacts, which would minimize the risk of 

unintended consequences. 

EMC-0446-069 Comment: The section describing cumulative effects on vegetation ([Draft] PEIS 

The Nature [pages] 4-206-207) does not adequately indicate the potential effect of the large 

Conservancy number of prescribed fire treatments in the Temperate Desert Ecoregion, particularly 

as it relates to fire and downy brome interaction. The potential does exist for 

significant negative ecological impacts and these are not clearly noted. 

Response: Site-specific analysis in project-related Environmental Assessments should 

preclude fire treatments in woody plant dominated communities with a significant 

potential to become dominated by downy brome. In situations where loss of native 

understory has occurred, such as in pinyon-juniper invasion areas, and prescribed fire 

is desired to remove woody vegetation after mechanical treatments, analysis should 

show that reseeding and possibly application of a selective herbicide may be necessary 

to restore desired native species. 

EMC-0446-070 Comment: Page 4-198 of the [Draft] PEIS indicates that fuels reduction and increased 

The Nature prescribed fire may ultimately result in less total emissions due to the effective 

Conservancy reduction of wildfires by these treatments. This is a positive aspect of proactive fuels 

management often overlooked by regulators. Increased wildland fire use will likely 

result in more local emission and haze in Alaska, including impacts to wilderness 

viewsheds. While long term emission levels may stay near current levels (PEIS 4-199), 

the increased level of wildland fire use could result in significant short-term haze 

events such as those in the summer of 2004. These potential effects should be 

discussed in the cumulative effects section on air quality. 

Response: Chapter 4 of the PEIS under Cumulative Effects Analysis notes that overall 

smoke emissions may be less if emissions from prescribed fires are less than emissions 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-490 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0513-024 

The Wilderness 

Society 

EMC-0525-049 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0584-071 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

that would have occurred from wildfires in treated areas. We have included text in this 

discussion in the Final PEIS on the potential for significant short-term haze events 

from wildfire. 

Comment: The cumulative impacts analysis similarly concludes that short-term 

impacts would be greatest under the Preferred Alternative, but does not give adequate 

weight to these impacts in light of the applicable management policies. [Draft] PEIS, 

Table 2-8, p. [page] 2-36. As noted above, the minimum tool requirement dictates that 

any treatment “should be the one that least degrades wilderness values temporarily or 

permanently.” H-8560, Section .13. (emphasis added). Because selection of the 

Preferred Alternative improperly discounts the temporary degradation of wilderness 

values, in violation of the “minimum tool” policy, it is not in compliance with BLM’s 

Wilderness management policy. Further, none of these impacts specifically discusses 

the risks associated with use of herbicides on lands with wilderness characteristics and 

the potential for destroying that character, which is also inconsistent with BLM policy 

to inventory for and protect lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0057-005 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Wilderness and Special Areas. Use of mechanized equipment in 

wilderness areas could occur under all alternatives. The risks to wilderness and other 

special areas from herbicides are discussed primarily in Chapter 4 of the PEIS under 

Wilderness and Special Areas. This section notes that herbicide use could affect 

wilderness characteristics over the short term. It also notes that weeds and other 

invasive vegetation, and wildfires can affect wilderness characteristics and that these 

effects must be considered before implementing an herbicide treatment program. 

Comment: As BLM’s proposed “treatments” and herbiciding will increase 

fragmentation (see also Knick et al. 2003, Connelly et al. 2004), these species habitats 

and populations will only be increasingly harmed In the short, mid and long terms. 

Response: It is the belief of the BLM and other federal land management agencies that 

activities to restore native habitat and reduce the risk of wildfire and spread of weeds, 

will reduce, not increase, fragmentation, as discussed in Chapter 4 of the PEIS under 

Cumulative Effects Analysis, Wildlife Resources. 

Comment: The actions of the [P]EIS will have large-scale effects, ranging from 

increased sedimentation of bull trout and redband trout streams to major fragmentation 

of sage grouse, Brewer’s sparrow, pygmy rabbit, pinyon jay and other declining 

species habitats. The [P]EIS fails to address this fragmentation, on top of the 

fragmentation that already exists – see, for example, the analysis of fragmentation on 

the Sage Grouse Conservation Assessment (Connelly et al. 2004). The [P]EIS is 

lacking in basic information on soil stability, erosion hazard, wind and water erosion 

risks, etc. related to lands proposed for treatment. This is critical for understanding 

likely sedimentation into streams, site soil stability post-treatment, likelihood of 

increased gullying, and other factors. Special status species habitats are faced with a 

broad array of escalating synergistic and cumulative impacts to habitats and 

populations – ranging from development of new livestock infrastructure and expanded 

water-hauling to energy developments such as wind or geothermal and associated 

roading and disturbance across public and private lands of southern Idaho. 

Response: The Cumulative Effects Analysis in Chapter 4 of the PEIS discusses how 

the effects of treatments proposed in the PEIS, including fragmentation, would be 

cumulative with the effects of other actions on and off public lands. The PEIS provides 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-491 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0585-039 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-041 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0590-028 

Western Slope 

Environmental 

Resource Council 

EMC-0606-006 

Johnson, Kathy 

EMC-0643-015 

California Indian 

Basketweavers 

Association 

basic information on soil condition, wind and water erosion risks, sedimentation, etc., 

appropriate for analysis at the programmatic level. Project-specific effects would be 

identified during analysis at the local level. 

Comment: BLM refers to improvement in land conditions, based on its own BLM 

2005 report. This report and its methodology, should have been made available as part 

of the [P]EIS effort. We have searched in vain for it on BLM’s website. 

Response: The report is entitled “Public Land Statistics” and can be found on the 

internet at: http://www.blm.gov/natacq/pls05/. This link is for the 2005 statistics. 

Comment: In order to understand the “improved” conditions, a reader must be told if 

all BLM land is lumped in that summary, and if previous summaries to which this may 

be compared include such areas as Alaska. Note: the [P]EIS states Alaska lands are 

largely pristine, so how heavily weighted any analysis is with Alaska lands data must 

be fully revealed. 

Response: It is unclear from the comment letter which resource is referenced in terms 

of improved conditions, but we assume it relates to information on rangeland quality 

given in the Wildlife Resources section in Chapter 3 of the PEIS and PER, since 

Wetland and Riparian resources were discussed in terms of Alaska and other states. 

The improved conditions discussed under Wildlife Resources reflect conditions on 

rangelands. Of the 165 million acres of rangelands, all but 5 million acres are in the 

continental United States. Only rangeland acres in the continental U.S. have been 

inventoried for habitat quality. 

Comment: Thus, management actions by the BLM should be analyzed in a broader 

context that includes and considers other possible herbicide applications that could 

contribute to cumulative effects on receptor organisms in an area. 

Response: The Cumulative Effects Analysis is in Chapter 4 of the PEIS. 

Consideration of other management actions and activities on public and private lands 

across the west including other possible herbicide applications, is subsumed in this 

analysis. 

Comment: “provide a cumulative impact analysis of the use of chemical herbicides in 

conjunction with other treatment methods.” Shouldn’t this be the first thing done 

before anything else is even thought of? 

Response: The focus of the PEIS is on herbicide treatments, as discussed in Chapter 1 

under Organization of the Vegetation Treatment Assessments. Thus, most of the focus 

of the effects analysis in Chapter 4 of the PEIS is on herbicide use. However, because 

the BLM uses several methods to control vegetation, the agency also examined the 

effects of an integrated weed management program in the Cumulative Effects Analysis 

in Chapter 4 of the PEIS. 

Comment: Proper use of ecological information requires an analysis of the 

relationship between historical and current lands uses and the stated problem 

(unwanted vegetation changes, degraded ecosystems, declining numbers of diverse 

wildlife and native plants). Over the last century, the following activities have been 

common on BLM lands: grazing by non-native livestock, frequently at unsustainable 

levels; seeding with non-native invasive grasses that have become established on 

millions of acres (sometimes aerially via airplane); use of herbicides to kill native 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-492 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0643-035 

California Indian 

Basketweavers 

Association 

EMC-0643-043 

California Indian 

Basketweavers 

Association 

EMC-0643-051 

California Indian 

Basketweavers 

Association 

sagebrush and other native vegetation; chaining and bulldozing to remove native 

species; unregulated off highway and recreational vehicle use in non-roaded areas; 

mining and energy extraction; and fire suppression policies that do not mimic the 

natural fire disturbance regime. None of these facts are disputable; they are 

documented in history books and the administrative records of the agency. These 

legacy and on-going impacts are inextricably related to the degraded status of desirable 

native vegetation currently existing in the area, and inextricably tied to the stated need 

for the vegetation treatments/restoration the BLM now acknowledges. 

Response: See Chapter 3, Affected Environment, and Chapter 4, Cumulative Effects 

Analysis, for a discussion of the historic context of current vegetation conditions. 

Comment: The DEIS [Draft PEIS] did not address long term or cumulative effects 

from the tripling of herbicide use in the assessment area relative to the issue of 

endocrine disruption from the chemicals proposed for use. Most of these chemicals 

that have not even been tested for their potential effects as endocrine disruptors but 

even existing knowledge was ignored by the BLM and was not analyzed in the DEIS 

[Draft PEIS]. NEPA requires cumulative impact analysis in light of past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency, person, or 

company/corporation undertakes such other actions (40 CFR [Code of Federal 

Regulations] § 1508.7). 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0643-030 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis, and Comment RMC-0200-008 under PEIS 

Environmental Consequences, How the Effects of the Alternatives Were Estimated for 

the effects of endocrine disruption. This information has been incorporated into the 

Cumulative Effects Analysis in Chapter 4 of the PEIS. 

Comment: The DEIS [Draft PEIS] has failed to accurately analyze the impacts to 

Native American culture and has not mitigated those impacts. The DEIS [Draft PEIS] 

makes claims that are not supported by the record. Cumulative effects to Native people 

were not accurately documented. In addition to the cumulative effects deficiencies of 

the DEIS [Draft PEIS] discussed relative to endocrine disruptor chemicals, chemical 

mixtures, and degradates, the DEIS [Draft PEIS] did not accurately document the 

cumulative and long term effects to Native people and their cultural practices from 

potential exposure to herbicides from this project, in addition to other avenues of 

exposure to chemicals from the high use of herbicides on private lands, contamination 

of private water systems, wells, and springs used by Native or other people in the 

region, in light of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of 

what agency, person, or company/corporation undertakes such other actions, as 

required by NEPA (40 CFR [Code of Federal Regulations] § 1508.7). 

Response: The potential cumulative effects of herbicide use on traditional cultural 

resources and human health have been addressed in Chapter 4, Cumulative Effects 

Analysis. Specific effects on specific communities and resources are not within the 

scope of this broad-scale PEIS, and will be addressed when specific projects are 

proposed. 

Comment: The DEIS [Draft PEIS] fails to properly assess the cumulative impact of 

dioxins in the environment from the high use of 2,4-D by the BLM in the past, present, 

and future. We are particularly concerned about exposures to dioxins from 2,4-D 

through the food supply (i.e., bioaccumulation from feed), as EPA has determined that 

for most U.S. residents, the largest exposure to dioxins is through the food we 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-493 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0643-052 

California Indian 

Basketweavers 

Association 

EMC-0643-056 

California Indian 

Basketweavers 

Association 

consume, particularly meat (beef, chicken, fish) and dairy products. Since the risk 

quotient calculation (RQ) was based EPA’s label recommendations for 2,4-D uses on 

food crops, the risk assessment prepared by SERA may significantly underestimate 

dioxin contamination in meat produced on rangeland, where much of BLM uses occur. 

The EPA acknowledged: 

“The risk assessment has relied on the 2,4-D Master Label for application rates. As 

noted previously, there are a number of currently registered 2,4-D products which 

include higher application rates [e.g., rangeland] than those modeled in this assessment 

and hence the risk associated with these application rates would be greater” (US EPA 

2004b). Further, the EPA also notes the potential for underestimating risk through 

testing active ingredients solely without evaluating the impacts from testing full 

formulation products, in other words, as a mixture: “[M]ost toxicity testing has been 

conducted using technical forms of 2,4-D, while 2,4-D is typically applied in the field 

in an end use product mixed with surfactants, inert ingredients and other pesticides. 

Often, toxicity testing with an end use product may result in lower endpoints (i.e., 

greater toxicity) for risk assessment” (ibid). Further, other chemically similar 

herbicides are part of nearly every 2,4-D product (e.g., MCPP-p, 2,4-DP, and 

dicamba). EPA’s own analysis showed that phenoxy acid equivalent application rates 

are often twice the application rates of 2,4-D alone, and sometimes exceed the highest 

application rates considered in the 2,4-D risk assessment (EPA 2004c.). In California 

alone in 2004, 523,725 pounds of 2,4-D were reported used (California Department of 

Pesticide Regulation 2004 PUR). Because of these issues, we believe the BLM DEIS 

[Draft PEIS] is flawed and fails to accurately disclose the real risks of the use of 2,4-D 

on public lands. As noted, the EIS claims that 70% of herbicides used under the 

Preferred Alternative will be 2,4-D, picloram, tebuthiuron, or diuron. These 

cumulative impacts and sources for risk assessment error must be corrected in the 

[Final] [P]EIS. 

Response: See response to Comment FXC-0071-025 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis. 

Comment: Picloram is not registered for use in California and this gross oversight 

must be corrected in the EIS. Picloram, like 2,4-D, is a source of dioxin in the 

environment. To date, the EPA has failed to release a cumulative impacts analysis of 

the human health effects of dioxins. The BLM is not exempt from evaluating the 

cumulative impact of dioxin containing herbicides on public lands. Although both 

picloram, 2,4-D, dicamba, and diflufenzopyr + dicamba are sources of dioxin, the 

DEIS [Draft PEIS] fails to evaluate this cumulative impact. 

Response: Picloram is not registered for use in California and the BLM would be 

unable to use picloram in California until it is registered for use in that state. Picloram 

has trace amounts of hexachlorobenzene; see response to Comment RMC-0173-007 

under PEIS Alternatives, Herbicide Active Ingredients Evaluated under the Proposed 

Alternatives. For 2,4-D, see response to Comment FXC-0071-025 under PEIS 

Environmental Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis. 

Comment: We do not believe that these uses [of diuron in the environment] are 

sustainable, and we believe that the high cumulative impact of the use of diuron in 

California demonstrates that the current regulatory system is not protective of human 

health and the environment. We do not have data for areas outside of California. 

However, the BLM is not exempt from acquiring these types of quantitative 

cumulative data in order to accurately assess the impacts of increasing the use of 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-494 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0643-072 

California Indian 

Basketweavers 

Association 

EMC-0643-075 

California Indian 

Basketweavers 

Association 

EMC-0646-164 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

diuron and other herbicides on public lands. 

Response: Based on the BLM’s pesticide use reports, the BLM has not used diuron in 

California since at least Fiscal Year 2001, and thus has not contributed to the amount 

of diuron found in the soil and water of California since at least 2001. The BLM has 

developed several mitigation measures (see Human Health and Safety in Chapter 4 of 

the PEIS) to reduce the risks to humans from the use of diuron. 

Comment: While the BLM proposes to forego the use of atrazine in this [P]EIS, its 

high use on private timber lands and elsewhere outside of California increases the 

importance of unpolluted habitat on BLM and national forest lands for these species. 

59,461 pounds of atrazine were applied in California in 2003, and over half of that was 

on forest lands (30,101 pounds), primarily private timber lands in the state. We do not 

know what the statistics are for other states. These statistics must be displayed in the 

[P]EIS. 

Response: The risks to resources on public lands administered by the BLM from 

applications of herbicides on private lands is considered in the Cumulative Effects 

Analysis section of Chapter 4 of the PEIS. At this time, the BLM is not proposing to 

use atrazine. Statistics on its use on private lands is outside the scope of this 

programmatic analysis. Where appropriate, statistics on herbicide use at the state level 

are provided as examples in the impact analysis. The BLM can work with nearby 

landowners to discourage them from taking actions that could harm resources on 

public lands. However, if an action off-site is approved through the federal, state, or 

local impact analysis and permitting process, the BLM has limited ability stop actions 

that occur on nearby lands. 

Comment: The cumulative impact of these sources of impacts to wildlife as well as 

the impacts on surface and groundwater drinking water supplies, from the full 

formulation (mixture) of the herbicide products proposed for use and for their 

degradates (Kolpin et al 1998, 2004) must be evaluated in this [P]EIS. The role of 

unpolluted lands remaining as natural habitat and refuge for imperiled wildlife is 

underscored by the real statistics regarding pesticide use. The DEIS [Draft PEIS] fails 

to incorporate real life quantitative information in its cumulative effects analysis. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0646-017 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis for information on the analysis of 

formulations and degradates. We have incorporated qualitative information into 

Chapter 4 under resource sections and in the Cumulative Effects Analysis section 

where possible. Because it was challenging to find qualitative information for effects 

over the 17-state area, the effects analysis was often limited to a smaller region. We 

did expand upon the discussion of herbicide use from all sources in the Cumulative 

Effects Analysis in the Final PEIS. 

Comment: The PEIS fails across the board to identify cumulative impacts to human 

health and the environment that may arise from the proposed program. The example 

we use is the impact of pesticide applications that may be undertaken in the same 

watershed or which in some other manner may interact with herbicide applications 

undertaken by BLM. Such considerations must be part of the analysis so that the 

relevant agencies may be alerted to potential impacts on endangered species, under the 

ESA [Endangered Species Act] and to satisfy cumulative impacts analysis required 

under NEPA. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-495 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0646-165 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

EMC-0646-174 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

Response: The BLM modeled exposures to a surface water body using a wide variety 

of conservative fate and transport parameters and buffer distances. The BLM 

examined the effect of tank mixes. For the routine exposure scenario, the BLM 

assumed multiple applications and surface water exposures resulting from drift. The 

Cumulative Effects section of Chapter 4 of the Final PEIS discusses the potential for 

impacts from herbicide applications from multiple sources. The Biological Assessment 

provides information on cumulative effects to threatened and endangered species, as 

does the PEIS. However, it is not possible to predict and evaluate all the potential 

combinations of treatments that could occur within a watershed at the programmatic 

level of analysis. Such an analysis would be done by field offices prior to project 

implementation. 

Comment: We attach maps of sections of Riverside County (Attachment C [provided 

with the comment]) and Monterey County (Attachment D) in California compiled by 

CATs [Californians for Alternatives to Toxics] from data recorded by California 

Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) that indicate BLM managed land adjacent 

to or within the water or air shed of pesticide applications reported to the CDPR. Also 

attached are descriptions of the pesticides reported to be used within these areas (Table 

1 - Monterey County and Table 2 - Riverside County; both given as attachments). 

Table 1 indicates that 1,395,407 pounds of pesticide active ingredients and 2,468,769 

pounds of pesticide products were used in near BLM-managed lands in Monterey 

County; Table 2 indicates 1,908.760 pounds of active ingredient and 3,601,818 pounds 

of product were reported used in Riverside County near BLM-managed lands. Given 

that pesticide use is demonstrated by this data to be occurring, sometimes at significant 

rates, near BLM-managed lands which may be subject to pesticide application under 

the program, analysis of cumulative is required. 

Response: Data on pesticide and herbicide use by the BLM are provided by each field 

office. BLM-administered lands in Monterey County are under the jurisdiction of the 

Hollister Field Office, which also manages lands in 12 other counties. During 2005, 

the Hollister Field Office treated 268 acres and applied 8 pounds of glyphosate and 3.8 

pounds of triclopyr. In 2004, the office treated 42 acres using 12.4 pounds of 

glyphosate. 

BLM-administered lands within Riverside Country are under the jurisdiction of the 

Palm Springs Field Office. BLM-administered lands under the jurisdiction of this field 

office are also found in four other counties. During 2005, the field office treated 80 

acres using 40.5 pounds of glyphosate, and 20 pounds of imazapyr. During 2004, the 

office treated 200 acres using 243 pounds of glyphosate. 

A discussion of BLM use of herbicides in the context of herbicide use from all sources 

has been included in Chapter 4 of the Final PEIS in the Cumulative Effects Analysis. 

Comment: Lacking an analysis of the impacts over the long-term that may be 

expected from the use of various herbicides on non-target plant species composition 

and abundance, and lacking adequate guidance for which herbicides and other 

treatment options are suited or not suited for various ecological conditions common on 

BLM lands covered by the PEIS, the PEIS cannot serve as an appropriate tiering 

document for future decisions regarding invasive species as it is currently written. 

Response: Long-term effects of herbicide use are described in the Cumulative Effects 

Analysis section of Chapter 4 of the PEIS. No measurable long-term or cumulative 

effects on non-target plant species composition and abundance are expected from the 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-496 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0646-233 

Californians for 

Alternatives to Toxics 

RMC-0042-078 

Asher, Jerry 

RMC-0144-024 

Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department 

RMC-0208-005 

California Oak 

Foundation 

use of herbicides. Direct spray herbicide treatments are focused on target species, and 

indirect effects to the composition and abundance of non-target plants are expected to 

be insignificant compared to the long-term effects of the continued and uncontrolled 

displacement of native vegetation by invasive species and other unwanted vegetation. 

BLM guidance on herbicide treatments and treatment options is contained in BLM 

Manuals 9011 Chemical Pest Control, and Manual 9015 Integrated Weed 

Management. Each treatment project is designed and analyzed under NEPA at the sitespecific level, taking into account specific ecological conditions. The PEIS provides 

the appropriate level of analysis to serve as an effective tiering document for future 

vegetation treatment projects and programs. 

Comment: The BLM has failed to analyze the cumulative impacts of annually 

spraying 932,000 acres with herbicides in the Draft PEIS. This vast amount of repeated 

herbicides spraying has the potential to cause significant harm to the natural 

environment, soils, water quality, native vegetation, wildlife, fish, and human health as 

it works its way through the food chain and web of life. It is essential that the PEIS 

include analyses of the cumulative impacts, including not only those of the active 

ingredients, but also breakdown products, surfactants, inerts, adjuvants, additives, and 

everything else that will be entering our ecosystems as a result of herbicide 

applications. Cumulative impacts analysis must include analysis of past, present, and 

future herbicide impacts. 

Response: The Cumulative Effects Analysis is in Chapter 4 of the PEIS. See 

Appendixes B, C, and D of the Final PEIS for the risk analysis of herbicide active 

ingredients and associated by-products. 

Comment: Under Cumulative Effects, pg [page] 2-32: “Habitat loss would 

continue...” Great wording! Much more actual, on the ground reality like that is 

needed. Replace could, likely and other similar words with active, concrete terms that 

match what is actually happening and will, without a doubt, continue to happen. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0144-005 under General Comments and 

Responses. 

Comment: We believe cumulative effects analyses cannot be adequately evaluated 

since other program vegetation treatments were not included. At a minimum, we 

would like assurances that all vegetation treatments in watersheds over the past 25 to 

50 years will be included in project activity proposals. 

Response: Each vegetation treatment project is required to comply with NEPA prior 

to approval for implementation. The NEPA analysis includes consideration of 

cumulative effects in each case. The cumulative effects area is defined specifically for 

each project based on the resources present and whether there are predicted impacts to 

a resource. The extent to which past projects in a watershed are considered in the 

NEPA analysis for a particular vegetation treatment is determined at the time of the 

analysis, based on the relevance of previous projects’ impacts to the proposed project’s 

predicted impacts. 

Comment: Furthermore, the cumulative impact analysis in the Draft PEIS is deficient. 

Specifically, the document fails to properly assess the current and historic use of 

herbicides and pesticides in California. Numerous studies document the use of these 

chemicals and their destructive effects on various species inhabiting oak woodlands, 

but the Draft PEIS fails to incorporate this information. Accordingly, the Draft PEIS 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-497 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0208-056 

California Oak 

Foundation 

RMC-0208-059 

California Oak 

Foundation 

fails to assess the cumulative effects of applying herbicides to BLM managed land 

adjacent to non-BLM managed land where herbicide and pesticide use has been 

pervasive. Ariel drift, groundwater seepage, stormwater runoff, and other factors will 

cause the application of herbicides on BLM land to contaminate adjacent land and 

water. And, because much of this adjacent non-BLM managed land has historically 

been treated with herbicides and other pesticides, the BLM’s proposed use of 

herbicides on its land will exacerbate the current levels of these chemicals in the 

environment. The omission of this analysis represents a serious flaw in the Draft PEIS. 

Response: The PEIS assesses cumulative impacts across a 17-state area, including 

Alaska, rather than providing individual state-specific cumulative impact analyses. 

Analysis of cumulative effects of herbicide use in California would be properly 

accomplished at a more regional level with a state-specific EIS analysis, similar to the 

1988 California Vegetation Management Final EIS. Data on herbicide use for 

California and other western states by the BLM and other herbicide users has been 

included in the Cumulative Effects Analysis section of Chapter 4 of the Final PEIS. 

Data for California indicate that the BLM’s use is less than 0.02% of the total for the 

entire state, and does not significantly contribute to the overall usage of herbicides in 

the state. In addition, several BLM field offices in California have no record of 

herbicide applications. Therefore, there is no basis to conclude that the BLM’s use 

would exacerbate current levels of herbicides in the environment without specificity 

about where applications have actually occurred. 

Comment: The Draft PEIS fails to adequately catalog the current and historic use of 

herbicides and pesticides in California. Nowhere, for example, does the PEIS discuss 

the amount of accumulated herbicides and pesticides in any of California’s 

ecosystems, though this information is readily available. (See ante, Exhibit 13 

[provided with the comment] [“in 1998, 5.9 million kilograms of active ingredients 

pesticides . . . were sprayed” in the San Joaquin Valley”]; Exhibit 10 [anywhere from 

64,000 to 2.4 million pounds of atrazine annually pollute the Nation’s water 

resources].) Instead, the Draft PEIS addresses only the past effects of “human-caused 

disturbance factors, including natural resource extraction, recreation, dams and 

diversions, road construction, agriculture, urbanization, and fire exclusion.” (Draft 

PEIS, at p. [page] 4-203; see also pp. [pages] 4-207 to 4-208 [same past effects 

discussed for fish and other aquatic organisms].) Strangely, the Draft PEIS fails even 

to discuss historic herbicide use in the discussion of past effects on vegetation, (Draft 

PEIS, at pp. 4-205 to 4-206.) Here, again, the Draft PEIS focuses instead on nonchemical effects, such as introduction of invasive, non-native. 

Response: The BLM treated 2,264 acres in California during 2005. Approximately 

2,077 pounds of herbicide active ingredient were used, and the herbicides used most 

often included triclopyr (967 pounds active ingredient), 2,4-D (406 pounds), 

glyphosate (327 pounds), and clopyralid (294 pounds). A discussion of the BLM’s use 

of herbicides in the context of herbicide use by all sources has been included in the 

Cumulative Effects Analysis in Chapter 4 of the Final PEIS. 

Comment: Unfortunately, the Draft PEIS is wholly deficient in assessing these 

potential cumulative impacts. Rather than approaching the problem from the 

perspective of contributing additional toxins to an already severely impacted 

environment, the BLM views the possible effects of its herbicide use in isolation. 

Indeed, for each impact assessment, whether it is for potential impacts to water quality, 

wetland and riparian areas, vegetation, fish and aquatic invertebrates, or wildlife 

resources, the Draft PEIS does not discuss in any significant detail the current levels of 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-498 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0208-062 

California Oak 

Foundation 

RMC-0210-037 

MCS Task Force of 

New Mexico 

RMC-0210-039 

MCS Task Force of 

New Mexico 

RMC-0213-022 

California Native Plant 

Society 

RMC-0214-005 

Natural Resources 

Defense Council and 

National Wildlife 

Federation 

herbicide and pesticide use in California, the historic use of herbicides and pesticides 

in California, or the synergistic effects of multiple active-ingredient herbicide and 

pesticide use in California. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0208-056 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Cumulative Effects Analysis. 

Comment: Moreover, the alternatives discussed all propose herbicide use on BLM 

lands within California. Given the extent to which California has already been affected 

by persistent herbicide and pesticide contamination, it seems reasonable to conclude 

that herbicide and pesticide use within California constitutes a “regional-scale trend.” 

Therefore, as a policy issue, the proposed addition of herbicides that would result from 

the BLM’s vegetation management plan must be assessed as an aggravation of the 

already existing problem in California. This Draft PEIS is deficient in addressing this 

problem, and its cumulative impact analysis suffers as a result. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0208-056 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Cumulative Effects Analysis. 

Comment: The cumulative effects analysis describes rather vague comparisons 

among the alternatives, with regard to their impacts on air, water, soil, and other 

resources, without providing information about the past, present, and anticipated use of 

pesticides and other toxic chemicals applied on and near BLM land. The presence of 

these chemicals would be the most obvious contributors to cumulative effects related 

to herbicide use by the BLM. 

Response: A discussion of the BLM’s use of herbicides, in the context of herbicide 

use from all sources, is included in Chapter 4 of the PEIS under the Cumulative Effects 

Analysis. 

Comment: The assessment of the amounts and kinds of toxic chemicals used by BLM 

and other industries operating on BLM land, such as ranching, timber, mining, and oil 

& gas development, should have been provided for each state. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0210-037 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Cumulative Effects Analysis. 

Comment: It is necessary to include a full report and accounting in this [P]EIS of the 

actual acreage, quantity, formulations of the herbicides used, and the number of years 

to date that herbicides have been used in order to kill sagebrush and other native 

vegetation on BLM lands in the western region. We ask that the EIS include direct, 

indirect, and cumulative effects analysis of these types of effects resulting from 

herbicide use listed above. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0210-037 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Cumulative Effects Analysis. 

Comment: The current analysis only provides general and formless observations that 

do little to describe the potential cumulative effects. Given the inadequacies of this 

D[raft] PEIS, the current proposal could well have the opposite effect from the desired 

result. Indeed, it is NRDC’s [Natural Resources Defense Council’s] conviction that the 

current alternative proposed in the D[raft] PEIS will likely cause a variety of collateral 

harms to the physical environment. Given that the proposed actions in the D[raft] PEIS 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-499 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0218-015 

Blue Mountains 

Biodiversity Project, 

League of Wilderness 

Defenders 

RMC-0221-066 

Center for Biological 

Diversity 

RMC-0222-004 

Salvo, Mark 

(Sagebrush Sea 

Campaign), Cox, 

Caroline (Northwest 

Coalition for 

Alternatives to 

Pesticides), and 

O’Brien, Mary 

RMC-0222-014 

Salvo, Mark 

(Sagebrush Sea 

incorporate such large scale measures and involve such an extensive geographic area it 

is evident that the BLM has not been able to adequately ascertain the extent of the 

impacts in this document. 

Response: The cumulative effects analysis provides a basis for describing how past 

activities have led to current conditions on public lands, and how proposed treatments 

along with other non-treatment-related activities, could affect public lands in the short 

and long term. The level of analysis is appropriate for a programmatic document and 

for treatments that would affect up to 2% of public lands annually (about 0.3% of 

public lands annually for herbicide treatments). Given that many treatments would 

occur on the same land over multiple years, the actual amount of land impacted 

annually would be even less. 

Comment: There is great cause for concern about cumulative impacts to sage grouse 

from both proposed herbicide use in their habitat and planned clearing and burning of 

sagebrush. 

Response: The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects (both adverse and beneficial) to 

sage-grouse from herbicide use are discussed in Chapter 4 of the PEIS under Wildlife 

Resources, and under Cumulative Effects Analysis, Wildlife Resources. 

Comment: Rather than deferring cumulative impacts analyses on specific populations 

to the site-specific level, these are exactly the type of analyses that are appropriate and 

necessary in a programmatic EIS, particularly with the proposed wide-spread 

application and aerial spraying. Unfortunately, the documents offer no comprehensive 

analysis of any of the cumulative effects of the proposed action on the plants and 

animals of the project area. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0218-015 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Cumulative Effects Analysis. The cumulative effects of the proposed 

and alternative actions on plants are discussed in Chapter 4 of the PEIS under 

Vegetation and Wetland and Riparian Areas. Aerial applications of herbicides would 

occur on about 0.2% of public lands annually. 

Comment: The occurrence or non-occurrence of other vegetative treatments 

(including passive treatments and prevention measures) and activities (e.g.., livestock 

grazing, ORV [off-road vehicle] use) are so inextricably linked to increased or 

decreased herbicide use that they must be thoroughly aired in a cumulative beneficial 

and adverse effects analysis. The DEIS [Draft PEIS] fails to do this. 

Response: The cumulative beneficial and adverse effects of other treatment methods 

were discussed in Chapter 4 of the PEIS under Cumulative Effects Analysis. This 

analysis assumes that Standard Operating Procedures, passive treatments and 

prevention measures, and restoration, as discussed in Chapter 2 of the PEIS and PER, 

would be implemented under all alternatives. Also see responses to Comment RMC0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis, 

Comment RMC-0222-059 under EIS Alternatives, Prevention of Weeds and Early 

Detection and Rapid Response, and Comment RMC-0214-029 under PEIS 

Alternatives, Prevention of Weeds and Early Detection and Rapid Response. 

Comment: Additionally, the DEIS [Draft PEIS] “cumulative analysis” fails to analyze 

the cumulative results of linking herbicide use with prevention, other passive and 

active treatments and/or native seedings on BLM and other sites. When prevention is 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-500 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Campaign), Cox, 

Caroline (Northwest 

Coalition for 

Alternatives to 

Pesticides), and 

O’Brien, Mary 

RMC-0222-049 

Salvo, Mark 

(Sagebrush Sea 

Campaign), Cox, 

Caroline (Northwest 

Coalition for 

Alternatives to 

Pesticides), and 

O’Brien, Mary 

RMC-0222-051 

Salvo, Mark 

(Sagebrush Sea 

Campaign), Cox, 

Caroline (Northwest 

Coalition for 

Alternatives to 

Pesticides), and 

O’Brien, Mary 

RMC-0222-052 

Salvo, Mark 

(Sagebrush Sea 

Campaign), Cox, 

Caroline (Northwest 

Coalition for 

Alternatives to 

Pesticides), and 

O’Brien, Mary 

RMC-0222-053 

Salvo, Mark 

(Sagebrush Sea 

Campaign), Cox, 

Caroline (Northwest 

Coalition for 

Alternatives to 

Pesticides), and 

O’Brien, Mary 

linked with herbicide treatments, for instance, the beneficial cumulative results could 

be both less weed invasion and less subsequent herbicide use. Although at times the 

BLM has administratively ordered passive restoration (e.g., route closures, temporary 

or permanent cattle exclusion) in conjunction with herbicide use, the combination of 

these is not analyzed in the cumulative effects analysis. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0222-004 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Cumulative Effects Analysis. 

Comment: First and foremost, the DEIS [Draft PEIS] fails to analyze the beneficial 

and adverse cumulative impacts of when herbicide use has and has not been 1) linked 

to management that prevents the conditions that favor invasives species; 2) linked with 

non-chemical treatments; or 3) linked with native species revegetation. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0222-004 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Cumulative Effects Analysis. 

Comment: The cumulative impacts section ([of the Draft PEIS pages 4-194 through 2 

[4]-246) is riddled with unreferenced conclusions, false assumptions, and failure to 

consider impacts of present and reasonable foreseeable future actions, as well as the 

different cumulative impacts that would result from implementing the Restoration 

Alternative. 

Response: The cumulative impact analysis is appropriate for the scale of this 

programmatic analysis, follows Council on Environmental Quality guidance, and 

considers past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions relative to vegetation 

treatments. See Appendix I of the Final PEIS for the BLM policy analysis of the 

Restoration Alternative. The pertinent information of this proposal is incorporated in 

Alternative E and is analyzed in Chapter 4 of the PEIS and conclusions discussed in 

the cumulative impact analysis. 

Comment: Since the DEIS [Draft PEIS] fails to analyze the Restoration Alternative, it 

fails to analyze the cumulative effects of the class of actions combining prevention 

treatments, active and passive direct treatments, and revegetation with native species. 

Response: The cumulative effects analysis, found under Cumulative Effects Analysis 

in Chapter 4 of the PEIS, considers the cumulative effects of an integrated weed 

management approach to vegetation control. 

Comment: At [page] 4-194, the DEIS [Draft PEIS] states that the class of actions that 

will be analyzed are “all vegetation treatment methods used by the BLM.” This is 

inappropriate, as the BLM should be analyzing all treatment methods they could 

reasonably be using (e.g., as in the Restoration Alternative), not just those they are 

currently using. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0222-004 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Cumulative Effects Analysis. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-501 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0222-054 

Salvo, Mark 

(Sagebrush Sea 

Campaign), Cox, 

Caroline (Northwest 

Coalition for 

Alternatives to 

Pesticides), and 

O’Brien, Mary 

RMC-0222-064 

Salvo, Mark 

(Sagebrush Sea 

Campaign), Cox, 

Caroline (Northwest 

Coalition for 

Alternatives to 

Pesticides), and 

O’Brien, Mary 

RMC-0222-065 

Salvo, Mark 

(Sagebrush Sea 

Campaign), Cox, 

Caroline (Northwest 

Coalition for 

Alternatives to 

Pesticides), and 

O’Brien, Mary 

Comment: The DEIS [Draft PEIS] notes ([page] 4-199) that grazing and ORV [offroad vehicle] use cause cumulative impacts to soils and notes the lack of inventory and 

monitoring data available to determine the status of soil condition. However, the DEIS 

[Draft PEIS] fails to analyze the comparative cumulative effects on soil of the 

Restoration Alternative’s linkage of prevention treatments, active and passive direct 

restoration treatments, and native revegetation. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0222-004 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Cumulative Effects Analysis. 

Comment: The DEIS [Draft PEIS] later states ([page] 4-207): Alternative E places 

greater emphasis on passive restoration than the other alternatives. Passive restoration 

is often considered a critical first step in successful restoration of degraded areas since 

anthropogenic activities that are causing degradation or preventing recovery are halted. 

Under Alternative E, recovery of vegetation through passive management is expected 

to take longer than under alternatives A, B or D, where active management through 

treatments such as seeding with native species, establishing intermediate vegetation to 

control erosion, and use of pre-emergent herbicides to prevent weed establishment 

would be expected to promote faster recovery. [emphasis added] 

This shows that Alternative E is not based on the Restoration Alternative, which does 

explicitly engage active management through treatments such as seeding with native 

species, establishing intermediate vegetation to control erosion, and using preemergent herbicides to prevent weed establishment. The above statement also 

misrepresents Alternative B (of the Draft PEIS on page 2-11), which does not provide 

for seeding with native species or use of intermediate vegetation. 

Response: The Final EIS has been revised in Chapter 4 under Cumulative Effects 

Analysis, Vegetation, to note that recovery of vegetation through passive management 

may take longer than more active management regardless of alternative used, since all 

five alternatives include both passive and active management. As noted in Chapter 2, 

the use of native species for revegetation is the preferred method under all alternatives, 

but may not always be the best method. If it takes a long time to restore vegetation on 

an area using native vegetation, or native seed is not available resulting in soil erosion 

and/or recovery of weeds and other invasive species, restoration that relies solely on 

native vegetation could be a failure. By having the option to use non-native species, 

the BLM can protect soil and habitat during the period when native vegetation 

becomes established, providing long-term benefits to the land. Also see response to 

Comment EMC-0646-230 under PEIS Alternatives, Herbicide Treatment Planning. 

Comment: The cumulative impacts section formulaically equated long-term success 

with number of acres treated. This is unwarranted and unsupportable, given the 

combination of approaches allowed in Alternative E, and the failure to analyze the 

Restoration Alternative, which requires linkage of prevention treatments, active and 

passive direct treatments, and native revegetation (if revegetation is needed). For 

instance the DEIS [Draft PEIS] claims (emphases added): 1) “Based on number of 

acres treated....long-term improvements to wetland and riparian area function and 

productivity would be greatest under the Preferred Alternative, and least under the No 

Action Alternative” ([page] 4-204); 2) “Based on the number of acres treated longterm improvements to hydrologic function and water quality would be greatest under 

the Preferred Alternative, and least under the No Action Alternative” ([page]4-203); 3) 

“Based on number of acres treated ...long-term improvements to vegetation would be 

greatest under the Preferred Alternative, and least under the No Action Alternative” 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-502 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

([page] 4-207); 4) “Based on number of acres treated, long-term improvements to the 

health and productivity of aquatic organisms would be greatest under the Preferred 

Alternative, and least under the No Action Alternative” ([page] 4-209); 5) “Based on 

number of acres treated...long-term improvements to wildlife and habitat would be 

greatest under the Preferred Alternative, and least under the No Action Alternative” 

[page] (4-214); 6) “Based on number of acres treated...long-term improvements to 

domestic livestock would be greatest under the Preferred Alternative, and least under 

the No Action Alternative” ([page] 4-216); 7) “Based on number of acres 

treated...long-term improvements to the wild horses and burros would be greatest 

under the Preferred Alternative, and least under the No Action Alternative” ([page] 4­

218); 8) “Based on number of acres treated...long-term improvements to the visual 

qualities of public lands would be greatest under the Preferred Alternative, and least 

under the No Action Alternative” ([page] 4-224); and 9) “Based on number of acres 

treated...long-term improvements to the wilderness and special areas should be 

greatest under the Preferred Alternative, and least under the No Action Alternative” 

([page] 4-226). 

Response: Each alternative provides for a combination of approaches and also leaves 

the types and levels of activities that would be conducted on public lands at the 

discretion of local field offices. Thus, to help with the assessment of the magnitude of 

impacts and to ensure that we are comparing “oranges-to-oranges,” it is necessary to 

assume that if treatment activities were similar, adverse effects and benefits would be 

related to the amount of area treated. It is true that each project is unique and costs and 

benefits from treatments would be unique to each project. However, analysis at this 

scale is not possible at the programmatic level. 

RMC-0222-078 Comment: Many statements in the cumulative impacts section [of the Draft PEIS] 

Salvo, Mark have no reference to underlying data. A few examples include: 1) “Approximately 4% 

(Sagebrush Sea of rangeland on public lands is achieving desired condition.” ([page] 4-200); 2) “In a 

Campaign), Cox, study of the Interior Columbia Basin, approximately 92% of federally-administered 

Caroline (Northwest lands had none to low soil disturbance” ([page] 4-200); and 3) “...25% of wetlands on 

Coalition for public lands in the lower 48 states are not functioning properly (USDI BLM 2005d), 

Alternatives to while 52% of riparian areas are considered non-functional, or functioning at risk. The 

Pesticides), and poorest functioning riparian areas are found in the southwest and Montana, while most 

O’Brien, Mary riparian areas in Alaska, Colorado, and Utah function properly.” ([page] 4-202). In the 

above quote, presumably the claim that most riparian areas function properly is Utah is 

drawn from “USDI BLM 2005d” which refers to “Public Land Statistics Fiscal Year 

2004,” which is hardly a scientific reference for the claim that most Utah riparian areas 

function properly. 

Response: References for statements 1 (USDI BLM 2005d) and 2 (USDA Forest 

Service and USDI BLM 2000) have been provided in the Final EIS. The comment is 

correct in presuming that USDI BLM 2005d is the source for the information in 

statement 3. This reference cites studies conducted by the BLM to assess the condition 

of public lands. 

RMC-0222-079 Comment: The DEIS [Draft PEIS] refers ([page] 4-196) to a “PER scoping process” 

Salvo, Mark as related to cumulative effects for protection of Threatened and Endangered species. 

(Sagebrush Sea As the Programmatic Environmental Report (PER) is not being developed under 

Campaign), Cox, NEPA, there is no “scoping process” 

Caroline (Northwest 

Coalition for Response: The text has been revised in the Final EIS to read “...and the PEIS scoping 

Alternatives to process...” 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-503 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Pesticides), and 

O’Brien, Mary 

RMC-0222-080 

Salvo, Mark 

(Sagebrush Sea 

Campaign), Cox, 

Caroline (Northwest 

Coalition for 

Alternatives to 

Pesticides), and 

O’Brien, Mary 

RMC-0222-081 

Salvo, Mark 

(Sagebrush Sea 

Campaign), Cox, 

Caroline (Northwest 

Coalition for 

Alternatives to 

Pesticides), and 

O’Brien, Mary 

RMC-0222-135 

Salvo, Mark 

(Sagebrush Sea 

Campaign), Cox, 

Caroline (Northwest 

Comment: Likewise, the DEIS [Draft PEIS] claims ([page] 4-198): Thus, the 

proposed action, which includes over 4.3 million acres of fire use and mechanical 

treatments, in addition to 1.7 million acres of treatments using other methods, would 

be expected to provide greater improvement in ecosystem function and air quality than 

is projected under current treatment methods. This is an unreferenced and 

unsupportable conclusion, given that the treatments on the 4.3 million acres are being 

proposed in a report which is not being developed under NEPA, and thus the public 

has no legal access to challenge the scientific accuracy of its conclusions. 

Response: The statement is a conclusion based on the modeling accomplished by the 

U.S. Forest Service (Hahn et al. 2002) which is cited at the beginning of the paragraph. 

The PER is a supporting document to the NEPA analysis. There are no proposals for 

vegetation treatments in the PER, only disclosure of the effects of treatments on 

vegetation across a variety of ecoregions. See response to Comment RMC-0222-005 

under PEIS Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Organization of the Vegetation 

Treatments Assessments regarding the acre figures utilized in the PER. 

Comment: The DEIS [Draft PEIS] inaccurately assumes that cumulative impacts at 

the site-specific level will be addressed. The DEIS [Draft PEIS] states ([on page] 4­

197): Ground-disturbing activities on public lands are conducted only after any 

necessary site-specific NEPA analysis has been completed. Such analyses are required 

to describe the cumulative impacts of the site-specific alternatives on adjacent lands 

and resources, and on the watershed. This provides opportunities to detect and 

minimize cumulative environmental effects that cannot be specifically determined at 

the broad level of this PEIS. This implies that livestock grazing and ORV [off-road 

vehicle] use (the two most widespread ground-disturbing activities on BLM lands) are 

analyzed for cumulative impacts on the watershed or other resources at the sitespecific level. In fact, the BLM does not undertake cumulative impacts analyses for 

these two ongoing ground-disturbing activities and on January 25, 2006 is proposing to 

allow grazing permits to be issued without any NEPA analysis (USDI 2006), which 

means no cumulative analysis will be required, no consideration of alternatives to the 

grazing terms, and no scientific accountability. 

Response: BLM policy is to conduct NEPA at the site-specific level for all federal 

actions. This requirement extends to all aspects of the CEQ [Council on Environmental 

Quality] regulations at 40 CFR [Code of Federal Regulations] 1500-1508 and includes 

the requirement to conduct cumulative effects analysis. The BLM does not imply 

which resources would be considered in any given analysis, as that is determined at the 

time of the analysis and in relation to the specific proposed action. The reference of 

USDI 2006 refers to a Federal Register notice for a proposed draft categorical 

exclusion for livestock grazing permit renewals that was released after publication of 

the Draft PEIS and is independent of this project. Categorical exclusions are actions 

that by definition (40 CFR 1508.4) are not significant individually or cumulatively. 

Issuance of livestock grazing permits is beyond the scope of the PEIS. 

Comment: The DEIS [Draft PEIS]/PER fail to address the individual cumulative 

negative impacts of herbicide use, fire, and livestock grazing on sage grouse, or their 

contributions to the spread of invasive species; and the agency’s refusal to address 

livestock grazing and other land uses as the cause of invasive species spread will 

worsen habitat conditions for sage grouse. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-504 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Coalition for Response: The cumulative effects analysis did not focus on a few species, but focused 

Alternatives to primarily on past, present, and future effects on habitat values and wildlife health, 

Pesticides), and since conditions of both would impact wildlife populations. However, there is specific 

O’Brien, Mary discussion in Chapter 4 of the PEIS under Cumulative Effects Analysis, Wildlife 

Resources, of how past livestock grazing has impacted habitat for sage-grouse, and on 

the need to manage livestock grazing to improve wildlife habitat. 

RMC-0233-016 Comment: Few studies have directly addressed the effect of livestock grazing on 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife sage-grouse (Beck and Mitchell 2000, Wamboldt et al. 2002), and there is little direct 

Service Region 6 experimental evidence linking specific grazing practices to sage-grouse population 

California/Nevada levels (Braun 1987, Connelly and Braun 1997). However, it has been demonstrated 

Operations Office that the reduction of grass heights due to livestock grazing of sage-grouse nesting and 

brood-rearing areas negatively affects nesting success by reducing cover necessary for 

predator avoidance (Gregg et al. 1994; Delong et al. 1995; Connelly et al. 2000). In 

addition, livestock consumption of forbs may reduce food availability for sage-grouse. 

This information suggests that grazing by livestock could reduce the suitability of 

breeding and brood-rearing habitat, subsequently negatively affecting sage-grouse 

populations (Braun 1987, Dobkin 1995, Beck and Mitchell 2000). For more 

information on the effects of vegetation treatment on sage-grouse, please see 70 FR 

2255, January 12, 2005. 

Response: Information on the effects of livestock grazing on sage-grouse habitat was 

provided in Chapter 4 of the PEIS under Wildlife Resources, and under Cumulative 

Effects Analysis, Wildlife Resources. However, as discussed for Comment RMC0126-002 under PEIS Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis, the 

focus of the PEIS is on vegetation treatments, not livestock grazing. 

RMC-0106-058 Comment: This section [cumulative impacts] ignores inerts and degradates. 

Public Employees for 

Environmental Response: The Cumulative Effects Analysis in Chapter 4 of the PEIS focused on the 

Responsibility adverse and beneficial effects of herbicides in general, although examples of specific 

herbicide use were also given. More detailed information on the effects of individual 

herbicides was given in each resource section earlier in Chapter 4. A more detailed 

discussion of the risks from inerts and degradates is given in Appendix C of the PEIS 

under Degradates, Inert Ingredients, Adjuvants, and Tank Mixtures, and in a similar 

section in the ecological risk assessment prepared for each herbicide and included on 

the CD that accompanies the PEIS. Also see response to Comment RMC-0221-070 

under PEIS Alternatives, Herbicide Active Ingredients Evaluated under the Proposed 

Alternatives. 

Consultation and Coordination – General Issues 

PHC-006-005 Comment: One thing that did concern me was the lack of time and public awareness 

H. McNeel some people had to review this document for this hearing tonight, because I do know 

that some of the county weed districts contacted me today, which I felt they should 

have contacted the BLM as to why they hadn’t heard about it until the last two or three 

days. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0025-001 under PEIS Consultation and 

Coordination, Public Involvement. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-505 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Consultation and Coordination, Public Involvement 

EMC-0025-001 Comment: On behalf of the Petroleum Association of Wyoming and our members, we 

Petroleum Association respectfully request a 30-day extension of the comment period on the recently 

of Wyoming published Draft PEIS on Vegetation Treatments on BLM lands. 

Response: The BLM extended the comment period an additional 30 days until 

February 10, 2006. 

EMC-0027-011 Comment: I also feel that the BLM needs to make a much greater effort in making the 

McNeel, Hank public aware of this PEIS. The only way I found out about it was when Richard Lee 

telephoned me to ask some questions about BLM Pesticide Certification. Then I saw 

the announcement for the public hearing the next day in the Billings Gazette. Some of 

the BLM Cooperators mainly County Weed Districts did not know until Dec. 6, 2005 

that this PEIS was out and the Public Hearing was Dec. 7, 2005 here in Montana. How 

are you going to gain support from your cooperators and the general public if this 

occurs. 

Response: The Draft PEIS release was announced in the Federal Register on 

November 10, 2005. In addition, national, state, and local press releases were issued to 

coincide with the release of the Draft PEIS and to announce the public hearing 

schedule. Press releases are not guaranteed to be printed by local or regional news 

services. 

EMC-0186-002 Comment: The draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement is quite 

Society of American extensive and covers a large area of forestland owned by the BLM. The Society of 

Foresters American Foresters (SAF) is a professional organization that represents 15,000 forest 

managers, researchers, and educators across the country who have a great interest in 

the sustainable, long-term management of forests, including BLM lands. SAF would 

like to offer thorough comments on this draft and for this reason requests a 30 day 

extension of the deadline for public comments. While a 60-day comment period is 

adequate in many circumstances, given there are three Federal holidays that occur 

between the dates of November 10 and January 9, 2005, I feel that a 30-day extension 

is a reasonable request. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0025-001 under PEIS Consultation and 

Coordination, Public Involvement. 

EMC-0193-001 Comment: On behalf of the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI), I am writing to request 

Animal Welfare that the Bureau of Land Management provide a 60-day extension in the deadline for 

Institute comments on the Programmatic Vegetation Treatments Environmental Impact 

Statement, Programmatic Environmental Report, and associated documents (hereafter 

Vegetation Treatments Environmental Documents). If granted, this request would 

extend the comment deadline from January 9, 2006 to Thursday, March 9, 2006. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0025-001 under PEIS Consultation and 

Coordination, Public Involvement. 

EMC-0203-004 Comment: It is unclear to what extent the Bureau of Land Management has met 

Institute For Culture National Environmental Policy Act scoping requirements for soliciting input from a 

and Ecology broad spectrum of stakeholders, including nontimber forest product harvesters and 

buyers. Our research indicates that failure to include NTFP (nontimber forest products) 

harvesters and buyers is likely to result in forest management decisions that are 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-506 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

socially inequitable, difficult and costly to enforce, and undermine stewardship 

practices. 

Response: The scoping process is described in Chapter 5 of the PEIS, Consultation 

and Coordination. The PEIS was broadly scoped in late 2001 and early 2002, and 

included three Federal Register notices and eighteen public meetings held across the 

west in nearly all states considered in the analysis. The scoping period ran from 

October 12, 2001 through March 29th, 2002, for a total of 168 days. Scoping comments 

continued to be received until May 30th

, 2002—an additional 2 months— for a total of 

nearly 7 months of public scoping. Few, if any, comments were received from NFTP 

harvesters and buyers during this time. As a point of clarification, the PEIS does not 

propose forest management decisions. 

EMC-0203-005 

Institute For Culture 

and Ecology 

Comment: The lack of participation in public comment by NTFP (nontimber forest 

products) harvesters should not be construed with their lack of existence or concern 

over the impacts of management activities like spraying to their livelihoods. The spirit 

of NEPA scoping and other government requirements for public participation demands 

that the agency use the appropriate methods for ensuring broad-based participation. 

Such methods may require the skills of social scientists or similarly qualified 

individuals to implement and could include ethnographic work, rapid rural appraisals, 

and the establishment of information networks with hard to reach populations. 

Response: The BLM consulted with tribes and indigenous people of Alaska, as 

discussed in Chapter 5 of the PEIS (Consultation and Coordination). In addition, the 

BLM sent letters to tribal organizations in the western U.S. and Alaska asking for their 

assistance with the PEIS. This letter, responses to the letter, and mailing list are 

provided in Appendix G (Tribal and Agency Consultation) of the PEIS. As a 

component of the PER, the BLM and its consultants compiled two reports on Native 

American and Alaska Native Resource Uses: Native American and Alaska Native 

Resource Uses (see Appendix D) and Cultural Resources (see Appendix E). These 

reports include ethnographic overviews by state and cultural areas. 

EMC-0259-001 

Green, Jeanne 

Comment: Please extend the comment period on aerial spraying of 

pesticides/herbicides in 17 western states. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0025-001 under PEIS Consultation and 

Coordination, Public Involvement regarding the length of the public comment period. 

EMC-0321-002 

Embudo Valley 

Environmental 

Monitoring Group 

Comment: We are extremely and very seriously concerned with the public 

notification process. Although we are a community that has a potential for profound 

impact, we have not been adequately informed by the government agency that is 

proposing this risk -laden and sub sequentially disastrous plan. For this reason alone, 

we request a 30-day extension of the public comment period. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0025-001 under PEIS Consultation and 

Coordination, Public Involvement. 

EMC-0503-005 

John Day-Snake 

Resource Advisory 

Council 

Comment: The timing of the release for these documents is poor, and does not give 

adequate review for a document that took several years to write, is hundreds of pages 

long and very complex. It does the BLM a disservice to expect meaningful comments 

when the comment period includes major holidays for everyone. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-507 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0503-006 

John Day-Snake 

Resource Advisory 

Council 

EMC-0606-005 

Johnson, Kathy 

EMC-0621-003 

Alliance of Forest 

Workers and 

Harvesters 

EMC-0621-004 

Alliance of Forest 

Workers and 

Harvesters 

Response: The BLM is aware that major holidays occurred during the 60-day public 

comment period. An additional 30 days of public comment were allowed after the 

holiday season to provide the public more time to review the Draft PEIS. 

Comment: It is difficult to review such large documents without a hard copy. We 

appreciate the assistance of the BLM to provide a couple hard copies to our subcommittee members but the general public does not have access to the document 

except through the internet or CD. We further feel that the BLM should provide an 

electronic search mechanism to the CD version of the two documents such that 

members of the public and agency personnel can easily search this very large 

document. 

Response: The documents on the CDs were provided in Adobe Portable Document 

Format (pdf). Adobe pdf reader allows one to search for information in pdf documents 

using keywords. 

Comment: Public meetings. Why was there a public meeting held in WA DC? The 

public in that city isn’t even involved!! In fact, that whole side of the country isn’t 

even involved! 

Response: Because the PEIS is a national programmatic document, the BLM held 

initial scoping meetings in Washington, D.C., to solicit comments from the public, 

federal agencies, and nongovernment organizations at the national level. The public 

was invited to participate in public scoping, regardless of the part of the country 

involved. The BLM followed with public hearings with the release of the Draft 

PEIS/PER. 

Comment: It is unclear to what extent the Bureau of Land Management has met 

National Environmental Policy Act scoping requirements for soliciting input from a 

broad spectrum of stakeholders, including multicultural nontimber forest product 

harvesters and buyers. As we have witnessed before, failure to include NTFP 

[nontimber forest products] harvesters and buyers is likely to result in forest 

management decisions that are socially inequitable, difficult and costly to enforce, and 

undermine stewardship practices. 

Response: As discussed in Chapter 5 of the PEIS, the BLM conducted scoping from 

October 12, 2001, through March 29, 2002. Scoping meetings were held in 21 cities 

and towns throughout the western U.S., including Alaska, and in Washington, D.C. 

Information on the meetings and scoping process was provided in local newspapers, on 

the BLM website, and via mail to individuals on the mailing list. In addition, the BLM 

sent a letter to all tribal governments within the western U.S. and Alaska describing the 

project and asking for their concerns regarding the proposed project. The BLM also 

invited tribes to call if they had questions or wanted to set up individual meetings. 

Comment: The lack of participation in public comment by NTFP harvesters and forest 

workers should not be construed as their lack of existence or concern over the impacts 

of management activities, such as herbicide spraying, on their livelihoods and health. 

The spirit of NEPA scoping and other government requirements for public 

participation demands that the agency use the appropriate methods for ensuring broadbased participation. This process must include NTFP harvesters and forest workers. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0621-003 under PEIS Consultation and 

Coordination, Public Involvement. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-508 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0640-002 

Animal Welfare 

Institute 

EMC-0640-012 

Animal Welfare 

Institute 

EMC-0640-014 

Animal Welfare 

Institute 

EMC-0640-016 

Animal Welfare 

Institute 

Comment: The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) submits the following comments on 

the Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 

17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). Because of 

the failure of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to provide for a sufficient 

opportunity for public comments on its proposed vegetation management program, the 

length of the documents prepared to evaluate the impacts of the program, and because 

of the complexity of the issues under analysis, these comments are largely limited to 

the PEIS. While there may be reference to the Vegetation Treatments on Bureau of 

Land Management Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Report 

(PER) and Draft Biological Assessment in these comments, the BLM did not provide 

sufficient time to allow for a comprehensive analysis of these documents or the other 

documents (i.e. human and ecological risk assessment reports) relevant to this issue. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0025-001 under PEIS Consultation and 

Coordination, Public Involvement regarding the length of the public comment period. 

Comment: The BLM has failed to provide sufficient opportunity for public comment. 

While AWI [Animal Welfare Institute] appreciates the BLM’s decision to extend the 

comment deadline on the PEIS by 30 days from January 9, 2006 to February 10, 2006, 

a total of approximately 90 days to review, analyze, and prepare substantive comments 

on the PEIS, PER, and other documents is wholly inadequate. This lack of opportunity 

for the public to participate in this important decision-making process is particularly 

troubling considering that the PEIS, PER, and other relevant documents consist of well 

over 1500 pages of text, analysis, and information. In addition, given the complexity of 

the subject matter, including highly technical information about a variety of herbicides, 

their potential impacts to human health, wildlife health, and the environment, and the 

complicated human health and ecological risk assessment reviews, a 90-day comment 

period is simply insufficient to expect the public to have a legitimate opportunity to 

participate in this process. As public participation is a cornerstone of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, the BLM erred in not providing a 

minimum of 180 days for the public to comment on this proposed program. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0025-001 under PEIS Consultation and 

Coordination, Public Involvement regarding the length of the public comment period. 

Comment: Moreover, public participation in this process should not require the hiring 

of a cadre of experts to provide substantive and informed public comment. Few 

interest groups or concerned citizens have the financial resources to pay for such an 

expert review and, frankly, should not have to do so if the BLM complied with NEPA 

and based its comment deadline on the complexity of the subject matter and the length 

of the documents prepared to assess the environmental impacts of the proposed action. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0025-001 under PEIS Consultation and 

Coordination, Public Involvement regarding the length of the public comment period. 

The BLM deems the length of the public comment period appropriate for the 

complexity of the PEIS. 

Comment: If the BLM elects – as it should -- to reopen the comment period for, at 

least, another 90 days, it should also schedule public hearings or information sessions 

throughout the western United States to explain its proposals to concerned citizens, to 

provide opportunity for the public to question various experts to clarify certain issues 

or impacts associated with the proposals, and to collect public testimony in regard to 

the impact of the proposed action. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-509 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Response: Formal public hearings were announced in the federal register, local 

newspapers, and press releases, and held in nine locations across the West during the 

initial 60-day comment period. The comment period was then extended for another 

thirty days for a total of 90 days. The BLM has determined that opening a second 90­

day public comment period and holding additional public meetings was not necessary 

based on the breadth of substantive comments received on the Draft PEIS/PER. 

FXC-0008-001 Comment: This letter is to request a 30-day extension of the public comment period 

CropLife America ­ on the Programmatic Vegetation Treatments EIS and Programmatic Environmental 

Trade Association Report that began November 10, 2005 and is scheduled to close on January 9, 2006. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0025-001 under PEIS Consultation and 

Coordination, Public Involvement. 

RMC-0073-004 Comment: The public comment period was so short and poorly advertised that none 

Bryson, Anna of my 25 devoted environmentally aware friends had heard anything about this 

proposal. This lack of communication is unacceptable in our Democracy. The public 

comment period must be extended and well advertised. 

Response: See responses to Comments EMC-0621-003 and EMC-0025-001 under 

PEIS Consultation and Coordination, Public Involvement. 

RMC-0077(2)-004 Comment: I request an extension of the hearings to do a proper environmental impact 

Lovato, Andrew and statement. 

Anhara, and Marise 

Korn Response: See response to Comment EMC-0025-001 under PEIS Consultation and 

Coordination, Public Involvement. 

RMC-0216-004 Comment: Firstly, I take exception to the amount of time allowed for public 

Neff, Jack comment. The initial notice of a 30-day public comment period was extended to a 60­

day public comment period. Even a 60-day public comment period is insufficient for 

the public to satisfactorily ascertain the risks with a $1.1 billion annual BLM plan 

calling for the brewing of a toxic stew in a kettle of porous public lands and related 

airborne, groundwater, riparian habitats. 

Response: The BLM deems the length of the public comment period sufficient for this 

PEIS. Department of Interior regulations require at least a 45-day comment period for 

EISs. The public comment period was set at 60 days beginning November 10, 2005 

through January 9, 2006 (FR 2005). At the request of the public, the comment period 

was extended an additional 30 days until February 10, 2006. No additional comment 

extension requests were received by the end of the second comment period; therefore, 

the comment period was closed at that time, for a total of 90 days public comment. 

Consultation and Coordination, Government-to-Government Consultation 

EMC-0047-002 Comment: AITC [Alaska Inter-Tribal Council] recently learned that the BLM, is 

Alaska Inter-Tribal requesting comments by Jan 9, 2006 on herbicide use on the vegetation relied upon for 

Council subsistence by the indigenous people of Alaska. We further understand that no public 

hearings have been held nor are scheduled to be held in Alaska on this matter. This 

matter is far too important not to include Alaska’s tribal governments in the public 

process. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-510 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0047-003 

Alaska Inter-Tribal 

Council 

Response: As a federal land management agency, the BLM is bound by the provisions 

of Title VIII, Section 810 of the “Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act” 

(ANILCA) regarding subsistence matters. The Alaska State Office of the BLM ensures 

that the residents of rural Alaska who rely on subsistence for their livelihood will be 

consulted on any proposed vegetation treatment. An ANILCA Section 810 analysis of 

subsistence impacts from the proposed vegetation treatments program has been 

included in the Final PEIS in Appendix H. Also see response to Comment EMC-0203-

006 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, Social and Economic Values. 

Comment: AITC [the Alaska Inter-Tribal Council] strongly urges the rescission of 

this deadline until after the BLM and its cooperating agencies, including the USFWS 

[U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service] and the US Department of Defense conform to the 

requirements of E.O. [Executive Order] 12898 on Environmental Justice and E.O. 

13175 on government to government relations with federally recognized Tribal 

governments. 

Response: The comment deadline was extended for an additional 30 days to February 

10, 2006. The BLM does not have any cooperating agencies on this PEIS project. The 

BLM held scoping meetings in Anchorage, Alaska in March of 2002, which was 

announced in the Federal Register and through local media releases. No 

representatives from AITC nor any other Native American or tribal interests were 

present at the scoping meetings. Based on lack on public attendance, the decision was 

made to not hold public hearings in Alaska for the Draft PEIS. 

Executive Order 13175 requires that agencies ensure meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications. 

Exec. Order No. 13175 § 5, 65 Fed. Reg. 67249 (Nov. 6, 2000). 

The BLM followed the BLM Handbook H-8160-1 General Procedural Guidance for 

Native American Consultation and the BLM Manual 8160, Native American 

Coordination and Consultation, which provide guidance for consultation with Native 

groups about land use planning and environmental review (USDI BLM 1994). These 

documents recognize the special sovereign status of Native American Indian tribes as 

well as treaty-reserved rights that some small groups possess. This consultation 

process was initiated in 2002 by correspondence sent to over 200 Native Alaskan 

tribes, and was done specifically to meet the requirements of Executive Order No. 

13175. Appendix D of the PER addresses Native American and Alaskan resource uses. 

In addition, the BLM conducted an ANILCA (Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act) Section 810 analysis as part of the Final PEIS (see Appendix H). 

Site-specific consultation with affected tribal interests will also occur at such time as a 

project is proposed. Also see Chapter 5 of the PEIS, Consultation and Coordination. 

Executive Order 12898 requires that “to the greatest extent practicable and permitted 

by law,” each federal agency shall make “achieving environmental justice part of its 

mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects of its activities on minority populations 

and low-income populations of the United States...” Executive Order No. 12898 § 1­

101, 59 Fed. Reg. 7629 (Feb. 11, 1994). See Chapter 4 of the PEIS, Social and 

Economic Values, for discussion of Environmental Justice. 

EMC-0047-004 Comment: Tribal members all across Alaska depend directly on subsistence gathering 

Alaska Inter-Tribal and hunting on federal lands. This right is protected by international law and the 

Council provisions of ANILCA [Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act] as well as 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-511 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

the above executive orders. Contamination of food sources of the indigenous people is 

a serious matter for the tribal governments that should be recognized directly by the 

federal government through one on one meeting in the communities adjacent to the 

impacted federal lands. Publication in the federal register of actions directly related to 

protected indigenous subsistence activities is wholly inadequate for Tribes with little 

access to the internet or awareness of meetings and decisions held thousands of miles 

from the impacted traditional lands. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0047-003 under PEIS Consultation and 

Coordination, Government-to-government Consultation. Also see Appendix H in the 

Final PEIS for the Native Alaskan subsistence analysis required under Section 810 of 

ANILCA. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations provides guidelines for public 

involvement in the NEPA process. These regulations state that agencies shall make 

diligent efforts to involve the public in preparing and implementing their NEPA 

procedures. 40 C.F.R. § 1506.6 (2006). Agencies are also mandated to provide public 

notice of NEPA-related hearings, public meetings, and the availability of 

environmental documents so those affected will be informed (Id. § 1506.6(b)), as well 

as to hold or sponsor public hearings and meetings whenever appropriate (Id. § 

1506.6(c)) and to solicit “appropriate” information from the public (Id. § 1506.6(d)). 

The BLM complied with these requirements by holding scoping meetings in twelve 

western states in which written comments were solicited. Notice of these scoping 

meetings and requests for public comments were provided in the Federal Register, and 

also in state local newspapers. Id. Finally, it is also mandatory for an agency to mail 

notice to those who have requested notice. Id. § 1506.6(b)(1). The BLM received 

1,034 requests to be placed on the project mailing list and responded. See Chapter 5 of 

the PEIS, Consultation and Coordination. 

CEQ regulations set out different notice requirements depending on whether the 

effects of the proposed action are of national or local concern. In cases where actions 

are of national concern, specified notice requirements are mandatory. Agencies must 

publish notice in the Federal Register and mail to national organizations “reasonably 

expected to be interested in the matter.” Id. § 1506.6(b)(2). Because the PEIS is of 

national scope, the BLM properly published notice in the Federal Register, and mailed 

the notice to national organizations that fit the description of the aforementioned 

regulation (see Chapter 5 of the PEIS, Consultation and Coordination). In addition, 

CEQ regulations set out requirements for cases where the proposed action has “effects 

of primarily local concern.” Id. § 1506.6(b)(3)(i-ix). In actions where effects are of 

local concern, notice requirements are permissive and may include: notice to state 

clearinghouses, Indian tribes, following the affected state’s notice procedures, 

publication in local newspapers, notice through other local media, notice to potentially 

interested community organizations, publications in local newsletters, direct mailing to 

owners and occupants of nearby affected property, and posting of notice on and off the 

site where the action is to be located. Id. Because the PEIS is of local concern, the 

BLM provided notice in the form of newsletters, published notice of scoping meetings 

in local newspapers, notified affected states, and mailed letters to Indian tribes during 

the consultation process (see Chapter 5 of the PEIS, Consultation and Coordination; 

also see Appendix C of the PEIS). 

Courts have not been willing to impose requirements beyond those of the CEQ 

regulations. See Envtl. Coalition of Ojai v. Brown, 72 F.3d 1411, 1415 (9th Cir. 1995) 

(“If the CEQ intended to impose additional notice requirements, it would have 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-512 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

expressly provided so.” ). The Ninth Circuit Court stated that for matters of national 

concern, the CEQ regulations mandate notice in the Federal Register and mailed notice 

to interested national organizations. 40 C.F.R. (Code of Federal Regulations) § 

1506.6(b)(2). Id. The court also stated that while the CEQ regulations mandate public 

notice in matters of local concern, they do not mandate any particular form of notice. 

40 C.F.R. § 1506.6(b). Id. The methods of notice listed in 40 C.F.R. § 1506.6(b)(3) 

(local concern) are merely permissive. Id. 

EMC-0047-005 Comment: The Alaska Inter-Tribal Council respectfully requests that all tribes in the 

Alaska Inter-Tribal region, as sovereigns concerned about herbicide activities on traditional lands, must be 

Council directly notified and provided government to government consultation on such action 

before the public notice process. The Alaska Inter-Tribal Council requests that the 

Executive Order on Environmental Justice and government to government relations be 

acknowledged and implemented and that the public comment and review process 

cease until such time as the Tribal governments have been afforded meaningful 

participation. 

Response: The Alaska State Office of BLM has the responsibility for conducting 

tribal consultation as a part of the government-to-government relationship that the 

federal government has with the Alaska Native Groups. The BLM State Director and 

his staff will accommodate any inquiries relative to the PEIS or any other BLM 

activity. The BLM cannot halt the receipt and review of comments from the public, but 

will make every effort to reach Tribal entities that have concerns and comments 

regarding vegetation treatments. Also see response to Comment EMC-0047-002 under 

PEIS Consultation and Coordination, Government-to-government Consultation. 

Consultation and Coordination, List of Preparers of the Programmatic EIS 

EMC-0411-008 Comment: How many BLM Professionals (estimated) participated in compiling the 

Schroyer, Don L. BLM Vegetation Treatments [P]EIS & [Programmatic] Environmental Report? 

Response: A list of preparers of the PEIS and PER is given in Chapter 5 of the PEIS 

under List of Preparers of the Programmatic EIS in Table 5-1. 

RMC-0106-061 Comment: It is important to separate preparers, consultants, and reviewers in the List 

Public Employees for of Preparers. The advice of consultants and reviewers can be ignored. The public has 

Environmental the right to know who exactly prepared the documents under review and what their 

Responsibility qualifications are. 

Response: All individuals listed in Chapter 5 of the PEIS under List of Preparers of 

the Programmatic EIS in Table 5-1 contributed to the preparation of the PEIS and 

PER. Their areas of expertise, years of experience, and highest degree obtained are 

also given in the table. 

References 

RMC-0217-019 Comment: The BLM fails to use the scientific information at its disposal and even 

Sierra Club Utah fails to use or acknowledge information from some of the references used in the PEIS. 

Chapter As an example to PEIS lists this reference in Chapter 6: 

Belsky, A.J., and J.L. Gelbard. 2000. Livestock Grazing and Weed Invasions in the 

Arid West. Oregon Natural Desert Association. Bend, Oregon. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-513 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

The PEIS does not show how the information from this reference illuminated the 

analysis of the PEIS. Beyond a doubt this article does include information that is 

crucial to management of invasive plants and weeds on the public lands. Chapter 6 

also lists several references from Jayne Belnap. The one most crucial to the problem of 

weeds does not receive any discussion I could find in the PEIS. Other references 

should also have been included in the material pertinent to the problem of invasive 

species and weeds. Perhaps one of the most crucial is Anderson, Jay, and Richard 

Inouye. 2001. Landscape-scale changes in plant species abundance and biodiversity of 

a sagebrush steppe over 45 years. Ecological Monographs 71(4):531-556. This 

references an actual reduction in an invasive plant in Idaho. The portion of Idaho is 

similar to the most of the terrain the BLM appears to plan to treat under this PEIS. 

Response: The reference to Belsky and Gelbard (2000) was included in Chapter 4 of 

the PER under Water Quality and Quantity, but was not included in Chapter 4 of the 

PEIS; we have removed this reference from Chapter 6, References, in the PEIS. The 

Jayne Belnap references were included in the PEIS in Chapter 3 and 4, primarily in 

discussions pertaining to Soil Resources. We have included the Anderson and Inouye 

(2001) reference in the Final PEIS. 

Glossary 

EMC-0005-008 Comment: I also feel strongly that a plant species should not have to be made noxious 

Wichita County on either the Federal, or a state’s Noxious Weed List before control measures are 

Noxious Weed taken. I feel that “Invasive Species” should be adequate to begin control measures. I 

Department also do not feel that vegetation labeled as “invasive” should have a blanket control 

policy as what could be determined to be “invasive” in one region could be determined 

to be a desirable in another region due to climate and growing conditions. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0221-007 under PEIS Glossary. 

EMC-0005-009 Comment: I also feel strongly that a non-native species should never have the 

Wichita County distinction of ever being placed on a threatened or endangered species list. Here in 

Noxious Weed Kansas there are 14 weeds listed on our state’s Noxious Weed List. Only 2 are native 

Department to the United States. I realize this point isn’t included in this [P]EIS, however I feel it 

should be addressed at some point, and since this [P]EIS is already being done, this 

may be a prudent time to look into some of these issues. 

Response: State noxious weed lists are legal determinations that may include any 

weed species (native or non-native) that meet the state’s noxious classification criteria. 

The Endangered Species Act only lists native species that meet the standard for 

threatened or endangered status. 

EMC-0027-006 Comment: Page 1 [of Chapter 1 of the PEIS] – Terminology. Counties can also 

McNeel, Hank designate a plant species as a Noxious Weed within their county. Federal Agencies 

should also be controlling those species within the designated county that declared it 

noxious. I feel that this should also be included within this PEIS. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0221-007 under PEIS Glossary. 

EMC-0446-043 Comment: Definition of Hazardous Fuels: In the Draft PEIS and throughout the PER 

The Nature there is frequent reference to hazardous fuels, but there does not appear to be a clear 

Conservancy description of what these entail. According to the Draft PER definition, hazardous 

fuels can be interpreted as any vegetation that may burn when someone does not want 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-514 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0505-013 

U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency 

EMC-0584-027 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

it to burn. It is not clear who will determine what are hazardous fuels in a given project 

area and what is natural plant community structure. A more precise definition would 

assist in understanding proposed treatments and providing guidance to project design. 

Response: The BLM uses the National Wildfire Coordinating Group definition of 

hazardous fuels: “a fuel complex defined by kind, arrangement, volume, condition, and 

location that forms a special threat of ignition and resistance to control.” Not all 

vegetation can be considered to be hazardous at all locations, life-stages, or times of 

the year. Both natural plant communities and introduced or invasive vegetation could 

be considered hazardous, depending on their kind, arrangement, etc., as well as their 

proximity to values at risk. Those who come together to prepare community wildfire 

protection plans or similar efforts will determine what fuels or vegetation are 

hazardous for the specific community in question. An interdisciplinary team of 

resource specialists will determine, as part of the NEPA process, what non-wildland 

urban interface fuels can be considered hazardous as they prepare project-specific 

environmental documents. 

Comment: BLM is a partner with other federal agencies in developing and 

implementing Integrated Vegetation Management (IVM), and for consistency across 

agencies we suggest that the terms IPM [integrated pest management] or IVM be 

defined in this document. EPA recommends adding IPM and IVM to the glossary and 

use those references when referring to the decision framework for managing pests on 

BLM lands, including in the Executive Summary. 

Integrated Pest Management is, according to the National Road Map for Integrated 

Pest Management (May 17, 2004, http://www.ipmcenters.ora/Docs/IPMRoadMap.pdf) 

“...a long-standing, science-based, decision-making process that identifies and reduces 

risks from pests and pest management related strategies. It coordinates the use of pest 

biology, environmental information, and available technology to prevent unacceptable 

levels of pest damage by the most economical means, while posing the least possible 

risk to people, property, resources, and the environment. IPM provides an effective 

strategy for managing pests in all arenas from developed agricultural, residential, and 

public areas to wild lands. IPM serves as an umbrella to provide an effective, all 

encompassing, low-risk approach to protect resources and people from pests.” 

Integrated Vegetation Management is a subset of IPM used to manage vegetation. 

Response: We have included additional information on IPM and IVM in Chapter 2 of 

the PEIS and PER. Definitions for IPM and IVM will be included in the glossary of 

the PEIS and PER. 

Comment: If BLM plans on using this term [hazardous fuels] in its analysis, we ask 

for a careful and scientific description of the basis for its use. For example, Idaho Falls 

BLM engaged consultants to prepare an EA [Environmental Assessment] for 

“hazardous fuels reduction” in Sands Checkerboard. We are uncertain just what the 

hazard is here. Who or what is threatened by the woody vegetation termed hazardous 

fuels? Is cheatgrass a “hazardous fuel”? We certainly think this term is far more apt for 

cheatgrass than it is for most other vegetation situation where BLM applies it. BLM 

must develop a methodology to prioritize any “treatments’ of hazardous fuels. This is 

necessary to most effectively spend scarce taxpayer dollars, best protect habitations 

and areas that are truly “at risk”. Instead of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars 

planning 6-10 million dollars or more of “treatments” in the Jim Sage Area, or drastic 

“treatment” of the entire Samaria Mountain Range, These projects are primarily aimed 

at killing woody vegetation to promote livestock grazing. BLM must use a sound 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-515 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0585-035 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-044 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

methodology to determine needs for treatment – and focus should always be on the 

areas within approx. 1/8 mile of actual interfaces with human habitation. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0585-049 under PEIS Glossary. 

Comment: [BLM failed to] define what, exactly, constitutes an “infestation”, as used 

in the Table. Is it the presence of a few plants, a percentage of ground cover, what? 

Throughout, BLM fails to define terms used, or when it does, concocts a definition (as 

the EIS definition of invasive species) that is at odds with scientific uses. 

Response: In reviewing several selected definitions, the following are identified: 

1. Infestation:

 a. The Standard Pesticide User’s Guide – 4th

 Edition,” Bert L. Bohmont, 1997, 

Prentice Hall: “Infestation – Pests that are found in an area or location where they are 

not wanted.”

 b. University of California-Davis – UC-IPM Online: “Infestation – The presence 

of a large number of pest organisms in an area or field, on the surface of a host or 

anything that might contact a host, or in the soil.”

 c. Gempler’s IPM Almanac – IPM Glossary: “Infestation – A troublesome 

invasion of pests within a particular area.”

 d. USEPA – Terminology Reference System: “Pest Infestation – 1) The 

occurrence of one or more pest species in an area or location where their numbers and 

impact are currently or potentially at intolerable levels. 2) A sudden increase in 

destructiveness or population numbers of a pest species in a given area.” 

2. Invasive Species:

 a. Executive Order 13112: “Invasive Species – Means an alien species whose 

introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to 

human health.” The term “Alien Species – means, with respect to a particular 

ecosystem, any species, including its seed, eggs, spores, or other biological material 

capable of propagating that species, that is not native to that ecosystem.”

 b. USEPA – Terminology Reference System: “Invasive Species – Means an 

alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental 

harm or harm to human health.” The term “Alien Species – means, with respect to a 

particular ecosystem, any species, including its seed, eggs, spores, or other biological 

material capable of propagating that species, that is not native to that ecosystem.” 

Comment: BLM’s terminology (1-2) and other terms and definitions used in this 

process are not supported by science, and no basis is provided for its aberrant 

definitions of terms such as “selective” – BLM absurdly claims that chemicals that kill 

or weaken nearly all broadleaf plants are “selective”; BLM defines “weeds” as plants 

that interfere with management objectives. 

Response: The BLM disagrees. The terms and definitions used in this PEIS include 

those used by federal agencies as well as academia. The following terms used by the 

BLM are found in the following references: The definition presented in Chapter 1 of 

the Programmatic Environmental Report (PER) for “weed” is the definition that is 

supported by the Weed Science Society of America, along with publications such as 

Weeds of the Wes (Thomas D. Whitson, Burrill, Larry C., Dewey, Steven A., Cudney, 

David W., Nelson, B.E., Lee, Richard D., and Parker, Robert, Grand Teton 

Lithography, Jackson, Wyoming.) Regarding the definition of “selective herbicide,” 

the BLM uses the definition used by USEPA Terminology Reference System: “A 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-516 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0585-049 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-054 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-113 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

chemical designed to affect only certain types of pests, leaving other plants and 

animals unharmed.” This term will be added to the glossary chapters of both the PER 

and the PEIS. 

Comment: Example of vague definitions: The definition provided for “hazardous 

fuels” is so loose and broad that it is essentially meaningless. What is meant by “a 

special threat of ignition and resistance to control”? How is this better described, and 

quantified? How does nonhazardous fuel compare to hazardous fuel? What are 

‘normal’ fuel loadings or characteristics for vegetation types and ecosystems covered 

by this [P]EIS? 

Response: The National Wildfire Coordinating Group defines hazardous fuels 

similarly, as “a fuel complex defined by kind, arrangement, volume, condition, and 

location that forms a special threat of ignition and resistance to control.” Not all 

vegetation can be considered to be hazardous at all locations, life-stages or times of the 

year. Both natural plant communities as well as introduced or invasive vegetation 

could be determined to be hazardous, however, depending on its kind, arrangement, 

etc., as well as its proximity to values at risk. Those who come together to prepare 

Community Wildlife Protection Plans or similar efforts will determine what fuels or 

vegetation are hazardous for the specific community in question. An interdisciplinary 

team of resource specialists will determine as part of the NEPA process what nonwildland urban interface fuels can be considered hazardous as they prepare a project 

specific environmental document. 

Comment: As most of the treatments are slated for Nevada, Idaho, Wyoming and 

Oregon, the number and “risk” of hazardous fuels at any WUIs [wildland urban 

interfaces] must be assessed. What is BLM using as its WUIs? Each individual ranch? 

Abandoned habitations in the middle of nowhere? Many arid land ranches are 

embedded in irrigated ag., and are already severely overgrazed with no hazardous fuels 

in proximity to dwellings. Understanding how BLM defines interfacing lands, and the 

characteristics of WUIs and land areas to be treated is critical to understanding the 

environmental effects of treatments. It is also essential for a reader of the [P]EIS to 

understand the necessity of treatment. 

Response: The PEIS and PER provide a definition of WUI in the Glossary. WUI has 

been defined in A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to 

Communities and the Environment 10-year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation 

Plan (USDI and USDA 2002) and Protecting People and Natural Resources, A 

Cohesive Fuels Treatment Strategy (USDI and USDA 2006) as “the line, area or zone, 

where structures and other human development meet or intermingle with undeveloped 

wildland or vegetative fuel.” The other way a WUI boundary can be determined is 

through the development of a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP). These 

plans are developed by local communities, with participation by state and local 

wildland fire agencies. Critical infrastructure such as powerlines, roadways, or critical 

watersheds may be incorporated into a WUI defined as part of a CWPP. CWPPs allow 

for a localized definition of WUI to be developed. Guidance for defining WUI is also 

provided in the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 to be used in the absence of a 

CWPP. The variation in WUI definition across the country allows local issues to drive 

WUI definitions, but makes national mapping of WUI difficult. 

Comment: [Page] 1-2 [of the Draft PEIS]. Definitions. Even BLM’s invasive plants 

definition has significant flaws as it wrongly includes native species, blends 

management “actively controlled by management interventions”, and is deeply 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-517 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0585-115 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-116 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

PHC-006-002 

H. McNeel 

RMC-0221-007 

Center for Biological 

Diversity 

confusing. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0585-035 under PEIS Glossary. 

Comment: “Invasive species” means an alien species whose introduction does or is 

likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health. 

“Alien species” means, with respect to a particular ecosystem, any species, including 

its seeds, eggs, spores, or other biological material capable of propagating that species, 

that is not native to that ecosystem. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0585-035 under PEIS Glossary. 

Comment: We believe BLM is using a twisted, unaccepted and scientifically 

untenable definition of invasive species in order to justify killing large areas of woody 

native vegetation, such as pinyon pine in Nevada or western juniper in Oregon or 

California. For example, BLM in Nevada claims pinyon is an invasive species. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0585-035 under PEIS Glossary. 

Comment: I would like to make a few comments like on the terminology on noxious 

weeds. I think the terminology that you used was for federal and state agency 

designated. One thing I think needs to be addressed is counties can also designate a 

noxious weed within their county. I would like to see that added. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0291-002 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management. 

Comment: The Center also has serious concerns about the definitions of “invasives” 

and “weeds” as used in the D[raft] PEIS and the D[raft] PER. It is unclear whether 

native plant species have been classified as invasives or weeds in areas where they are 

considered undesirable for certain economic interests such as grazing. Some native 

species have boom and bust reproductive cycles that replenish the seed bank and play 

an important role in succession and soil stabilization, but, for example, are not 

desirable as forage for livestock. The BLM should not be playing politics with 

ecology; all proposed treatments should be limited to non-native noxious species. 

Response: See the discussion on Noxious Weeds and other Invasive Vegetation in the 

Vegetation section of Chapter 3 of the PEIS. The BLM follows the federal noxious 

weed lists, and recognizes state and county weeds lists. Definitions of invasive plants 

and noxious weeds are provided in Chapter 7, Glossary. 

Appendix B – Human Health Risk Assessment 

EMC-0646-045 Comment: First, on page PEIS B-1 [Appendix B of Draft PEIS] and C-1 [Appendix C 

Californians for of Draft PEIS], you state that the more recent document, the invasive plant EIS, USDA 

Alternatives to Toxics Forest Service (FS) 2004, will be used as the main supporting document. This 

document, however, is cited in your bibliography as USDA FS 2005a, which is the 

correct citation date, as the FEIS was released in April 2005. To avoid confusion, this 

document will be cited here as FS IPEIS 2005. 

Response: We have made corrections to these appendixes in the Final PEIS to note 

that the Final EIS was published in 2005. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-518 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Appendix C – Ecological Risk Assessment 

EMC-0553-009 Comment: The text in Vol. 2 [of the Draft PEIS] under “Non-Target Species Effects 

Callihan, Robert H. Characterization”, “Terrestrial Species Effects Characterization”, on page C-28 of 

volume 1 [of Appendix C of the Draft PEIS], says that “response of weed species to 

sulfometuron-methyl may be more severe than for crop species”. Weed scientists 

familiar with the herbicide, as well as experienced BLM practitioners, would recognize 

that as an oddly erroneous, misleading suggestion; it should be corrected. 

Response: Sulfometuron methyl is not registered for cropland use, thus there is little 

information comparing the responses of non-target cropland species and weed species 

to sulfometuron methyl. We have revised the text in Appendix C to reflect this lack of 

information. 

RMC-0106-049 Comment: It is stated that “Degradates may be more or less mobile and more or less 

Public Employees for toxic in the environment than their source herbicides,” which “makes prediction of 

Environmental potential impacts challenging.” This is especially so since the BLM doesn’t know the 

Responsibility characteristics of the vast majority of possible degradates. It is possible, as noted on p. 

C-83 [of Appendix C of the Draft PEIS], that “a less toxic, but more mobile 

bioaccumulative, or persistent degradate may have greater adverse impact due to 

residual concentrations in the environment.” This being the case, why has the BLM not 

undertaken studies to find out what residuals occur from the last 20 years of herbicidal 

treatment? 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0106-048 under PEIS Appendix C, 

Ecological Risk Assessment. The BLM relied on the USEPA, as the federal agency 

designated to regulate pesticides, for information on herbicides. The U.S. Geological 

Survey samples surface waters throughout the United States for pesticide residues. 

RMC-0106-050 Comment: It is stated (p. C-83 [of Appendix C of the Draft PEIS]) that recent studies 

Public Employees for indicate 70% of degradates had similar or reduced toxicity to fish, daphnids, and algae 

Environmental than their parent pesticides; this study did not deal with terrestrial species. P. C-83 

Responsibility further states “However. 4.2% of the degradates were more than an order of magnitude 

more toxic than the parent pesticide, with a few instances of acute toxicity values 

below 1 mg/L. Thus, “The lack of data on the toxicity of degradates of the specific 

herbicides [proposed to be used?] represents a source of uncertainty in the risk 

assessment.” This is a gross understatement. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0106-048 under PEIS Appendix C, 

Ecological Risk Assessment. 

RMC-0106-051 Comment: It is admitted (p. C-84 [of Appendix C of the Draft PEIS]) that List 3 and 

Public Employees for unlisted inerts (21 in all) may have moderate to high toxicity to aquatic species—how 

Environmental about terrestrial species, and how about degradates of the inerts? 

Responsibility 

Response: The likelihood that the List 3 and unlisted inerts would all have moderate to 

high toxicity to terrestrial or aquatic species is very low. Little information was found 

on degradates of inerts. Also see responses to Comment RMC-0210-021 under PEIS 

Environmental Consequences, Herbicide Effects Analysis, and Comment RMC-0106-

004 under PEIS Alternatives, Monitoring. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-519 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0106-052 

Public Employees for 

Environmental 

Responsibility 

RMC-0106-053 

Public Employees for 

Environmental 

Responsibility 

RMC-0106-054 

Public Employees for 

Environmental 

Responsibility 

Comment: The conditions set to model the effects of a “generalized inert” (p. C-84 [of 

Appendix C of the Draft PEIS]) are so specific as to make any general use absurd: 

annual precipitation 50 inches, application area 10 ac [acre], slope 0.05, surface 

roughness 0.015, erodibility 0.401 tons/ac, vegetation type of weeds, sand soil. 

Response: The parameters described in the comment reflect the base watershed that 

was evaluated in the GLEAMS model used in the risk assessments. These parameters 

were selected for the modeling of inerts in order to provide consistency between the 

models for inerts and active ingredients. This assessment was done to compare 

predicted exposure concentrations between an inert additive and the active ingredient. 

The conditions selected for modeling by GLEAMS are reasonable worst-case 

conditions, as they are the ones predicted to lead to high runoff and loading to nearby 

surface waters. 

Comment: “It is assumed (p. C-84 [of Appendix C of the Draft PEIS]) that toxic 

inerts would not represent a substantial percentage of the herbicide and that minimal 

impacts to the environment would result from these inert ingredients.” In other words, 

any potential problem is assumed away. It is acknowledged that evaluating mixtures of 

toxics is substantially more difficult as many herbicides along with other pesticides 

and toxic chemicals are present in the environment, and evaluation of cumulative risks 

is extremely difficult. It is stated (p. C-84 [of Appendix C of the Draft PEIS]) “The 

composition of such mixtures is highly site-specific, and thus nearly impossible to 

address at the programmatic level of the EIS.” Firstly, what evidence does the BLM 

have that the composition of mixtures is highly site-specific? If there is any such 

information it should be cited. If such information doesn’t exist, what has the BLM 

been doing for 20 years? This would seem burdensome in the absence of any 

information at all—but it didn’t stop setting up a highly specific site to evaluate inerts, 

which may have no replicate in nature let alone in the areas of intended treatment. 

Response: As detailed in the ecological risk assessments (see the CD that 

accompanies the Final PEIS), the site-specific issues are predominantly environmental 

(e.g., climate and soils). Mixtures can also be site-specific with tank mixes and choice 

of adjuvant and diluent. The BLM is not funded to conduct research on herbicides and 

relies on the USEPA, U.S. Geological Survey, and others for research. The site used in 

the inert simulation was chosen because it was most favorable for herbicide migration 

and was likely to predict higher migration rates than would occur on more arid BLM 

rangelands. Also see responses to Comment RMC-0159-008 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Herbicide Active Ingredients Evaluated under the Proposed Alternatives, Comment 

RMC-0106-046 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, Human Health and Safety, 

and Comment RMC-0106-052 under PEIS Appendix C, Ecological Risk Assessment. 

Comment: p. [Page] C-84 to C-85 [of Appendix C of the Draft PEIS]. Adjuvants and 

tank mixtures throw more variables into the risk assessment, but the case that this 

program is essentially an uncontrolled experiment on the environment has already 

been made in the language of the EIS [Draft PEIS] itself. 

Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0106-053 under PEIS Appendix C, 

Ecological Risk Assessment, and Comment EMC-0405-012 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Monitoring. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-520 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0122-002 Comment: There are no studies of accumulative or synergistic effects of use of 

Bowers, Lynn multiple products. 

Response: For one herbicide (Distinct®, a mixture of dicamba and diflufenzopyr) the 

mixture of active ingredients was evaluated. A number of tank mixes were also 

evaluated; see Appendix C under Uncertainty Analysis, Degradates, Inert Ingredients, 

Adjuvants, and Tank Mixtures, and the ecological risk assessments (see the CD that 

accompanies the Final PEIS). Also see response to Comment RMC 0159-008 under 

PEIS Alternatives, Herbicide Active Ingredients Evaluated under the Proposed 

Alternatives. 

Appendix D – Evaluation of Risks from Degradates, Polyoxyethyleneamine (POEA) and R-11, and Endocrine 

Disrupting Chemicals 

RMC-0106-048 Comment: Degradates are discussed in Appendix C [of the Draft PEIS], p.[page] CPublic Employees for 83. Degradates of only 9 (50%) of the herbicides proposed for use were examined, and 

Environmental those do not include all possible degradates of the various formulations of the 10 

Responsibility herbicides. 

Response: We have expanded the discussion of degradates in the Final PEIS in 

Chapter 4 and in Appendix D of the Final EIS. This information is based on 

registration documents, discussions with the USEPA and herbicide manufacturers, and 

a search of readily-available databases for ecological and human health toxicity data 

on these degradates. 

Appendix E – Protocol for Identifying, Evaluating, and Using New Herbicides 

EMC-0331-006 Comment: The WSSA [Weed Science Society of America] also supports the 

Weed Science Society developed Appendix D [in the Draft PEIS], “Protocol for Identifying, Evaluating and 

of America Using New Herbicides” to facilitate evaluation and addition of new chemicals as they 

become available in the future. However, one change is needed. “Determining the 

Need for New Herbicides” requires an additional valid reason for considering approval 

of a new active ingredient of “to expand availability of the number of substitute 

products to avoid resistance”. It is understood this could be covered under “but are not 

limited to:” 

Response: The protocol in Appendix E of the Final PEIS identifies factors which 

could limit efficacy, and availability of substitute products. The BLM considers these 

factors sufficient to cover the issue of herbicide resistance. 

EMC-0338-015 Comment: Comments about the Proposed review of new herbicides, Appendix D [of 

Dow AgroSciences the Draft PEIS]: The process outlined for approval of a new herbicide or for a new use 

of a herbicide is lengthy. A more rapid response to use of new pesticides may actually 

assist with eradication efforts if an invasive plant is found in a new area. Waiting 2 to 3 

years for use of a herbicide, that has received approval for registration by the USEPA, 

would appear to be inconsistent with the mandate set forth in the 1999 Executive 

Order 13112 issued by the President of the United States to prevent the introduction of 

invasive species and provide for their control and to minimize the economic, 

ecological, and human health impacts that invasive species cause. As you are aware, 

the executive order required the formation of an Invasive Species Council comprised 

of a number of federal agencies, including BLM, which was tasked to complete a 

National Invasive Species Management Plan. On page 6 of the Plan the Council is 

tasked to lead, “... development, testing, transfer, and training concerning use of 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-521 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0446-034 

The Nature 

Conservancy 

FL-0004-009 

EMC-0214-048 

EMC-0221-012 

EMC-0256-002 

EMC-0272-002 

EMC-0299-002 

EMC-0305 

EMC-0325-007 

EMC-0328 

EMC-0332 

EMC-0347 

EMC-0348 

EMC-0368 

EMC-0370 

EMC-0371 

EMC-0376-007 

EMC-0382 

EMC-0387 

EMC-0388 

EMC-0390 

EMC-0391 

EMC-0392 

environmentally compatible pesticides and herbicides in controlling invasive species.” 

On page 36 “The Council will review and propose revisions of policies and procedures 

(i.e., advance approval for quarantine actions, pesticide applications, and other specific 

control techniques, and interagency agreements that address jurisdictional and budget 

issues)..” New pesticides provide opportunities for a rapid response to new infestations 

of invasive plants when they are relatively small in size. Failure to use USEPA 

approved pesticides early in the invasion cycle will likely lead to use of larger amounts 

of pesticide to control the invasive plants once their population has expanded because 

of the lack of intervention early in the invasive process. Rapid response is effective in 

eradicating invasive plants before they Spread. We encourage the BLM to consider a 

way to respond more rapidly to the use of new EPA registered herbicides. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0566-008 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Prevention of Weeds and Early Detection and Rapid Response. 

Comment: Protocol for Identifying, Evaluating, and using new Herbicides (Appendix 

D of the Draft PEIS): This protocol should include a requirement for coordination with 

other resource specialists, including wildlife and fisheries biologists, botanists, and 

hydrologists, and for consultation with agencies, including U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and National Marine Fisheries Service on potential effects of new herbicide 

use on public land to Federally listed and candidate species and migratory birds of 

conservation concern and with State wildlife agencies on potential effects to statelisted and other special status species. 

Response: As noted on page E-4 of Appendix E of the Final PEIS, a peer review 

process would be used during the evaluation of new herbicides. In addition, the risks to 

federally-listed and proposed species would be evaluated as part of the ecological risk 

assessment and human health risk assessment. We have added a section under “Special 

Status Species” that discusses the need to consult with the Services when evaluating 

and using new herbicides. 

Comment: Appendix D [of the Draft PEIS] Protocol for Identifying, Evaluating, and 

Using New Herbicides. Overall I support this process with one change needed. 

“Determining the Need for New Herbicides” requires an additional valid reason for 

considering approval of a new active ingredient of “to expand availability of the 

number of substitute products to avoid resistance”. It is understood this could be 

covered under “but are not limited to:” 

Response: The issue of herbicide resistance management is just one of the many 

different factors that will be taken into consideration, as outlined in Appendix E of the 

Final PEIS, and is included under the scope of “any other relevant factors.” 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-522 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0393 

EMC-0394 

EMC-0399 

EMC-0400 

EMC-0418 

EMC-0422 

EMC-0427 

EMC-0431 

EMC-0433 

EMC-0438 

EMC-0443 

EMC-0482 

EMC-0483-010 

EMC-0501 

EMC-0578 

EMC-0596 

RMC-0101-004 

Custer County Board 

of Commissioners 

Comment: We also support the “Protocol for Identifying, Evaluating and Using New 

Herbicides” to facilitate evaluation and addition of new chemicals as they become 

available in the future. The process still seems slow at two years-best case scenario, 

but is much better than what appeared to be “no process” before. We offer as an 

example the use of Plateau® (imazapic) on BLM lands. The chemical has been on the 

market for at least five years, has a proven record of being very effective on leafy 

spurge (Euphorbia esula) one of our major noxious weeds of concern In addition, 

Plateau® offers less environmental issues, is less expensive to use when compared to 

other recommended chemicals and opens an additional window of opportunity for 

control and yet it could not be used because it was not on the approved list! 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0566-008 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Prevention of Weeds and Early Detection and Rapid Response. Imazapic is one of the 

herbicides considered for use in the PEIS analysis. 

Appendix H – Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) § 810 Analysis of Subsistence 

Impacts 

EMC-0108-002 

Banks, Helen 

Comment: I understand that the area in question includes parts of Alaska, where 

people depend on wild-gathering of food. To put these people’s health at risk, and to 

introduce toxic substances into the wild in this way, with no knowledge of their longterm impact and interactions, seems reckless, shortsighted and irresponsible to me. 

Response: The BLM does not plan to use herbicides in Alaska in the near term, and 

does not plan to use herbicides on more than about 1,000 out of 85.5 million acres 

annually in Alaska. The BLM conducted an ANILCA Section 810(a) assessment to 

evaluate the effects of proposed herbicide treatments on foods and other resources used 

by Alaska Native (see Appendix H of the Final EIS). The conclusion of the assessment 

was that there would be no significant impacts to subsistence resources. In addition, 

the assessment noted that the BLM in Alaska would conduct individual, site-specific 

NEPA analyses for any herbicide treatments that are proposed. In this way, the BLM 

will be able to define, with local input, the required Standard Operating Procedures 

and mitigation that will be applied to prevent damage to subsistence plants and 

animals. For all proposed projects, local communities would be given the opportunity 

to participate in the planning process and assist with design of proposed treatments. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-523 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Appendix I – Restore Native Ecosystems Alternative 

EMC-0457-007 Comment: We commend especially these specific ideas in Appendix G [of the Draft 

Ryan, Eleanor (North PEIS]: A. Identification of Hotspots for their diversity of plant and wildlife, and 

American Butterfly designate these for specific protection. B. Use of mechanical treatment in restoring 

Association) native vegetation. All of these ideas in Appendix G [of the Draft PEIS] were better 

alternatives to herbicides. Yes, they are labor intensive but herbicides are also 

expensive. 

Response: Special management of plant and wildlife resources is determined at the 

land use planning level and is outside the scope of this PEIS (refer to Chapter 1, Scope 

of Analysis, in the PEIS). Identification of special areas would follow established 

program procedures under land use planning (e.g. regulatory criteria at 43 CFR [Code 

of Federal Regulations] 1610.7-2 to identify areas of critical environmental concern). 

The BLM is not aware of any established criteria to determine what comprises a “hot 

spot” for plant and wildlife diversity. The BLM utilizes an integrated pest management 

approach to vegetation treatments, and use mechanical treatment to restore native 

vegetation is one option the agency can and does implement under this framework. 

Vegetation Treatments on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western 

States Programmatic Environmental Report 

General Comments and Reponses 

EMC-0646-015 Comment: It should be noted that the url given [on page 2-15 of the Draft PER, 

Californians for paragraph 1] here is incorrect, and leads to a dead page. The correct url ends with 

Alternatives to Toxics shtml, not htm 

Response: The url given in the PER is incorrect. It has been corrected for the Final 

PER. 

EMC-0646-046 Comment: Second, on page PER 2-15, as stated above, the location for reviewing the 

Californians for SERA supporting documents is given as 

Alternatives to Toxics http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/risk.htm. Once discovering that this url is 

a disconnect, I was finally able to link through sera-inc.com. The proper url is 

http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/risk.shtml. 

Response: We have corrected Chapter 2 of the Final PER to show the correct url. 

EMC-0646-047 Comment: Third, upon downloading the SERA 2,4-D RA, the report date of 1998 

Californians for was noticed. Having already reviewed SERA 1998, we expected SERA 2003a (as 

Alternatives to Toxics cited in the BLM PEIS) to be an update. However, SERA 2003a was the same as 

SERA 1998, as evidenced by the same TR numbers. The proper citation, as listed in 

FS IPEIS [Forest Service Invasive Plant EIS] 2005, is SERA 1998 (FS IPEIS 2005 

references-22 [U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2005. Preventing and 

Managing Invasive Plants, Final Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department 

of Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/invasiveplant-eis/.). Though some typos and misprints have 

no effect on the material, wrong citations can lead to hours of frustrating search 

looking for something that doesn’t exist. This is in violation of NEPA and the APA 

[Administrative Procedures Act]. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-524 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Response: We have revised the references to the Syracuse Environmental Research 

Associates, Inc., human health and ecological risk assessment of 2,4-D to show that 

the document was produced in 1998 and not in 2003. 

Purpose of the Environmental Report, Scope of Report 

EMC-0584-119 Comment: We believe you must provide extensive analysis of the impacts of postWestern Watersheds fire “salvage” logging or thinning. Is that contemplated under this [P]EIS/PER? If so, 

Project what are its impacts to soils, vegetation, weed invasion risks, wildlife habitats, 

fisheries, recreational and other uses of the affected lands? What have been the 

impacts to, and what is the condition of, lands where this has occurred in the past? 

Response: As stated in Chapter 1 under Scope of Report, the PER does not evaluate 

vegetation management that is focused primarily on commercial timber or other 

forest product enhancement or use activities that are not related to improving forest 

health, hazardous fuel reduction, or work authorized under the Healthy Forests 

Restoration Act. Where removal is determined to be necessary to recreate the native 

fire regime, to facilitate forest regeneration, or to improve forest or woodland health, 

all such treatments will be preceded by additional environmental analysis in 

compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act to disclose the potential 

environmental effects of biomass removal through post-fire logging or thinning. 

Purpose of the Environmental Report, Federal Laws, Regulations, and Policies that Influence Vegetation 

Treatments 

RMC-0077(2) –002 Comment: Cows should never have been allowed in public forest lands in the first 

Lovato, Andrew and place. The Animal Damage Control and welfare ranching on forest lands has resulted 

Anhara, and Marise in the decimation of predator species that understandably eat the prey in their 

Korn protected land and have decimated innocent animals that get caught in traps and 

poisons by the thousands contributing to wildlife imbalance and extinction. This was 

on nature that is causing widespread extinction seems the intentional intention of 

BLM. To get rid of the wild life and forests so that it can become grasslands for cows 

is an outrage! This ignorance is so dire that I doubt there is any intention to protect 

the wildlife but only a pathetic, shortsighted effort to line a few ranchers pockets at 

the expense of all the wildlife in America. All wildlife is already squeezed out and 

endangered due to human over expansion and these national forests should function 

as wildlife refuges for these endangered species. 

Response: Authority to graze livestock on public lands derives from the Taylor 

Grazing Act of June 28, 1934. The BLM is required by law, regulation, and policy to 

not contribute toward the extinction or listing of any species and has an affirmative 

duty to protect and conserve wildlife species. BLM forest management practices do 

not include conversion of forest resources to grasslands. 

Purpose of the Environmental Report, Interrelationships and Coordination with Agencies 

RMC-0144-008 Comment: We are also disappointed that vegetation treatments will not be 

Wyoming Game and incorporated into approved land use plans as noted in 1-5 of the Treatment [Draft] 

Fish Department PER. Over the projected 10-year life span, 6 million acres treated per year, would 

amount to 60 million acres or roughly 22% of the 262 million acres managed by 

BLM. We believe this is a significant amount of acreage that has the potential to 

impact fish and wildlife populations and their habitat. We strongly urge BLM to 

create a strong partnership and consult with state fish and wildlife agencies prior to 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-525 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

planning or conducting treatments. 

Response: Land use plan implementation actions often include vegetation treatment 

activities, which are conducted in conformance with existing land use plans goals and 

objectives. This PEIS is not a land use planning effort and does not propose any 

allocations of vegetative resources for treatments; allocations are determined through 

local land use planning. See Relationships among Land Use, Land Use Planning, 

Land Health Standards, Ecosystem Functionality, and Vegetation Treatments in 

Chapter 1 of the PER for a discussion of the interrelationship of the PER, PEIS, and 

land use planning. All vegetation treatment projects are coordinated at the local field 

office level and include coordination with state and federal regulatory and resource 

management agencies. Also see Interrelationships and Coordination with Agencies in 

Chapter 1 of the PER for a discussion of interrelationships and coordination with 

agencies. 

Vegetation Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Programs, Policies, and Initiatives Influencing 

Vegetation Treatment Activities 

EMC-0446-008 Comment: Restoration objectives: Although the Draft PEIS and PER state that 50 

The Nature percent of the acres planned for treatment will be treated to restore historic fire 

Conservancy regimes, these documents do not address specific goals for restoration of historic fire 

regime or land health condition by ecoregion or plant community type. The PER 

should distinguish between hazardous fuels treatments, restoration of historic fire 

regimes, and restoration of plant community health – they are not synonymous and 

may require different treatment methods to achieve. The assumption made in the 

PEIS that, “Treatments that remove hazardous fuels from public lands would be 

expected to benefit the health of plant communities...” does not apply to all or even 

most circumstances since the health of plant communities depends on many variables, 

including plant species composition, the amount of existing alteration from the native 

plant community, and what species and amount of fuels are removed in a given area. 

We are particularly concerned that the PEIS and PER focus largely on goals for what 

vegetation, both weeds and fuel, is to be reduced or eliminated. The PEIS and PER 

and the majority of BLM’s older land use plans include few specific descriptions of 

ecological goals for the desired future condition of the plant community composition 

and vegetation structure that proposed fuels treatment and other vegetation 

management projects are designed to achieve. 

Response: The intent of this document is to provide a broad overview of fire ecology 

and vegetation treatments that is understandable to the general public. Specific goals 

for restoration of historic fire regime or land health condition by ecoregion or plant 

community type will be determined at the land use planning level. Decisions that 

consider all the factors listed in this comment will be made as each land use plan is 

updated. 

EMC-0446-035 Comment: Once approved, the PER can be incorporated by reference in the 

The Nature planning, justification, and review of local level projects. In order for it to be useful to 

Conservancy assist local planning, the PER needs additional detail in several areas, including 

restoration goals, monitoring at multiple scales, the need for pre- and post treatment 

noxious weed and invasive species control, and guidelines for the use and limitations 

of livestock grazing to control weeds. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0446-071 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Monitoring. See Vegetation Treatment 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-526 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0446-040 

The Nature 

Conservancy 

EMC-0584-049 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

Standard Operating Procedures and Guidelines in Chapter 2 of the PER for a 

discussion of livestock grazing to control weeds. 

Comment: Purpose and Need: The Draft PER states that the purpose of the BLM’s 

proposed increase in vegetation management treatments is to: “...reduce the risk of 

wildfire by reducing the occurrence of hazardous fuels...restoring fire-adapted 

ecosystems, and repairing lands damaged by fire” ([Draft] PER [page] 2-1). Yet the 

remainder of the document focuses almost exclusively on hazardous fuels reduction. 

There is insufficient discussion of methods and priorities for the restoration of fireadapted ecosystems, even though the stated goal for 50 percent of acres to be treated 

will be to restore historic fire regimes. There is also insufficient discussion of the 

need, opportunity, and proposed treatments to maintain intact areas that are already in 

Condition Class I to prevent degradation to higher condition classes. 

Response: The programs and policies guiding Wildland Fire Management are 

discussed in Chapter 2 of the PEIS in the section on BLM Programs Responsible for 

Herbicide Treatments. The methods employed to restore fire-adapted ecosystems are 

the same as those listed in the PEIS and PER for vegetation treatments. Local sitespecific land use plans and activity plans will identify priorities for the local field 

office. The BLM does need to accomplish treatments in the areas of hazard fuels 

reduction, restoration of fire-adapted ecosystems, and repair of lands damaged by fire. 

Estimated needs in all three of these areas helped determine overall treatment needs 

across the BLM. Further discussion about the appropriate mix of treatments is 

addressed at the Resource Management Planning level. This is the level at which the 

land use decisions will be proposed and analyzed, and decisions made. Maintenance 

of intact areas and Fire Regime Condition Class 1 landscapes is included within the 

range of treatment activities undertaken by the BLM. This has been clarified in 

Chapter 4, Assumptions for Analysis. 

Comment: Juniper and other woody vegetation throughout the West have been 

vilified by the ranching industry. Pinyon-Juniper and juniper on many BLM-managed 

lands have been greatly fragmented by purposeful fire, escaped prescribed fire and 

wild fire. BLM has not demonstrated that it can fix the cheatgrass mess it has made in 

juniper habitats, as with prescribed-fire on lands such as Rice Canyon in the Burley 

District. Until BLM shows it can show restoration of the many already treated arid 

sites and return them to good or better ecological condition, BLM should not set out 

on a course of new disturbance. 

Response: Adverse effects of the use of fire are described in the Vegetation section 

of Chapter 4 of the PER under Adverse Effects of Treatments, and effects of fire 

treatments on pinyon and juniper are described under fire effects for the Temperate 

Desert Ecoregion of this section. Benefits of treatments using fire are described under 

Beneficial Effects of Treatments in the Vegetation section of the PER. In the case of 

wildfire, the BLM authorizes numerous post-wildfire restoration plans on an annual 

basis. Each restoration project plan that is approved and funded contains a monitoring 

component to evaluate treatment success and progress towards meeting vegetation or 

restoration objectives. In the case of prescribed fire, post-treatment monitoring is also 

a component of the project design. In cases where success in meeting objectives is not 

demonstrated, the BLM has the flexibility to adjust its vegetation treatment practices 

to account for the factors influencing project outcomes. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-527 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0584-051 Comment: A careful scientific evaluation and assessment of past BLM “treatments” 

Western Watersheds must be prepared. How many acres have been burned in prescribed fires? What postProject fire management was done by BLM? What were the results? What are their current 

vegetative communities? What past herbiciding has been done by BLM? Where? 

How many acres? What were the results? How many acres, and where, was post-fire 

rehab. done? What is the current condition and vegetation of these lands? Please 

provide maps that adequately depict the above information. 

Response: Through data requests to field offices, the BLM acquired data on 

treatments and acreages for current and future planned activities projected over the 

next 10 years, rather than past activities. Detailed results of past treatments, in many 

cases, cannot be summarized because monitoring data are often lacking. The BLM 

states, under Monitoring in Chapter 2 of the PER that many sites treated in the past 

lack monitoring data for a variety of reasons. The assumptions for analysis and 

cumulative effects discussion in Chapter 4 of the PEIS, together with Chapter 3, 

Affected Environment, provide the broad scale baseline of vegetative conditions as it 

relates to current and future vegetation treatments. The Draft PEIS does not 

summarize all BLM vegetation treatments or their results that have occurred over the 

last 50 years. 

Vegetation Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Planning and Management at the Local Level 

EMC-0584-107 Comment: BLM must assess the status of populations and habitats within the larger 

Western Watersheds landscape area, and determine the likely effect of a fire on special status species and 

Project other important biota. BLM must also act to take protective measures – not only on 

the fire-affected allotments, but also on surrounding lands, and to buffer habitat loss 

until the habitat that has been lost can be restored. 

Response: An assessment of the status of populations and habitats and special status 

species is typically done by BLM field offices. The effects of fire on special status 

species are discussed in the PER and Biological Assessment; these documents also 

include measures to protect special status species from fire. The BLM considers the 

effects of habitat loss when preparing fire management plans. 

Vegetation Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Site Selection and Treatment Priorities 

EMC-0584-055 Comment: All fuels reduction projects must be based on comprehensive restoration

Western Watersheds assessments before any reduction takes place.

Project

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0584-064 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Site Selection and Treatment Priorities. 

EMC-0584-064 Comment: All fuels reduction projects must be based on comprehensive restoration 

Western Watersheds assessments before any reduction takes place. The DEIS [Draft PEIS]/PER fails to 

Project provide any methodology to do so, and completely ignores restoration assessments. 

Response: The BLM uses the Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) process to 

complete restoration assessments before planning/prioritizing fuel reduction projects. 

FRCC serves as an interagency measure of vegetation and fire regime departure from 

historic conditions. It provides the information needed to develop a fuels reduction 

program that can establish priorities based on the greatest need for restoration (i.e. 

greatest departure from the historic condition). Chapter 3 of the PER under 

Vegetation Condition and Fire Regimes provides a description of this process, which 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-528 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

is an interagency, standardized tool in support of national-level fire planning and risk 

assessment efforts. More details can be found at www.nifc.gov/fuels. Also, the land 

use health assessment process referred to in Chapter 1 of the PER under Relationships 

among Land Use, Land Use Planning, Land Health Standards, Ecosystem 

Functionality, and Vegetation Treatments is another methodology used to determine 

the need to restore vegetation to desired conditions. 

RMC-0049-016 Comment: Page 4-3 [of the Draft PER] Practices to minimize herbicide treatment 

Wilson, Robert E. This section needs to talk in depth about how the concepts of Integrated Invasive 

(University of Nevada Weed Management can be incorporated into all other aspects of land management – 

Cooperative especially the range and fire programs – of the BLM. 

Extension) 

Response: See the discussion on integrated vegetation management in Chapter 2 of 

the Final PEIS and PER. The PER is intended to provide information that can be 

incorporated into all BLM programs. BLM policy and manuals have integrated the 

concepts of weed management and other vegetation management into all BLM 

programs. In integrated pest management programs, herbicides are considered 

transition tools that enable the manager to manage vegetation and replace them with 

desirable, competitive vegetation. BLM guidance on herbicide treatments and 

treatment options are contained in BLM Manual 9011 Chemical Pest Control, which 

recommends selecting the least toxic low-residual herbicide that is effective against 

the target vegetation and applying it in a judicious manner, and Manual 9015 

Integrated Weed Management. Each treatment project is designed and analyzed under 

NEPA at the site-specific level, taking into account specific ecological conditions. 

Vegetation Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Vegetation Treatment Methods 

EMC-0111-002 Comment: I have seen considerable success controlling weeds here by our county 

Seraphinoff, Mike road crews using alternative methods, and I have my own experience as an organic 

farmer, that mechanical means, cover cropping etc. can control most weed problems. 

I am also aware of the work of Dr. Fred Provenza at Utah State, using selective 

grazing to control some weed problems. The agency needs to make a real 

commitment to reducing reliance on herbicides. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0003-005 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Revegetation. 

EMC-0121-004 Comment: In addition, if it is to use any herbicides, BLM needs to make a specific, 

Gladstone, David measurable commitment to reducing the use of these poisons. It should also contact 

WSU [Washington State University] and other universities which are researching 

alternative ways to control invasives. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0076-002 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Herbicide Modes of Action and Treatment Methods. The PER discusses nonherbicide treatment methods the BLM would use to treat vegetation; only 

approximately 16% of BLM-administered lands would be treated using herbicides. 

The BLM works closely with researchers, and even funds research associated with 

the different management options available for addressing invasive species on BLMadministered lands at several universities, including the University of California at 

Davis, Colorado State University, University of Wyoming, Montana State University, 

University of Idaho, Washington State University, Oregon State University, 

University of Arizona, New Mexico State University, and Utah State University. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-529 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0159-002 

Tepfer, Gary 

EMC-0161-011 

Richards, Vivien 

EMC-0162-002 

Anderson, Shelly 

EMC-0446-058 

The Nature 

Conservancy 

Comment: There are very good alternatives that the BLM should be getting serious 

about employing widely. The most effective is hand eradication. This is also good for 

rural economies where there are few living wage jobs and widespread unemployment 

among youth. This work is actually healthy for the workers as opposed to potentially 

dangerous to their health. 

Response: The BLM proposes to use a variety of treatment methods in addition to 

the use of herbicides, as discussed in the response to Comment RMC-0003-005 under 

PER Vegetation Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Revegetation. Much of 

the non-herbicide related work is done by private contractors. In addition, the BLM 

and other federal, state, and local agencies actively recruit and use schoolchildren and 

other volunteers to help with vegetation removal. Volunteer opportunities with the 

BLM can be found at: http://www.blm.gov/volunteer/, while information useful to 

teachers and students can be found at: 

http://www.blm.gov/education/LearningLandscapes/explorers/lifetime/invasive.html. 

Comment: Non-herbicide vegetation treatment options are available! The proposed 

actions appear to meet financial needs of chemical companies and other large 

corporate interests, rather than for support ecological integrity and public interests. I 

worry about the long-term costs of all these pesticide applications, particularly those 

to the environment, the natural area, and the people who live near and use BLM 

public lands and natural areas. 

Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0003-005 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Revegetation, and Comment EMC0026-003 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, How the Effects of the 

Alternatives Were Estimated. 

Comment: There are natural and less invasive and less dangerous methods of 

controlling noxious weeds. A blow torch will kill vegetation without harmful residue. 

Goats can be confined to an area until the noxious weeds are killed. Certainly the 

spread of weeds would be preferable to poisoning our environment even further. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0003-005 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Revegetation. 

Comment: All of the tools identified for vegetative treatments (fire, mechanical, etc.) 

may be needed and appropriate in varying degrees. However, the restoration 

outcomes relative to each tool are poorly defined. This section of the PER should 

include additional detail on specific objectives for the use of each vegetative 

treatment type in order for this material to be useful when incorporated by reference 

at some later date into local project reviews. 

Response: Restoration outcomes for any particular vegetation treatment may be met 

through a variety of treatment methods and tools within an integrated vegetation 

management framework. Restoration outcomes relative to each tool are established 

through the site-specific project design at the time the vegetation treatment is 

proposed, depending on the local circumstances and site-specific goals. The 

Vegetation Treatment Methods section of Chapter 2 of the PER describe the general 

range of objectives appropriate for each tool. Chapter 4 of the PER describes the 

general range of effects on public land resources associated with application of each 

tool or method. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-530 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0057-015 Comment: The Vegetation Treatment Method Selection should include a 

California Wilderness consideration of an area’s proximity to existing communities. Areas that are not 

Coalition immediately adjacent to existing communities should be considered appropriate for 

fire treatments instead of mechanical treatments. 

Response: The text of the PER has been changed in response to this concern. See the 

Vegetation Treatment Methods section of Chapter 2. The decision to use fire instead 

of, or in addition to, another treatment method will depend on a variety of factors; the 

proximity of the treatment area to human lives and property is only one factor that 

will be considered when making this decision. 

RMC-0170-004 Comment: Backpack, portable propane torches are an effective method successfully 

Carson Forest Watch used in the Northwest we would urge the BLM to include. They are cost-effective. 

Response: The BLM utilizes these tools successfully where they are appropriate. See 

Vegetation Treatment Methods in Chapter 2 of the PER, which describes the use of 

backpack sprayers and propane torches. 

Vegetation Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Fire Use 

EMC-0584-053 Comment: BLM must provide information on the risks of prescribed fire escape, or 

Western Watersheds raging out of control. This has happened repeatedly on Ely BLM lands, including 

Project near Cherry Creek in 2005. 

Response: Implementation of prescribed fires does lead to the possibility that there 

may be some fires that exceed prescription and need to be suppressed. For the BLM, 

this occurs less than one percent of the time. The BLM does go to great lengths to 

ensure that fires do not escape, and always has contingency plans in place to suppress 

the fire if the need arises. 

EMC-0641-016 Comment: We support the careful use of fire to manage noxious weed infestations so 

Idaho Conservation long as it is used to reestablish historic fire regimes and it is accompanied by the 

League replanting of native vegetation. Disturbance from fire can serve as a vector for the 

spread of certain noxious weeds. The use of fire thus also needs to be accompanied by 

a strict monitoring program designed to ensure the rapid detection and containment of 

noxious and invasive weed species in order to ensure re-infestation. 

Response: Chapter 2 of the PER and PEIS under Prevention and Early Detection of 

Weeds acknowledges that weeds colonize highly disturbed ground as well as 

degraded plant communities or even intact communities. It reiterates that the BLM is 

required to develop a noxious weed risk assessment when an action may introduce or 

spread noxious weeds, that modification of actions must take place to reduce 

likelihood of infestations when the risk is determined to be moderate or high and that 

control measures to be implemented be identified if weeds do infest the site. 

The Fire Monitoring and Inventory System (FIREMON), an interagency standardized 

monitoring tool, is the primary process used post-fire to detect infestations, as well as 

document fire effects, assess ecosystem damage and benefit, evaluate the success or 

failure of a burn, and appraise the potential for future treatments. The FIREMON 

project’s primary objective is to establish a standard fire effects monitoring and 

inventory protocol. More information can be found on FIREMON at www.fire.org. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-531 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Vegetation Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Mechanical Treatment 

EMC-0115-008 Comment: I observed chaining activities, quite by accident, last November, 2004, at 

Steele, Mark Jim Sage Mountain on the Idaho/Utah border while on a late season archery hunt for 

mule deer. Jim Sage had recent fires on the mountain and the flats. Those areas had 

massive and total and near total cheatgrass invasions. I left the area as chaining began 

and voiced concerns from a livestock person’s views that the chained areas would 

become immediately invaded with cheatgrass [downy brome] because of the 

seedbeds surrounding them. I returned a year later on Dec. 24, 2005 to the same area. 

I could not get to all of the chained areas because of the road conditions, but every 

parcel that I could view was covered with cheatgrass as one would have expected. 

This is the part that makes absolutely no sense to me with my background in grazing, 

spraying weeds, and establishing CRP [Conservation Reserve Program] ground: Why 

would the BLM knowingly disturb thousands of more acres of established juniper, 

native grasses, and sage that are right next to recent fire burns that are choked with 

cheatgrass? The outcome is that those additional acres will now also have to be 

treated at some large expense and questionable success in addition to the already 

burned acres. And even if it is done right and reseeded with native species, it will be a 

number of years before livestock can again or should be put into such grazing units. 

That will greatly impact the very users that BLM is trying to help. I urge the BLM to 

halt any further land disturbances, such as chaining, until we can get a handle on the 

invaded acres of weeds we already have. If we determine it is in everyone’s interest to 

eliminate 300-year-old junipers, don’t do it with a chain, but use a chainsaw. Have 

the fire crews start thinning them in their down time, not clear cutting them. They 

were selling for about $5 each in our neighborhood for fence posts and they last 

forever. Those actions would be a lot more cost effective than helicopter spraying of 

herbicides and then aerial seeding and fertilizing after tearing the surface up with 

chaining. 

Response: The BLM agrees that surrounding vegetation and presence of existing 

invasive species, such as downy brome, should be considered when selecting sites 

and appropriate methods for vegetation management. These are considered primarily 

at the local level during project level planning, within the direction set in our 

Resource Management Plans and under the authority and guidelines discussed at the 

beginning of Chapter 2 of the PER, which outlines the national strategies and reasons 

for vegetation management on BLM lands. The beginning of Chapter 2 describes the 

direction used in selecting sites for resource and vegetation management. The general 

criteria used to select the appropriate treatment methods, discussed in Chapter 2 under 

Vegetation Treatment Methods, include historic and current site conditions, need for 

subsequent revegetation, success of past restoration treatments conducted under 

similar conditions, and cost effectiveness. Chaining is only one of several mechanical 

treatments available; other types of treatments such as manual or chemical are often 

also considered when planning projects. Table 2-5 of the PER provides Standard 

Operating Procedures that can be used to help prevent invasion of unwanted species 

associated with vegetation management activities, including avoiding the use of 

chaining in areas where it is not considered appropriate (e.g., areas with less than 6 to 

9 inches rainfall and where downy brome is present). However, there is research 

indicating that chaining can be an effective tool in vegetation management, as 

discussed under Mechanical Treatment in the Vegetation Treatment Methods section 

of Chapter 2 of the PER. Project proposals and site-specific mitigation measures can 

also be designed to minimize the impacts of surface disturbance, such as choosing 

manual or chemical treatment methods rather than mechanical methods on more 

sensitive sites. Vegetation management in areas with known infestations of downy 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-532 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

brome can be difficult. Chapter 4 of the PER under Vegetation discusses the potential 

impacts of mechanical treatments in evergreen woodlands such as pinyon-juniper. 

The BLM also recognizes that there is a need to learn from past mistakes, and in 

Chapter 2 under Monitoring discusses monitoring and the need to improve 

monitoring and record keeping in order to improve restoration efforts, especially in 

difficult areas like those dominated by cheatgrass. 

EMC-0405-009 Comment: Mechanical treatments are a serious problem. While the publicity 

Hoover, Victoria N. regarding this document centers mainly on herbicides, the actual proposals in this EIS 

to use mechanical treatments broadly could cause even much more devastation to 

natural ecosystems westwide. That so much of the document’s discussion concerns 

chemicals effectively obscures the fact that most of what is planned is chaining, In 

spite of claims to the contrary, such mechanical treatments are designed to provide 

one single benefit, namely to cattle grazers, while ruthlessly sacrificing natural, native 

ecosystems that provide essential benefits to wildlife. These other treatments, mostly 

chaining, would increase from 500,000 acres to 6 million acres per year on BLM 

lands under the PER. 

Response: During preparation of the PEIS and PER, BLM field offices were asked to 

provide information on the types of vegetation treatment projects they planned to 

conduct during the next decade. Field offices provided information on the type of 

vegetation to be treated, treatment method, number of acres to be treated, location, 

etc. Based on this information, it was determined that mechanical treatments would 

occur on about 2.2 million acres annually, and of these chaining would occur on 

about 130,000 acres annually. Over a third of the mechanical treatments would 

consist of drill seeding, which would result in minimal disturbance to the soil and 

would lead to revegetation of the site. Mowing and tilling would each comprise about 

10% of mechanical treatments. Treatments that substantially alter the soil, including 

blading, dozing, and plowing would comprise only about 10% of mechanical 

treatments. 

EMC-0584-061 Comment: BLM should focus on use of mechanical methods of weed control that 

Western Watersheds have been identified as effective in current scientific literature (mowing, spot fire 

Project (flamer), weed eaters, mulching). 

Response: The BLM will focus on mechanical and other methods of weed control 

that have been identified as effective in the current scientific literature, and in the field 

based on prior treatments by the BLM. 

Vegetation Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Biological Control 

EMC-0027-007 Comment: Page 2-12, Second Column, Paragraph 3 [Draft PER]. You should also 

McNeel, Hank include [the] duration that domestic animals are in an area by closely watching the 

stage of utilization of both the target and the non-target vegetation present. Also you 

need to stress the importance of proper management techniques in this program in 

order for this practice to work correctly. Often times overall management practices 

need to be altered in order for any vegetation management practice to be successful. 

Response: The Final PER discusses the need to observe the utilization of target and 

non-target species, and to properly manage grazing animals for livestock control to be 

effective. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-533 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0148-003 

Rosenzweig, Marcie A. 

EMC-0226-001 

Ernst, Harley L. 

EMC-0315-008 

Arizona Game and 

Fish Department 

EMC-0446-060 

The Nature 

Conservancy 

Comment: Dr. Hudson Glimp of the University of Nevada, Reno, has presented 

wonderful programs on the use of grazing animals in the elimination of weed and 

invasive species and the improvement of habitat for native birds and grazing species. 

I urge the BLM to contact Dr. Glimp and access his collection of paradigms that 

work. 

Response: As discussed in Chapter 2 of the PER, domestic animals were identified as 

a biological control method to be used to control weeds and other invasive species. 

Comment: What Manage Grazing Plan is being used for noxious weeds and grass 

improvement? 

Response: A specific grazing management plan that could be used to control noxious 

weeds and improve native vegetation in every situation could not be described at this 

level of analysis. This document acknowledges the potential to use grazing by 

domestic animals to help accomplish these goals, but the details of such a plan would 

need to be developed at the site-specific level. The grazing plan would need to 

consider the targeted plant’s sensitivity to grazing at various times during the year, 

the palatability and/or toxicity of the targeted plant to the species of grazing animal 

being considered for use, and the potential affects of prescribed grazing on other 

resources, such as soils, the desired native vegetation, or habitat for threatened or 

endangered species. The grazing plan would need to specify grazing by a particular 

species of animal during a specific season of use, and would likely specify the use of 

fencing, herding, or some other method needed to concentrate the use on the plant 

species targeted for control. 

Comment: We recommend the BLM use domestic grazing animals as a means of 

vegetation treatment with caution. While certain grazing systems can and do provide 

benefit to certain plant communities, our experience in arid ecosystems is less than 

satisfactory. Additionally, due to disease concerns, use of domestic sheep and/or 

goats is not acceptable in areas inhabited by bighorn sheep, or in any adjacent area 

where the potential for any contact with bighorn sheep could occur. 

Response: The use of domestic grazing animals as a means of vegetation treatment 

references using “prescribed grazing” designed to address specific vegetation 

management needs. While we recognize the potential for the impacts identified in 

this comment, as well as additional impacts, in many situations “prescribed grazing” 

could be used to address vegetation management needs. This programmatic analysis 

allows for the use of domestic animals to control undesirable vegetation, but the sitespecific analysis must address the potential adverse impacts, document the potential 

for success using this treatment, and compare the treatment with other options 

available. 

Comment: Livestock grazing: Biological control as described in the PER includes 

the use of livestock for the control of unwanted vegetation. We do not believe that it 

is appropriate to categorize livestock grazing as a “biocontrol” option ([Draft] PER 

[page] 2-12), although it may be appropriate to discuss it as a possible “cultural 

control” technique. “Classical” biocontrol targets a non-native pest species with one 

or more (non-native) species of host-specific biocontrol agents from the pest species 

native range. Livestock grazing does not fit this definition, since these vertebrate 

grazers are not host-specific, feeding instead on many species, rather than just one or 

a few. Livestock species are not native to the same regions as many of the weed and 

invasive plant species they might be used to control. While goats have been used 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-534 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0446-062 

The Nature 

Conservancy 

successfully in some parts of Colorado to control weeds, the areas treated had 

extremely high levels of weed infestation and the goats were controlled by a herder 

who ensured that they grazed only in designated local areas, for relatively short 

periods and at high grazing intensities. As the PER points out, without proper 

management controls and significant herding effort, livestock grazing can result in the 

increase of unpalatable, non-native species at the expense of native species or other 

desirable forage species. 

Response: The use of livestock as a tool for specific vegetation control should not be 

confused with classical biological control. The biological control of weeds is broadly 

defined as the use of an agent, a complex of agents, or biological processes to bring 

about weed suppression. All forms of microbial and microbial organisms are 

considered as biological control agents. Examples of biological control agents 

include, but are not limited to arthropods (insects and mites), plant pathogens (fungi, 

bacteria, viruses, and nematodes), fish, birds, and other animals. “Biologically-based 

weed management is a much broader category of approaches that may include gene 

modification, genetic processes, and gene products. Human activities intended to 

remove weeds directly or indirectly, such as hand-weeding and burning, deliberate 

uses of plant competition, allelopathy, and cultural and soil management practices 

that alter the biotic balance of soil are considered important adjuncts to biological 

control in integrated weed management systems.” We agree that grazing animals 

would have to be closely controlled to make sure that the targeted vegetation would 

be harmed while the potential for adverse impacts to more desirable vegetation or 

other resources is minimized. Also see response to Comment EMC-0446-061 under 

PER Vegetation Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Treatment-specific 

Standard Operating Procedures and Guidelines. 

Comment: Biological control agents: The only requirement in the Draft PER for the 

use of biocontrol agents (insects, mites, pathogens) is that the agents be approved by 

USDA-APHIS [Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service]. We recommend that 

the BLM utilize a more rigorous approval process with stronger guidelines for release 

of biocontrol agents on public land. Before releasing a biocontrol agent, the BLM 

should be able to demonstrate that the proposed agent is effective on the target weeds, 

that the agent is documented to have limited impact on off-target species, and that 

there exists a plan for long-term monitoring of impacts on the targeted weed(s) and on 

desirable species. There are dozens of biocontrol agents available for release for the 

control of certain knapweeds and Canada thistle, for example, but none that have 

been documented to actually contain or reduce populations of these weeds. Postrelease monitoring of biocontrol should not only measure the survival of biocontrol 

agents, but also their effectiveness on target weeds and off-target impacts. 

Response: The permitting for importing and releasing biological control agents to 

control weeds in the United States is the responsibility of the USDA-APHIS, and 

triggers compliance with the NEPA and the Endangered Species Act. The BLM 

accepts that the process utilized by APHIS provides sufficient guidelines to address 

the commentor’s questions about efficacy and specificity. The process used by 

APHIS to test and approve biological control organisms is rigorous and designed to 

address the commentor’s concerns, as discussed in Chapter 2 of the PER under 

Biological Control in the Vegetation Treatment Methods section. 

EMC-0446-064 Comment: The use of livestock as a “cultural” practice should be evaluated 

The Nature separately and comprehensively from other targeted biocontrol agents. As described 

Conservancy the use of livestock grazing does not appear to be targeted or controlled through 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-535 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0512-006 

Hells Canyon 

Preservation Council 

EMC-0548-033 

Utah Farm Bureau 

Federation 

EMC-0553-007 

Callihan, Robert H. 

herding and could likely result in overgrazing of native species ([Draft] PER [page] 

2-21). Additional SOPs [Standard Operating Procedures] are needed to provide 

guidelines on where livestock grazing in specific plant communities (e.g. sagebrush) 

would adversely affect wildlife species (e.g. sage-grouse). True biocontrols should 

have additional SOP’s to protect closely related native vegetation, non-native plant 

communities utilized by Special Status animal species, etc. 

Response: The BLM agrees that using livestock to contain or control undesirable 

vegetation requires careful planning and execution to be successful. The Draft PER, 

under Biological Control in the section on Vegetation Treatment Methods, 

specifically identifies the need to consider other multiple use objectives, and 

identifies use of herders, fencing, and placement of mineral blocks as potential 

methods to restrict grazing to the targeted vegetation. For most resources addressed in 

Chapter 4 of the PER, livestock treatments are discussed separately from other 

biological organisms, because there are different effects associated with the two types 

of treatments. However, cultural controls typically include preventive measures, 

rather than use of livestock. The PER only identifies the potential to use livestock to 

control undesirable vegetation, with general SOPs applying to all projects that could 

occur in all plant communities. At this level of analysis, it is not feasible to anticipate 

every potential situation and identify necessary mitigation. The specific practices 

needed to successfully use this livestock grazing as a treatment method would be 

identified in the site-specific analysis developed for a specific vegetation control 

project. 

Comment: Bio-controls should not be released in the wild without stringent testing to 

ensure no damage to native plants will occur. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0446-062 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Biological Control. 

Comment: BLM might consider changing the tradition grazing patterns in areas 

dominated by cheat grass [downy brome]. Allowing permittees to graze earlier those 

pastures dominated by cheat grass would allow better utilization by livestock while 

pro-actively addressing unwanted wildfires. 

Response: The BLM has authorized this kind of change to address specific situations. 

Making these kinds of changes in the season requires careful planning to address 

potential impacts to the remaining perennial vegetation, as well as other resources. To 

be successful, grazing these areas earlier usually requires the animals to be removed 

early enough to reduce the impacts on perennial vegetation that generally initiates 

growth later than the downy brome. Although this technique cannot be applied in 

every situation, changes in the season of use to address downy brome invasion is an 

option that has and can be considered, but potential benefits must be weighed against 

the potential for creating additional impacts to other resources. 

Comment: Use of biological controls, including grazing animals (p. [page] 2-12-13 

[of the Draft PER]), is well summarized, but omits a significant point. The draft fails 

to acknowledge that, even though the weeds may be significantly suppressed, 

biological controls do not prevent seed dispersal and expansion of infestations, and 

their use therefore does not protect adjacent areas against invasion, and does not 

constitute compliance with the noxious weed laws of most states. This omission 

should be corrected. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-536 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0559-007 

Daniel, Bill 

EMC-0584-056 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-048 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

Response: Depending on the targeted species and the biological control agent, 

suppression or stressing as presented in Chapter 2 of the Programmatic 

Environmental Report can be the result of a reduction in seed produced. Reduced 

seed production corresponds to reduced seed dispersal, which results in a reduction in 

expansion. 

Comment: Biocontrols are exotic organisms that should not be released in the wild 

without stringent testing to ensure they will not decimate native plants. 

Response: Biological control agents currently used by the BLM have been tested by 

the USDA Agricultural Research Service to ensure that they are host specific and will 

feed only on the target plant and not on crops, native flora, or endangered or 

threatened plant species. A discussion of the process required to use biocontrol agents 

in the U.S. is discussed in Chapter 2 of the PER under Biological Control. 

Comment: Livestock (cattle and sheep) should not be used as a “tool” or termed a 

“biological control”. They are only a temporary, stop-gap measure and simply 

mowing weeds to ground level does not address the fundamental problem of 

eliminating weeds, and getting native species to grow. Native species will not recover 

if sites are grazed by livestock. In fact, the extreme disturbance caused by livestock 

will make sites more fire prone, harm remaining native species, increase likelihood of 

new or accelerated weed invasions, and increase disturbance to, or competition with, 

native wildlife. In most instances, it would be just as effective to mow weeds as to use 

livestock, and would have far less impacts to soils. Plus, the possibility of 

introduction of new weedy species as a result of livestock disturbance would be 

minimized. BLM should examine the appalling fire history of the Jarbidge Field 

Office and assess how seeding of crested wheatgrass, harmful levels of livestock use, 

high stocking rates, etc. – have resulted in extensive and large acreage fires. 

Response: Livestock grazing and other biological controls generally do not eliminate 

undesirable vegetation by themselves, but can be effectively used to control 

reproduction, and when used in conjunction with other control methods can help to 

eliminate the targeted vegetation. Grazing must be carefully planned to avoid impacts 

to other resources, but if carefully timed may be used to impact undesirable 

vegetation while minimizing the effects on native species or other resources. Grazing 

is less labor intensive and in many cases is less expensive than mowing or manually 

removing the targeted vegetation. Seeding of crested wheatgrass can have impacts to 

native plant communities. In many cases these seedings have resisted reestablishment 

of sagebrush or other shrub species, but crested wheatgrass has not often been 

associated with increased frequency or intensity of wildfires. In most situations, 

crested wheatgrass seedings are more likely to reduce the frequency and intensity of 

fires rather than increase them as stated in this comment. In some situations improper 

grazing can promote changes in a the plant community, such as increases in downy 

brome that can lead to more frequent wildfires. In general, however, grazing removes 

grass and other vegetation (fine fuels) and therefore is more often associated with 

reducing rather than increasing fire intensity and frequency. 

Comment: At the same time that BLM described grazing as a biological treatment, it 

refuses to deal with changes in grazing regimes as treatments that reduce causal 

factors of weed, hazardous fuels, or other ecological problems. 

Response: Grazing animals (including, but not limited to goats, sheep, livestock, 

llamas, and alpacas) can be used effectively as biological control agents in vegetation 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-537 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0592-001 

Peacock, Delores (Dog 

Valley Ranch) 

EMC-0641-014 

Idaho Conservation 

League 

treatment projects. Changes in grazing practices for permitted livestock grazing 

activities are addressed through the livestock grazing regulations at 43 CFR [Code of 

Federal Regulations] 4100. 

Comment: Why not use Goats to control the weed and weed problem? I have goats 

and have found they really like weed over grass. They also can be used as a means to 

build fire brakes and such. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0148-003 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Biological Control. 

Comment: Though we support the use of grazing as a biological control under 

certain conditions, the BLM should utilize this type of treatment very cautiously as 

grazing activities can contribute to the spread of noxious weeds and can be incredibly 

detrimental to ecosystem health. The PEIS needs to consider the cumulative impacts 

of grazing and associated management activities on native vegetation, water quality, 

soil conservation, and ecosystem integrity. Grazing on wetlands and in riparian areas 

should be minimal, and the BLM needs to establish appropriate buffer zones to 

protect streams from sedimentation and to maintain riparian ecosystem integrity. In 

addition, we feel that the proposed use of livestock for 60% of biological treatments is 

excessive. The BLM should consider alternatives that rely less on livestock and more 

on other biological controls in combination with other types of treatment and 

prevention techniques. 

Response: The BLM agrees that using livestock to contain or control undesirable 

vegetation requires careful planning and execution to be successful. The PER under 

Biological Control in the Vegetation Treatment Methods section specifically 

identifies the need to consider other multiple use objectives, and identifies the use of 

herders, fencing and placement of mineral blocks as potential methods to restrict 

grazing to the targeted vegetation. Table 2-5 (Vegetation Treatment Methods 

Standard Operating Procedures and Guidelines) identifies the need to minimize the 

use of grazing within riparian and wetland areas due to the potential to cause 

unintended impacts in those sensitive areas. Cumulative impacts are analyzed in the 

Cumulative Effects section of Chapter 4 of the PEIS, and impacts of grazing are 

discussed in relation to the identified resources in that section. The 60% figure is only 

an estimate. Although the use of livestock for 60% of the acres treated with biological 

control may sound excessive, in reality it may not be. In some situations livestock 

may be used in a very targeted “prescribed grazing” management plan where grazing 

for a very specific time period is used to help control undesirable vegetation on a 

relatively small site. There may be other more frequent situations where existing 

grazing permits are adjusted to help manage vegetation over an entire pasture or 

allotment. Situations where the season of use is modified to allow grazing earlier 

when downy brome might be more vulnerable to grazing, and then removing the 

livestock later in the spring when perennial grasses initiate their growth and they 

would be more sensitive to grazing impacts would be an example of this more 

frequent situation. Because these situations (where adjustment in a grazing permit is 

used to help influence the plant community) affect an entire allotment or pasture, the 

acreage affected is far greater than that under most biological treatments. If these 

situations are considered as biological control, then the 60% figure may actually be 

low. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-538 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0641-015 

Idaho Conservation 

League 

RMC-0050-002 

Sierra Club Rocky 

Mountain Chapter 

RMC-0217-023 

Sierra Club Utah 

Chapter 

Comment: The BLM must carefully consider a variety of factors when deciding 

how, where, and when to utilize grazing as a biological control including the species 

of livestock to be used, season, and intensity and duration of grazing, all of which 

significantly impact the effectiveness of livestock grazing at controlling noxious weed 

infestations. Additionally, steps must be taken to ensure that livestock do not 

unintentionally spread weed seeds. One method of minimizing such spread is to avoid 

grazing during flowering and seeding stages. Livestock should also be allowed ample 

time to pass all seeds through their digestive systems before being released into 

uninfested areas. 

Response: The BLM agrees with this comment, and the PER identifies many of these 

same factors under the Biological Control in the section on Vegetation Treatment 

Methods and in Table 2-5 (Vegetation Treatment Methods Standard Operating 

Procedures and Guidelines). 

Comment: As far as we can tell from perusing the document, there is no mention of, 

or plan for the use of, insect predators to control the exotics that can be controlled by 

them. 

Response: Use of insect predators to control exotics is a form of biological control. 

Biological control is one of the treatment methods used by the BLM to manage 

vegetation. Use of biological control and its potential effects on resources is discussed 

throughout the Final PER. 

Comment: In the PER the BLM is also confused about some problems related to 

invasive species and plant community composition and the relationship to wildlife 

habitat. A successful treatment program can enhance habitat for wildlife. For 

example, cattle and sheep feeding in the spring and early summer can thin understory 

forbs and grasses, reducing competition for light, nutrients, and water for desirable 

shrub species. The shrub species will increase their vegetative output for winter 

browsing by deer and other wildlife (USDI BLM 1991a) [[Draft] PER [page] 2-12]. 

Yet this describes the precise problem for many kinds of wildlife – the loss of 

adequate understory vegetation. This is the problem with degraded sage grouse 

habitat. This is also part of the reason fire no longer functions properly in the 

landscape. The proper mix of fuels is no longer available to sustain low intensity-low 

severity fires because of commercial livestock grazing. The BLM fails to not properly 

the effect of grazing on wildlife habitat and fails to note one of the causes (and thus 

the origin for the need to “treat”) of fire suppression. 

Response: The ability of the land to sustain low intensity and low severity fires is 

primarily the result of fire exclusion policies over the last 100 years allowing build-up 

of hazardous fuels, not commercial livestock grazing. Commercial livestock grazing 

occurs primarily in rangeland situations of the Interior West and Southwest. Many of 

the ecoregions addressed in this PEIS are comprised of vegetation communities that 

are not regularly grazed by livestock and have not had significant livestock grazing in 

the past (timber, tundra, boreal forest, evergreen deciduous, etc.). Thus, fire behavior 

cannot be generally attributed to this one activity as a cause of catastrophic fire. See 

Scope of Analysis in Chapter 1 of the PEIS. The effects of livestock grazing on 

wildlife habitat are beyond the scope of analysis of this PEIS. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-539 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0218-003 

Blue Mountains 

Biodiversity Project, 

League of Wilderness 

Defenders 

RMC-0218-018 

Blue Mountains 

Biodiversity Project, 

League of Wilderness 

Defenders 

Comment: Non-chemical manipulation includes the release of exotic biocontrol 

insects that have generally not been tested for their appetite for native plants. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0446-062 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Biological Control. 

Comment: Biocontrols are exotic organisms that should not be released in the wild 

without stringent testing to ensure they will not decimate native plants. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0446-062 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Biological Control. 

Vegetation Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Vegetation Treatment Standard Operating 

Procedures and Guidelines 

RMC-0217-028 

Sierra Club Utah 

Chapter 

Comment: Another example of a failure of the BLM to identify the impacts of 

various treatments can be found in Table 2-4 [in Chapter 2 of the Draft PER], 

Vegetation Treatment Methods Standard Operating Procedures and Guidelines. The 

contents of the columns for Biological Treatments, Mechanical Treatments, and 

Manual Treatments should have many more common entries. This is especially true 

for impacts to soil resources. For instance all three treatments should contain concerns 

about soil disturbances, soil compaction, and leaving plant debris behind for mulch. 

This also points to the absurdity of using livestock for treatment since this technique 

would not leave plant debris behind. Why would it be desirable to leave plant debris 

behind for some treatment techniques and not with others. The PER or PEIS should 

explain this in full. 

Response: Table 2-5 of the Final PER identifies common Standard Operating 

Procedures (SOPs) used by the BLM; however, the list is not all-inclusive. Additional 

SOPs would be identified at the local level. Leaving plant debris was identified as an 

important SOP for several treatment methods, but not biological control. The 

commentor is correct in that use of livestock might not result in much plant debris 

being left behind. Thus, using livestock to create mulch was not identified as an SOP 

in Table 2-5 of the Final PER. 

Vegetation Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Revegetation 

EMC-0584-094 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

Comment: Sagebrush and other appropriate native shrubs (winterfat, shadscale, 

rabbitbrush) must be included in all post-treatment seedings, and repeated efforts 

must be made to establish native shrub cover, due to its importance to many native 

wildlife species. 

Response: See responses to Comment EMC-0584-077 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Herbicide Treatment Planning, and Comment EMC-0584-092 under PEIS 

Alternatives, Herbicide Treatment Planning. The Native Plant Materials Development 

program includes sagebrush and native shrubs. 

RMC-0003-005 

West, Robin 

Comment: These safe weed-removal practices include, but are not limited to fire, 

manual, cultural, and biological control methods. Instead of wasting taxpayer money 

on toxic chemicals that themselves destroy ecosystems, and instead of wasting 

taxpayer dollars on the ever increasing cost of fossil-fuel powered methods of 

reduction, please consider sane, healthy and life-enhancing non-depleting methods of 

doing your job. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-540 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Response: As discussed in the PEIS and PER, the BLM would use prescribed fire 

and mechanical, manual, and biological control methods, in addition to the use of 

herbicides. Only about 16% of acres would be treated using herbicides, and these 

treatments would often occur where the use of herbicides is more cost-effective than 

other methods and has minimal environmental risk. 

Vegetation Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Treatment-specific Standard Operating Procedures 

and Guidelines 

EMC-0139-011 Comment: Keeping livestock off burned areas for a minimum of five years, not two 

Troutman, Doug growing seasons, will do more than coming in with chemicals to irradicate weeds 

livestock bring into the burn area. When the Cook Well area burned here a number of 

years ago, upwind were native seed sources, and cheatgrass/pepperweed. Post fire, 

the regrowth was almost totally favored native bunchgrasses, no weeds! Cattle were 

brought in after the “second growing season”, and left to nuke the area. The site was 

then left with nothing but cheat, pepperweed, and other noxious species. Fire didn't 

damage the area, cows did. 

Response: Post-fire management of grazing can significantly affect the resulting 

plant community. Although the PEIS team cannot address the specific example 

described in this comment, some invasive species including species we consider to be 

weeds, are usually present at least temporarily following a disturbance such as fire, 

with or without the presence of livestock grazing. Poor livestock management could 

exacerbate weed problems; however, removal of livestock for 5 years would not be 

necessary in all cases. The BLM has used two growing seasons of rest as the basic 

standard, and in many cases that amount of rest following the burn has been adequate. 

However, depending on the specific situation (plant community present before the 

burn, precipitation available following the burn etc.), more or less than two growing 

seasons may be appropriate. If grazing following the rest period is excessive, the 

resulting plant community is likely to be inferior to the site’s potential, regardless of 

how long of a rest follows the burn. 

EMC-0315-005 Comment: The use of prescribed fire is the [Arizona Game and Fish] Department’s 

Arizona Game and preferred alternative for vegetation treatments outside of the Sonoran and Mojave 

Fish Department Desert ecozones. Fires timed to provide low-intensity, mosaic burns are preferred. We 

recognize fire may be ineffective in achieving management goals for areas dominated 

by cheatgrass and other invasive species, and that alternatives need to be explored. 

We strongly recommend that post-fire management include an appropriate level of 

grazing deferment, preferably at least two growing seasons. 

Response: These comments are in agreement with current BLM policy. The need to 

restrict livestock grazing is identified in Table 2-5 (Vegetation Treatment Methods 

Standard Operating Procedures and Guidelines in the Final PER). Current BLM 

policy recommends that prescribed burns be rested for two growing seasons 

following treatment; however, the period of rest can be shorter or longer if there are 

valid reasons for prescribing a different rest period. 

EMC-0446-055 Comment: Restoration of fire-adapted ecosystems on public land should also be a 

The Nature primary objective of any proposed increase in the use of prescribed fire. More clearly 

Conservancy articulating this goal in the PER will assist local field offices in designing appropriate 

projects. Maintenance of landscapes in Fire Regime Condition Class [FRCC] 1 

should also be identified as a high priority in the fire use section. It is not currently 

identified as an objective. In addition, there is a specific need for both pre- and postBLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-541 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0446-061 

The Nature 

Conservancy 

EMC-0446-065 

The Nature 

Conservancy 

fire monitoring of invasive species to determine the need for herbicide use or other 

control methods in both burned area rehabilitation projects and prescribed fire 

treatment areas. 

Response: The objective of restoration of fire-adapted ecosystems is articulated in 

the policy guidance identified in the Program Objectives and Goals section of Chapter 

1 of the PER. Maintenance of favorable vegetative conditions is also described on in 

Chapter 2 of the PER under Site Selection and Treatment Priorities. The BLM agrees 

that maintenance of landscapes within FRCC 1 is an important objective relative to 

fire use. Additional text has been added to both the Treatment Priorities and Fire Use 

sections to clarify this important objective. 

Comment: The PER provides only general discussion of what management controls 

are needed to ensure positive benefits from livestock grazing used to control weeds. 

The discussion of the benefits of livestock grazing to wildlife habitat is too brief and 

simplistic to be either useful or accurate. While livestock grazing, in some situations, 

may benefit certain, shrub-browsing species (e.g. deer), it can have an equal negative 

benefit on species needing forbs and grasses under those shrubs for food and shelter 

(e.g. sage grouse). There are no standard operating procedures or guidelines offered to 

protect wildlife species or habitats from excessive livestock use ([Draft] PER [page] 

2-26). While we recognize that livestock grazing can be used as a tool for weed 

control in some specific, controlled situations, it is misleading to include it as part of 

the general biocontrol discussion. We recommend that livestock grazing be discussed 

in its own management section for cultural practices with a careful discussion of 

appropriate situations for its use as a weed control measure, and specific parameters 

and guidelines for its control in weed management practice. Included should be a 

discussion of the potential negative impacts to native plant species and wildlife and 

fish habitat from excessive or improper livestock grazing use. 

Response: The PEIS team agrees that the discussion of the use of livestock grazing 

was too brief and we have modified the discussion under Biological Control in the 

section on Vegetation Treatment Methods and in Table 2-5 (Vegetation Treatment 

Methods Standard Operating Procedures and Guidelines) of the Final PER. There is 

potential for using specifically planned “prescribed livestock grazing” to help control 

undesirable vegetation, and current research may lead to more opportunities to use 

this practice in the future. This analysis is not intended to support a decision to use a 

specific method of treatment; it only documents the possibility of using livestock 

grazing as well as other various treatments alternatives. Therefore, considering 

livestock grazing with the other biological controls should be acceptable. Prior to 

project approval, additional site-specific analysis would be accomplished to compare 

the site-specific impacts of various alternatives, and develop any needed mitigation 

measures. In the site-specific analysis it may be necessary to analyze livestock 

grazing separate from other biological control alternatives to help compare and 

contrast those alternatives. 

Comment: SOPs [Standard Operating Procedures] and Guidelines for vegetation 

should be presented by plant community and ecoregion specific for each treatment 

type and should follow guidelines developed through other BLM strategies, including 

conservation and recovery plans, such as the BLM’s National Sage-Grouse Strategy. 

For example no additional fire should be allowed in sagebrush communities invaded 

by or likely to be invaded by downy brome, however, higher intensity fire may be 

appropriate for other plant communities where low frequency/high intensity fire was 

the historic pattern. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-542 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0446-066 

The Nature 

Conservancy 

EMC-0584-063 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0584-067 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0584-099 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

Response: Many of the SOPs and guidelines are general practices that apply to 

multiple plant communities and ecoregions and are therefore, presented together. 

Specific SOPs and guidelines for vegetation management have also been developed 

as part of BLM policies and directives. Land use planning and the fire management 

planning process are used to determine where use of fire is appropriate or 

inappropriate. See Scope of Analysis in Chapter 1 of the PEIS. Determining land use 

allocations are outside the scope of this PEIS. The information presented in this PEIS 

and PER will be available to field offices for incorporation into their local planning, 

and for determination of which SOPs and guidelines are appropriate for their 

particular plant communities and ecoregion. 

Comment: Additional SOPs [Standard Operating Procedures] and Guidelines should 

be provided for all treatment methods based upon BLM guidance for sagebrush and 

other shrub and grass habitats, including: 1) Guidance for the Management of 

Sagebrush Plant Communities for Sage-grouse Conservation (BLM November 2004) 

mandatory guideline (1.4.1) from National Sage-grouse Strategy (BLM IM 2005­

024); 2) Management Guidelines for Sagebrush (Artemesia) in Western United States 

(BLM 2002); and 3) Guidance for Addressing Sagebrush Habitat Conservation in 

BLM Land Use Plans. 

Response: These documents were reviewed during preparation of the PEIS and PER. 

We have included additional Standard Operating Procedures and guidelines from 

these documents in the Final PEIS and PER. 

Comment: All off-road travel should be minimized during any mechanical treatment. 

The Draft PEIS/PER fails to take necessary measures to do this. 

Response: As discussed in Table 2-5 of the Final PER, several Standard Operating 

Procedures have been identified to minimize the effects of mechanical treatments to 

soil, vegetation, and other resources. The BLM minimizes off-road travel associated 

with all treatments where feasible, but given that many mechanical treatments occur 

in areas that are off-road, some disturbance to off-road areas is likely during 

mechanical treatments. 

Comment: Nowhere does the [P]EIS/PER address the acreage, location or expected 

impacts of biomass under the proposed actions. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0585-051 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Determination of Treatment Acreages. Without knowledge of the exact location of 

treatment, time of year, and biomass that would exist at the time of treatment, it 

would be difficult to estimate impacts to biomass under the proposed treatment 

program. 

Comment: Livestock Facilities: Post-treatment actions/EFR [Emergency Fire 

Rehabilitation] must sharply limit the use of federal fire funds in construction of postfire livestock facilities. BLM’s typical response to fire/treatment is to place a fence, 

often permanent, around the perimeter of the disturbed area, and often to develop 

additional water facilities outside the fenced/treated/burned area. These actions 

(fences that often become permanent, new water facilities) are not part of postfire/post-treatment rehab, they are part of livestock management on surrounding 

lands. Such projects inflict, in an unplanned and unnecessary manner, a new array of 

disturbances to wildlife habitats already impacted by fire disturbance. Existing 

pasture fences should be used, and new fences should not be built. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-543 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0584-104 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0584-105 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

RMC-0040(1)-004 

Resource Concepts, 

Inc. 

Response: The use of Emergency Fire Rehabilitation funding to construct water 

developments outside of the burned area is not a typical response by the BLM. 

However, if the fire damaged a water source or an existing fence, reconstruction of 

those facilities may be accomplished as part of the fire rehabilitation effort. When 

considering new facilities to control grazing following a burn, the BLM does try to 

use existing fencing when possible, but depending on the size and location of the fire, 

the existing fencing is not always a useful and/or reasonable alternative for 

controlling grazing. In many cases, temporary electric fencing is used to restrict 

grazing following a fire, although temporary electric fencing can be less effective in 

some situations and does not provide adequate protection for the site. Additionally, 

the BLM believes that in some situations the fence used to protect the burned area 

would also be useful for improving livestock management and distribution even after 

the burned area has initially recovered following the fire. Improvements in the plant 

community that can be sustained over longer periods may indicate that the more 

permanent fence has a better benefit/cost ratio when considered over the longer term. 

In these situations, a permanent fence may be constructed, after considering potential 

impacts to other resources, and after considering the use of existing fences and/or 

more temporary and less costly fencing alternatives. 

Comment: AUMs [Animal Unit Months] Should Not Be Shifted Elsewhere: BLM 

should not shift AUMs from treated lands to other areas. All AUMs from burned 

lands should be placed in temporary suspension until rehab, or restoration, success 

occurs. 

Response: If there are other public lands where additional grazing use is available 

within existing grazing permits or leases, livestock grazing could be shifted to those 

areas without creating any new or unnecessary impacts. However, this use must not 

occur on areas where livestock grazing has not been authorized, or be inconsistent 

with the current permitted use, without further analysis to identify the potential 

impacts of this additional grazing use. In these alternate areas, the potential impacts 

of grazing would have been analyzed and assessed previously, so additional analysis 

for authorization would not be necessary. Decisions about whether other public lands 

could accommodate the grazing use displaced from the treatment or burned area 

would be made by the local manager, based on site-specific conditions and issues. 

Comment: Regrettably, in some recent post-fire documents, BLM has merely been 

shifting livestock use elsewhere, and thus impacts of livestock on watersheds, 

wildlife, habitat, etc. are magnified and amplified to the detriment of native species 

and the ecosystems upon which they depend. BLM has never assessed the impacts of 

these shifted AUMs [Animal Unit Months]. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0584-104 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Treatment-specific Standard Operating 

Procedures and Guidelines. 

Comment: Pg. [Page] 2-23, in Table 2-4 [of the Draft PER] Vegetation Treatment 

Methods Standard Operating Procedures and Guidelines, soil resources section, one 

of the Mechanical and Manual SOPs [Standard Operating Procedures] is to leave 

plant debris on site to serve as mulch. This SOP is not always appropriate, especially 

when treatments are occurring for fuels management purposes. By leaving plant 

debris on site, treatments could actually increase the fuel hazard. This SOP should 

rarely if ever be used within Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) areas. Secondly, this 

SOP does not allow for successful programs such as Fuels for Schools and other rural 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-544 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0040(1)-005 

Resource Concepts, 

Inc. 

RMC-0040(1)-006 

Resource Concepts, 

Inc. 

economic development or stewardship contracting activities to occur. Some plant 

materials (biomass) could be utilized as a valuable renewable energy source. 

Additionally, leaving mulch materials on-site could change species composition to 

favor grasses and shrubs, while reducing occurrence of both annual and perennial 

forbs (Resource Concepts, Inc. 2004; Benson Glimp, and Perryman, 2005). Both 

annual and perennial forbs are important forage for sage grouse. Also, leaving 

downed or even chipped pinyon material could attract pinyon ips beetles if chipped 

between April and October (Bureau of Land Management 2004). 

Response: The Standard Operating Procedures and Guidelines found in Table 2-5 of 

the Final PER and discussed under Treatment-specific Standard Operating Procedures 

and Guidelines of the PER are designed to give an overview of practices that should 

be considered [underline added for emphasis] when designing and implementing a 

vegetation treatment project on public lands managed by the BLM. Not every 

procedure or guideline would be appropriate for all projects at all times, but all should 

at least be considered and evaluated against all the others when designing projects. 

Leaving some material behind to act as mulch in a WUI fuels reduction project is 

likely appropriate, depending on the type of material, how much is left, and where it 

is left. Reducing the amount of burnable material to an acceptable level would be the 

goal of such a project. Removing all material and leaving soils bare and prone to 

erosion would probably not be an acceptable consequence of such a project. 

This SOP is not in conflict with programs such as Fuels for Schools, as it is not 

desirable to remove all biomass from an area to provide it for schools at the expense 

of all other resources. Only that amount of material deemed to be excess would be 

removed. Some could be left behind to help provide soil stability. The amount of 

biomass left behind and its composition would have to be evaluated for its effect on 

other resources, such as sage-grouse habitat and other wildlife habitat. 

Comment: Pg. [Page] 2-23, in Table 2-4 Vegetation Treatment Methods Standard 

Operating Procedures and Guidelines [in the Draft PER], water resources section, one 

of the Mechanical SOPs [Standard Operating Procedures] is to maintain a minimum 

25 foot buffer near streams and wetlands. There may be many cases when leaving a 

25-foot buffer does not meet the objectives of fuel reduction projects, for example in 

instances where a community evacuation route is also adjacent to a stream. A 

qualified specialist should determine an appropriate buffer width based upon sitespecific conditions, instead of making 25 feet the standard width for an SOP. 

Response: Table 2-5 of the Final PER provides SOPs and guidelines that are 

appropriate for the associated method for most BLM projects. Local field offices 

would have the opportunity to develop different buffer widths during development of 

local projects, and their recommendations would be subject to public review before 

implementation. 

Comment: In the Fire Use SOPs [Standard Operating Procedures] in the same 

section [Table 2-4 of the Draft PER], light application of fire in riparian areas is not 

always possible if a buffer must be maintained between treated areas and streams and 

wetlands, especially since many riparian areas in the West are less than 25 feet in 

width. 

Response: Buffers along riparian areas typically refer to the removal of large trees, 

not the realm of all possible management activities. Prescribed burns, one form of 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-545 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

treatment, are often undertaken in riparian areas to reduce concentrations of fuels, and 

to stimulate beneficial riparian vegetation, which can protect and enhance the health 

of a particular riparian area. As the commentor suggests, a light application of fire is 

not always possible or desirable in all riparian areas, but it is not necessarily 

precluded and it should be considered along with all the other SOPs, and evaluated 

for applicability depending on the project-specific circumstances. 

RMC-0040(1)-010 Comment: Pg [Page] 2-28 [of the Draft PER], typos in Table 2-4, cultural resources, 

Resource Concepts, in the SOP [Standard Operating Procedure] on consulting with tribes for the 

Inc. mechanical and manual treatments. 

Response: These errors have been corrected in the Final PER. 

RMC-0222-140 Comment: In addition to myriad nonnative species that have spread across public 

Salvo, Mark lands, the BLM is also rightly concerned about the spread of native pinyon pine and 

(Sagebrush Sea juniper trees into sagebrush habitats. Fire is identified as a tool to control encroaching 

Campaign), Cox, pinyon-juniper ([Draft] PER: [page] 4-75). However, the BLM does not direct that 

Caroline (Northwest areas be rested from livestock grazing following a burn to allow for proper recovery. 

Coalition for Miller et al. (2005) (another reference missing from the DEIS [Draft PEIS]/PER) 

Alternatives to notes that (1) livestock grazing is primarily to blame for pinyon-juniper encroachment 

Pesticides), and onto western landscapes and (2) livestock should be (at least temporarily) excluded 

O’Brien, Mary from areas where juniper has been burned to allow grasses, forbs and sagebrush to 

recover following a prescribed burn. If livestock are not excluded from burned areas, 

then they will continue to remove emerging grasses and forbs, damage sagebrush and 

disturb the soil, creating conditions that encouraged pinyon-juniper encroachment in 

the first place. 

Response: Domestic livestock can enhance conditions that would encourage the 

introduction or spread of pinyon pine and juniper, but there are also numerous 

situations where these species have increased and expanded their range even though 

livestock are not a contributing factor. Livestock grazing is usually temporarily 

removed following a prescribed burn to allow recovery and establishment of desirable 

grass species and other native vegetation. Current Bureau policy recommends that 

prescribed burns be rested for two growing seasons following treatment, however the 

period of rest can be shorter or longer if there are valid reasons for prescribing a 

different rest period. The Final PER identifies the possibility of livestock restrictions 

in areas treated with fire in Table 2-5 (Vegetation Treatment Methods Standard 

Operating Procedures and Guidelines). However, we have added discussions of posttreatment livestock grazing management to better identify these actions within the 

documents. 

Vegetation Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Monitoring 

EMC-0446-071 Comment: Mitigation/Monitoring: This PER will be incorporated by reference into 

The Nature local fuels treatment projects. Given the recent emphasis on multiple agency 

Conservancy treatments and monitoring protocols, it would be appropriate to detail a common fuels 

treatment monitoring program that will apply at the landscape scale and include 

actions by multiple agencies and multiple treatment methods. The information 

contained on p. 2-32 of the [Draft] PER briefly describes current monitoring practices 

but provides no guidelines to field offices in developing additional monitoring 

strategies need for the proposed increased scale of vegetation treatment practices. We 

believe that an adequate monitoring strategy would include a discussion of regional 

and plant community goals by ecoregion and a discussion of how to integrate 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-546 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0446-072 

The Nature 

Conservancy 

EMC-0584-118 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-045 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

monitoring at a landscape scale to include multiple types of vegetation management 

treatments conducted by multiple agencies. 

Response: The Fire Monitoring and Inventory System (FIREMON), an interagency 

standardized monitoring tool, is the primary process used post-fire to detect 

infestations as well as document fire effects; assess ecosystem damage and benefit; 

evaluate the success or failure of a burn; and appraise the potential for future 

treatments. The FIREMON project’s primary objective is to establish a standard fire 

effects monitoring and inventory protocol. More information can be found on 

FIREMON at www.fire.org. FIREMON, together with the Fire Regime Condition 

Class (FRCC) process and LANDFIRE, provides a means of assessing and 

monitoring at the landscape scale. Also see response to Comment EMC-0446-050 

under PEIS Alternatives, Site Selection Methods for a discussion of ecologicallybased goals for restoration. 

Comment: Adaptive management is more than monitoring the effectiveness of sitelevel activities. There are no measures offered at the West-wide or ecoregion scale to 

determine if programmatic goals are being reached. An adaptive management process 

should be in place to ensure large-scale goals are being reached, and to describe what 

will trigger a change in programmatic strategy ([Draft] PER [page] 2-32). As 

described in our general comments and comments specific to the PEIS, LANDFIRE 

data (http://www.landfire.gov) can be used to help design and populate an effective 

and efficient monitoring protocol. 

Response: Based on guidance for Department of Interior agencies, adaptive 

management is defined as “a system of management practices based on clearly 

identified outcomes, monitoring to determine if management actions are meeting 

outcomes, and if not, facilitating management changes that will best ensure that 

outcomes are met or to re-evaluate the outcomes.” This definition was included in the 

BLM Planning Handbook. Standardized interagency protocols, including Fire 

Regime Condition Class, LANDFIRE and FIREMON, provide the basis for 

landscape-level monitoring that provides the information needed for adaptive 

management. Between these tools and authorities such as the Healthy Forest 

Restoration Act, which requires monitoring of authorized treatments, more landscape 

level management and monitoring at multiple scales is taking place. We have also 

included this definition in the glossary for the PEIS and PER. 

Comment: BLM must also assess impacts of poor pre-fire land conditions and 

management on the outcomes of any post-fire recovery, and of the likelihood of 

success of any post-fire rehab. 

Response: See responses to Comment EMC-0584-051 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Programs, Policies, and Initiatives 

Influencing Vegetation Treatment Activities, and Comment EMC-0584-011 under 

PEIS Alternatives, Monitoring. 

Comment: BLM mixes two different types of organisms under the rubric of 

“biological control” – placing unspecific cattle and sheep grazing in with biological 

control insects that target specific weed species. We believe it is inappropriate to 

lump highly selective insects that target specific plants (appropriately termed 

“biological control”) in with broad spectrum grazers and browsers such as domestic 

cattle that are often responsible for causing the damage to native vegetation lands 

such that weeds invade and “treatment” is deemed necessary. We fear BLM may be 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-547 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

using this terminology to open the door to use fire funds to pay ranchers for grazing 

livestock (biological control by BLM’s definition) on public lands. Just how many 

acres does BLM plan to “treat” with cattle or sheep? Where? What will the ecological 

impacts be? What will be the cumulative impacts of “treating” and grazing on 

watersheds, important, special status and T&E [threatened and endangered] species, 

recreational uses, etc? 

Response: Livestock are living organisms, and thus would fall into the category of 

“Biological Control.” However, most of the resource discussions in Chapter 4 of the 

PER separate out the assessment of impacts associated with livestock from those 

associated with insects and other biological control organisms. Livestock would be 

used to treat approximately two-thirds of the approximately 450,000 acres of lands 

treated using biological controls. The effects of using livestock on the different 

resources described in the PER are discussed in Chapter 4. The cumulative effects of 

using livestock to treat vegetation are discussed in Chapter 4 of the PEIS. 

Public Land Resources, Air Quality 

EMC-0446-039 Comment: The PER should discuss barriers to success of the strategy to the extent 

The Nature necessary to ensure they don’t restrict successful implementation of the goals. For 

Conservancy example, the PER should discuss where air quality regulations might restrict the use 

of prescribed fire or where the lack of fire capacity might limit BLM’s ability to 

implement restoration opportunities and how these limitations will be addressed. 

Response: Air quality and smoke management considerations are presented under 

Air Quality in Chapter 3 of the PER. Any limitations encountered through application 

of air quality regulations or the lack of fire capacity would be addressed at the local 

project level through contingency planning. 

Public Land Resources, Vegetation, Fire Ecology 

EMC-0446-044 Comment: Ecological Justification and Intent of Fuels Treatments: General 

The Nature descriptions of fire regimes ([Draft] PER [pages] 3-22 through 3-42) do not describe 

Conservancy historically fire-independent types, like many desert plant communities, where fire 

frequencies have increased due to species invasions and altered ignition patterns as a 

result of human development. These fire-independent regimes are addressed in 

detailed descriptions of fire regimes in the desert ecoregions and how they’ve been 

altered, but the general descriptions and purpose and need sections of the [Draft] PER 

seem to imply that all western ecosystems are fire-adapted in some way. 

Response: It would be difficult to say that fires never occurred historically in these 

plant communities, as many of them produce fine fuels that could carry surface fire 

during high precipitation years, particularly if wet years occurred in sequence. 

Information on the effects of altered fire regimes in plant communities where fire was 

not historically common is provided in the description of the subtropical Desert 

Ecoregion under Fire Ecology and Vegetation by Ecoregion in the Vegetation section 

of Chapter 3 of the PER. In the description of the Subtropical Desert Ecoregion, we 

state: “Although major fires were not historically common in this region due to the 

wide spacing between plants and sparse fuels, the invasion of fire-prone species (e.g. 

red brome, downy brome, and buffelgrass) has shortened the fire interval in some 

areas, resulting in significant changes in plant communities.” We later state: “In 

many areas of the Mojave and Sonoran deserts plant communities are too sparse 

during most years to adequately carry a prescribed burn. Therefore, this type of 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-548 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0446-047 

The Nature 

Conservancy 

EMC-0446-048 

The Nature 

Conservancy 

treatment would not be suitable for these areas. In areas that have increased fuel 

loading as a result of invasive annuals like red brome, prescribed fire would 

negatively affect plant communities by encouraging the further spread of these 

invasive species. In the denser desert shrubland, where there is an adequate amount of 

fuel to support a fire, many shrubs, trees, and cacti could be severely affected by 

burning, as these species are not adapted to fire. Paloverde, burroweed, bursage, 

broom snakewood, ocotillo, and creosotebush are examples of desert species that can 

suffer high mortality rates from burning.” In addition, we state: “Prior to 1900, fires 

in paloverde-cactus shrub were not considered to be important and occurred mainly in 

the restricted desert grasslands.” We also include information on the increased 

frequency and size of fire in paloverde-cactus shrub caused by exotic grasses. 

Comment: The references provided on biodiversity mostly discuss the effects of fire 

on forested ecosystems, a small proportion of BLM-managed public land. Fred 

Sampson in Prairie Conservation (1996) concludes that the forces affecting 

biodiversity are complex and include forces operating at multiple temporal and spatial 

scales including topography, climate, competition, drought, and herbivory, as well as 

fire. Much of the description of vegetation communities and related fire processes 

also focuses on forest communities (including eastern species such as longleaf pine, 

shortleaf pine, red pine, Eastern red cedar, jack pine, and red maple) rather than 

describing plant communities most commonly found on western BLM public land: 

woodlands, perennial and deciduous shrublands and perennial grassland and desert 

ecosystems. We recommend including additional material on fire history and the 

effects of fire on sagebrush and saltbush shrublands, juniper woodlands, perennial 

grasslands and other plant communities proposed for treatment in order to better 

display potential effects of treating these habitats. 

Response: The purpose of the PER is to provide support for the cumulative effects 

analysis, and to provide information onto which local planning documents can be 

tiered. We agree that the discussions on fire history and effects are brief. However, 

the level of detail requested in this comment is not appropriate for a general 

environmental review. Additionally, there is very little published information about 

fire history and historical fire regimes in non-forested habitats because there is no 

way to date past fires if trees are not present. The Brown (2000) reference cited does 

contain a review of available literature on fire regimes and effects on most plant 

communities of the U. S., including sagebrush and saltbrush shrublands, juniper 

woodlands, and perennial grasslands. Detailed information on fire history and effects 

is generally included in project plans, or incorporated by reference. 

Comment: The PER provides no evidence that high frequency/low severity fire 

regimes produce more diversity in all habitat types, particularly those managed by the 

BLM, than low frequency/high severity regimes. Biodiversity in a given area is 

dependent on more than fire regime. Heavy grazing following a fire can counteract 

any benefits to a plant community gained by burning. The focus of fire management 

should be on maintaining and restoring native fire dynamics, whatever they are 

([Draft] PER [page] 3-22) rather than on maintaining the same type of regime (high 

frequency/low severity) for all habitats. Fire is presented as a factor that ‘alters” 

successional pathways ([Draft] PER [page] 3-22). However, in fire-dependent and 

fire-influenced systems, natural fire dynamics are a part of the natural successional 

process (through evolution of fire-adapted species) and should not be considered 

apart from it. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-549 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

FXC-0075-005 

Citizens for Fire Safety 

Sanity 

RMC-0049-009 

Wilson, Robert E. 

(University of Nevada 

Cooperative 

Extension) 

Response: The PER does recognize the importance of variability in fire regimes. In 

Ecological Process that Underlie the Effects of Fire on Flora (Biodiversity) in the 

Vegetation section of Chapter 3, the PER states that “Variability of fire regimes in 

time and space creates the most diverse complexes of species. Thus, landscapes 

having fires with high variability in timing, intensity, pattern, and frequency tend to 

have the greatest diversity in ecosystem components (Swanson et al 1990).” It is 

unclear which statement(s) led to the deduction that the BLM proposes maintenance 

of high frequency/low severity fire regimes for all habitats. This is not appropriate for 

plant communities that historically had long fire return intervals. The text of the PER 

in the section on Ecological Processes (Successional Pathways) regarding how fire 

influences the rate of successions has been revised to address this comment. 

We have revised the wording in the Final PER in Chapter 3 under Ecological 

Processes that Underlie the Effects of Fire on Flora (Successional Pathways) to 

address some of your concerns. 

Comment: The BLM is greatly ignorant about the current research regarding 

measures to prevent fire. We encourage you to start consulting the scientific literature 

which is concluding that “flammability” of native plants has little to do with the 

occurrence of wildfires. The factors that do contribute to wildlife include amount of 

dry fuels that build up, plant architecture, weather, particularly wind, proximity to 

human habitation and most importantly, human behavior. 

Response: The BLM has been a partner in fire research efforts, most recently the 

Joint Fire Science program, which has supported applied research projects since 

1999. The BLM has also been a leader in preventing unwanted wildfires for some 

years, and is cognizant of the various methods that can be employed to reduce the 

number of unwanted human-caused ignitions. Collaborative efforts initiated under the 

National Fire Plan have strengthened and expanded prevention programs. The 

commenter is correct in listing some of the many factors that contribute to the 

occurrence of wildfires. Lightning, however, is the cause of most wildfires on BLMadministered lands. The ultimate purpose of treating fuels in many locations is to 

protect various values, whether they be human or natural, from the risk of wildfire, 

whatever its cause. Preventing human-caused fires is one tactic that will help protect 

these values, but there are other tactics that can be used as well, depending on 

circumstances. 

Comment: Page 3-29 [of the Draft PER] Fire Ecology − This section is an 

oversimplification, and in some cases an inaccurate description, of the ecological 

factors involved. Secession is a complex processes that we have not fully learned to 

appreciate. Overgrazing in the late 1800’s and fire suppression for the past 90 years 

have had more impact on most of the west than is indicated in this brief description of 

fire ecology. A reference to “State & Transition” succession models would be a much 

more defendable description than the section as it is currently written. 

Response: The intent of this document is to provide a broad overview of fire ecology 

that is understandable to the general public. More detailed descriptions of processes in 

individual systems would be appropriate for inclusion in Land Use Plans and projectscale documents. State and transition models are a difficult concept. The lack of 

science on fire regimes in non-forested vegetation types only allows state and 

transition models to approximate plant succession in rangelands. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-550 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0049-010 

Wilson, Robert E. 

(University of Nevada 

Cooperative 

Extension) 

EMC-0446-046 

The Nature 

Conservancy 

Comment: Page 3-30 2nd paragraph [of the [Draft] PER]; emphasized that downy 

brome can be out-competed with adequate precipitation or by the 2nd

 year. This 

statement is usually inaccurate if sufficient downy brome is present to carry a fire in 

the second year or in subsequent years before perennial vegetation has had an 

opportunity to produce reproductive propagules. The 4th paragraph is inaccurate. 

“The major human influence on pinyon-juniper woodlands and fire’s role in these 

ecosystems has been ranching.” While the 1800’s overgrazing is accurate, most of the 

fire suppression of 1940-present has been management action by the agencies. 

Paragraph 7 is inaccurate in that it does not address PJ [pinyon-juniper] encroachment 

into grass/shrub rangelands. This encroachment has occurred primarily because of the 

fire suppression of the past 90 years and has allowed trees to proliferate on soils 

where the PJ woodlands are not sustainable. This omission is a major error to this 

discussion. 

Response: We agree with the first comment regarding downy brome, but we do not 

think the discussion in the text is misleading. There is obviously variation in the way 

different sites respond after fire, depending on the site, the amount of downy brome in 

the seed bank, and such factors as precipitation; the discussion was attempting to 

capture how this variation may occur. More discussion on downy brome can be found 

in Chapter 4 in the Vegetation section. 

The second comment regarding grazing can be interpreted in a number of ways. The 

paragraph says that ranching is the main influence, but then goes on to state that fire 

suppression by land management is also a culprit. 

There is a statement in paragraph 4 discussing the establishment of juniper woodlands 

in many rangelands. A more detailed discussion of pinyon juniper encroachment can 

be found in Chapter 4 in the Vegetation section. 

Comment: The Draft PER states that, “Biodiversity can be increased by fire and 

reduced by eliminating fire...” ([Draft] PER [page] 3-21). While that may be true in 

certain circumstances, the converse can also be true in ecosystems that are not fireadapted or in fire-dependent ecosystems with too frequent (e.g. systems invaded and 

dominated by downy brome, Bromus tectorum, and red brome, Bromus rubens) or 

too severe fires (systems in the southeastern U.S. invaded and dominated by 

cogongrass, Imperata spp.). We question the basis for the implication that 

biodiversity has a direct relationship to variation in fire frequency and seasonality 

throughout the West. 

Response: The Ecological Processes that Underlie the Effects of Fire on Flora 

(Biodiversity) in the Vegetation section of Chapter 3 of the PER addresses the 

concern about ecosystems dominated by invasive annual bromes: “However, 

biodiversity can be reduced when fires occur much more frequently than they did 

under the historical fire regime.” This statement also applies to cogongrass, a 

rhizomatous grass that replaces native species and can lead to fires of higher 

frequency and intensity (rate of heat release). Whether the accumulation of layers of 

cogongrass litter can also result in more frequent fires that are of higher severity 

(effects on the ecosystem, both above and belowground) is not known. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-551 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Public Land Resources, Vegetation, Vegetation Condition, and Fire Regimes 

EMC-0446-041 Comment: Hazardous fuels treatments and restoration of historic fire regimes are not 

The Nature necessarily compatible actions and the PER should clearly distinguish this fact. 

Conservancy Meeting the goals for one does not automatically meet the goals for the other. 

Vegetation management can include a wide spectrum of activities. Some, but not all, 

vegetation management actions will reduce fuels and have beneficial restoration 

impacts. Some will be focused only on hazard fuel reduction, while others will focus 

solely on ecosystem restoration. The PER should address the full spectrum of actions 

and impacts of each action. For example, the PER should describe how the BLM 

would prioritize treatments if the characteristic fire regime consists of stand-replacing 

fire, rather than assuming that all fire regimes are similar. The BLM should also 

address how ecologically-based criteria will be integrated into BLM’s decisionmaking on fuels treatment, fire regime restoration and other treatment goals in order 

to achieve their stated objective of land health restoration ([Draft] PER pp. [pages] 3-

21-42). 

Response: We agree with the premise you lay out regarding hazardous fuels 

treatments in relation to restoration of historic fire regimes. However, as noted in 

response to Comment EMC-0446-008 under PER Vegetation Treatment Programs, 

Policies, and Methods, Programs, Policies, and Initiatives Influencing Vegetation 

Treatment Activities, these are decisions that need to be made at the Land Use 

Planning level and project implementation level. It is beyond the scope of the PER to 

make decisions on treatment types or levels. 

EMC-0446-049 Comment: The need for increased fuels treatment is based substantially upon the 

The Nature Forest Service’s 2000 FRCC [Fire Regime Condition Class] assessment ([Draft] PER 

Conservancy [page] 1-6). The current FRCC is less accurate in shrub and grass community types, 

which make up the majority of BLM-managed habitats and was not designed to 

identify project-level work. Field offices, in coordination with adjacent landowners, 

should be required to complete additional FRCC assessments based on current 

vegetation mapping before planning projects to transition FRCC 3 areas to FRCC 1. 

The PER should include the process that the BLM will use to update its estimates of 

treatment needs based on newer FRCC mapping that is currently underway 

(LANDFIRE mapping project). We believe that the coarse scale FRCC data currently 

under development as part of LANDFIRE should be considered one key criterion for 

assessing current fire regime conditions and determining larger-scale treatment 

priorities. 

Response: Fire Regime Condition Class serves as an interagency measure of 

vegetation and fire regime departure. As such, it is one consideration in fuels 

management and project-level planning. It is important to recognize that FRCC can 

be characterized at multiple scales. Published in 2002, the first national FRCC map 

was published in a Forest Service General Technical Report (Schmidt, K.M., J.P. 

Menakis, C.C. Hardy, W.J. Hann, and D.L. Bunnell, D.L. 2002. Development of 

Coarse-Scale Spatial Data for Wildland Fire and Fuel Management. General 

Technical Report RMRS-GTR-87. Fort Collins, Colorado). The intended applications 

of this summary were state and regional-scale comparisons, not project planning. To 

further refine this map, the Rapid Assessment phase of LANDFIRE recently 

completed a revised national FRCC layer. This map has been included in the Final 

PEIS and PER and replaces the first national FRCC map included in the Draft PEIS 

and PER. While the Rapid Assessment map better characterizes FRCC for nonforested vegetation, it is intended for broad-scale interpretations. Upon completion of 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-552 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

all LANDFIRE National data layers, an FRCC map will be delivered for each of the 

mapping zones making up the United States, Alaska, and Hawaii. Again, the 

application of these data will be for broad-scale comparisons, not site-specific 

planning. For local planning efforts where FRCC is used in project development, a 

more specific FRCC analysis should be done. Tools available for local FRCC 

analysis include the FRCC Standard Landscape methodology, FRCC Standard 

Landscape software, and FRCC Standard Landscape Geospatial Mapping method. 

These tools are further explained in the Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class 

Guidebook (Hann, W.J., D. Havlina, and A. Shlisky. 2005. Interagency Fire Regime 

Condition Class Guidebook, Version 1.2.). 

The FRCC concept is currently applied in several BLM planning processes. FRCC is 

an important element in Fire Management Plans, in projects implemented under the 

authority of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (2003), in Land Use Planning 

efforts, and in describing ecological conditions at multiple scales. It is not the sole 

consideration used in project development, but one factor considered in addition to 

urban interface, habitats, land health, and other resource values. We agree that when 

assessed at the appropriate scale using the appropriate method, FRCC is a meaningful 

tool describing fire regime conditions and informing project development. 

Public Land Resources, Paleontological and Cultural Resources 

RMC-0049-013 

Wilson, Robert E. 

(University of Nevada 

Cooperative 

Extension) 

RMC-0049-014 

Wilson, Robert E. 

(University of Nevada 

Cooperative 

Extension) 

Comment: Page 3-63 [of the Draft PER] The effect of herbivory by bison and other 

grazing animals (including insects, rodents, and rabbits) is part of this environment 

with subsequent effects from that use, especially when in concentrated numbers for 

long periods of time. 

Response: Comment noted. Historically, the effects of grazing animals upon the 

landscape was spread over the western U.S., and impacts to soil and other resources 

were likely less than occurs today in areas where herbivores are more concentrated. 

Comment: Page 3-65 6th

 paragraph [of the Draft PER]. The sentence: “However, no 

lands were withdrawn from public domain to form these public lands.” is incorrect. 

Response: This sentence has been revised for clarity in the final PER. See the 

European Settlement Resources section in Chapter 3. 

Public Land Resources, Social and Economic Values 

RMC-0049-015 Comment: Page 3-77 Last paragraph [of the Draft PER] – This needed to be 

Wilson, Robert E. addressed also in other areas talking about changes that are occurring in vegetation 

(University of Nevada composition elsewhere in the document. 

Cooperative 

Extension) Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0144-020 under PEIS Affected 

Environments, Comment EMC-0585-036 and Comment EMC-0585-034 under PEIS 

Affected Environments, Vegetation, and Comment RMC-0042-010 under PEIS 

Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action. 

Effects of Vegetation Treatments, Subsequent Analysis before Projects are Initiated 

EMC-0584-054 Comment: Prior to conducting any prescribed burn, BLM must establish a 

Western Watersheds methodology to thoroughly consider and analyze, in an open NEPA process with full 

Project public comment and review periods, the following: Long-term damage to microbiotic 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-553 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

crusts, soil erosion through wind and runoff events, long-term loss of nutrients from 

already nutrient-deficient landscapes, loss of native species, radionuclide levels in 

surrounding vegetation, interrelation between prescribed burns and other “treatments” 

on neighboring federal/state/private lands, increased risks of exotic species invasions, 

impacts on habitat for native wildlife, indigenous uses of plants that may impacts, air 

quality impacts. We are very concerned that BLM may initiate a program of 

widespread “prescribed” burns on lands that have been, and continue to be, seriously 

damaged by livestock grazing and other abuses, and which will are very vulnerable to 

exotic invasions in post-fire environments. 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0221-047 under PEIS Proposed Action 

and Purpose and Need, NEPA Requirements of the Program. 

Effects of Vegetation Treatments, Air Quality 

EMC-0505-021 Comment: Emissions Inventory: A). The emission inventory (EI) chapter [Chapter 4 

U.S. Environmental of the Draft PER] and EI methods appear to be consistent with typical EI practices. 

Protection Agency However, there have been some recent method refinements that have been made to 

visibility and PM [particulate matter] models that would improve the methodology 

used by BLM. The Agency would welcome the opportunity to work with BLM on 

refining its emission inventory. B). Supporting information is needed to justify all of 

the emission rates in section 3.3. For example, in Table 2-1 [in Chapter 2 of the Draft 

PER], for Fairbanks, the TSP [total suspended particles] emission rate for prescribed 

burns is 1.7 E+04 (-350 thousand tons). The same value is used for PM10 [particulate 

matter less than 10 microns in diameter] and a lesser value for PM2.5 [particulate 

matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter]. 

Response: The BLM has reviewed USEPA’s most recent revisions to the 

Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors, AP-42, Fifth Edition (including 

Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources, and Volume II: Mobile Sources), as 

well as Exhaust Emission Factors for Nonroad Engine Modeling – Spark Ignition, 

and determined that only the latter has been modified to estimate lower emissions 

from newer chain saw technology than those estimated in the PER. However, USEPA 

does state that AP-42, Volume II: Mobile Sources is no longer maintained. Given the 

minor contribution that assumed chain saw emissions add to the total overall emission 

inventory, and since the values used in the PER are slightly greater than those that 

may occur in the future (a conservative assumption), there is no need to refine the 

emission inventory. “Supporting information [needed] to justify all of the emission 

rates ” is detailed in the Annual Emissions Inventory for BLM Vegetation Treatment 

Methods – Final Report (ENSR 2005a), and used as described in Air Quality 

Modeling for BLM Vegetation Treatment Methods – Final Report (ENSR 2005m). 

Analysis assumptions included in ENSR (2005a) were referenced to USDI BLM 

(2003) as well as the Development of Emissions Inventory Method for Wildland Fire 

(Battye and Battye 2002). The same wildland fire emission rates were assumed for 

TSP and PM10, although separate rates were provided for PM2.5. For example, the 

hourly TSP/PM10 emission rates used in the Fairbanks, Alaska, example modeling 

(reported as 1.07E+04 in Table 3-1 of ENSR 2005m) were calculated as follows: 

1) A 24-hour burn duration was calculated to consume 100,000 tons of fuel 

based on 2,000 acres burned with a 100 ton per acre fuel loading and a 50 

percent consumption rate (2,000 x 100 x 0.50 = 100,000); 

2) A day/night weighted flaming phase adjustment factor of 0.475 was 

calculated based on 60 percent flaming for nine hours per day plus 40 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-554 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0505-022 

U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency 

EMC-0505-023 

U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency 

percent flaming for fifteen hours per day ( [9/24 x 0.60] + [15/24 x 0.40] = 

0.475), and a similar day/night weighted smoldering phase adjustment factor 

of 0.525 was calculated based on 40 percent flaming for nine hours per day 

plus 60 percent flaming for fifteen hours per day ( [9/24 x 0.40] + [15/24 x 

0.60] = 0.525); 

3) Based on Battye and Battye (2002), the flaming phase would emit 665,000 

pounds of TSP/PM10 based on 100,000 tons of fuel at 47.5 percent flaming 

phase and a 14 pound TSP/PM10 emission rate per ton of fuel burned 

(100,000 x 0.475 x 14 = 665,000). Similarly, the smoldering phase would 

emit 1,365,000 pounds of TSP/PM10 based on 100,000 tons of fuel at 52.5 

percent flaming phase and a 26 pound TSP/PM10 emission rate per ton of 

fuel burned (100,000 x 0.525 x 26 = 1,365,000), resulting in a total of 

2,030,000 pounds of TSP/PM10 emitted during each burn day (665,000 + 

1,365,000 = 2,030,000); 

4) Finally, a total TSP/PM10 hourly emission rate of 1.07E+04 grams per 

second is calculated based on 453.6 grams per pound and 86,400 seconds per 

day conversion factors (2,030,000 x 453.6/86,400 = 1,066). 

Similar calculations were made for other locations, prescribed fire assumptions, and 

emission sources. Detailed Microsoft Excel© spreadsheets that include emission 

calculations are available upon request. 

Comment: Air Quality Modeling: In Table 4.3 [of the Draft PER], the CALPUFFlite concentrations are mostly less than background and this is unusual. There are 

insufficient data to determine why CALPUFF generated these results. This should be 

addressed in the final PEIS [Final PER]. 

Response: Table 4-3 of the Draft PER presents the direct concentration estimates for 

particulate matter for typical, but hypothetical (example) emission scenarios for each 

of five treatment methods at six representative locations throughout the western 

United States, as detailed in the Annual Emissions Inventory for BLM Vegetation 

Treatment Methods – Final Report (ENSR 2005a). As stated in the PER (Page 4-7), 

“As shown in Table 4-3, predicted short-term and annual particulate matter effects at 

each of six example locations were extremely small (< 0.1 [μg/m3

]) for all treatments 

other than prescribed fire. Even for prescribed fire, short-term and annual impacts 

were less than 1.3 μg/m3 for all locations except for Fairbanks, Alaska, where 24-hour 

TSP and PM10 were predicted to be as high as 38 μg/m3 (34 μg/m3

 24-hour PM2.5). 

Assuming a rural background 24-hour PM2.5 concentration of 30 μg/m3

, the total 

concentration of 64 μg/m3 would approach the applicable PM2.5 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS) of 65 μg/m3

. In all instances, particulate matter [impacts] 

due to the five treatment methods would not exceed the applicable NAAQS at any of 

the six locations, based on the assumptions of the analyses (ENSR 2005a).” In 

addition, USEPA’s short-term particulate matter NAAQS is based upon 98th 

Percentile (high) modeled values, corresponding to the “maximum eighth highest” 

value. Since the Fairbanks, Alaska, example assumes less than 8 days of operation, it 

is unlikely even the hypothetical (example) modeled impact would violate the 

NAAQS. 

Comment: For the 6 locations modeled in the BLM report only one year of 

meteorological data was used. Although one year of data is adequate to facilitate a 

CALPUFF run, Appendix W recommends that 5 years of National Weather Service 

(NWS) or 3 years of mesoscale meteorological data should be used (see Appendix W 

language below). In addition, according to Table 4-1 of the report, the maximum 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-555 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0505-024 

U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency 

potential impact period for each location is 6 days or less, with the exception of the 

biological treatment period (30 days). Due to the persistence of some synoptic 

features, a single year of NWS meteorological data does not adequately capture the 

variation of meteorological conditions at these locations. Because the requisite 

meteorological data is readily available, we suggest that BLM consider running the 

CALPUFF model with a more extensive data set for inclusion in the final [P]EIS 

[Final PER]. 

Response: As stated in the Draft PER under Air Quality, the purpose of the PER is to 

disclose “the general impacts on the environment of using non-herbicide treatment 

methods, including fire use, and mechanical, manual, and biological control methods, 

to treat hazardous fuels, invasive species, and other unwanted or competing 

vegetation.” For air quality, the PER analyzed and disclosed current and proposed 

annual air pollutant emissions for five different treatment methods. Similarly, the 

PEIS air quality analysis was prepared subject to Council on Environmental Quality 

regulations to analyze and disclose potential impacts from five alternative methods of 

Herbicide Treatment, including “No Use of Herbicides.” Tables 4-2 through 4-5 of 

the Final PEIS estimate annual emissions of six air pollutants by state and alternative. 

Given the lack of specific proposed activities (location, timing, amount, conditions, 

etc.), it is not possible to further quantify potential air quality impacts. However, as 

stated in the Annual Emissions Inventory for BLM Vegetation Treatment Methods – 

Final Report (ENSR 2005a) “The purpose of this report is to provide modeled 

concentration estimates of particulate matter for typical, but hypothetical (example) 

emission scenarios for each of the five treatment methods at six representative 

locations throughout the western United States.” For this purpose, 1 year of 

meteorological data is adequate to provide examples of potential air quality impacts; 

“a more extensive data set for inclusion in the final [P]EIS” is neither necessary nor 

beneficial. It should be noted that maximum direct predicted hypothetical (example) 

particulate matter modeling result in the PEIS (0.0082 μg/m3 24-hour PM10 assumed 

for Medford, Oregon) was insignificant (the applicable NAAQS is 65 μg/m3

); all 

other hypothetical particulate matter modeling results were much less. 

Comment: In a related matter, modeling guidance in Appendix W states “For Long 

Transport situations (subsection 6.2.3) and for complex wind situations (paragraph 

7.2.8(a)), if only NWS [National Weather Station] or comparable standard 

meteorological observations are employed, five years of meteorological data (within 

and near the modeling domain) which is readily available should be used. 

Consecutive years from the most recent, readily available 5-year period are preferred. 

Less than five, but at least three, years of meteorological data (need not be 

consecutive) may be used if mesoscale meteorological fields are available, as 

discussed in paragraph 8.3(d). These mesoscale meteorological fields should be used 

in conjunction with available standard NWS or comparable meteorological 

observations within and near the modeling domain.” 

Response: The USEPA’s Guideline on Air Quality Models (also published as 

Appendix W of 40 CFR Part 51) addresses the regulatory application of air quality 

models for assessing criteria pollutants under the Clean Air Act, and is used by the 

USEPA, states, and industry to prepare and review new source permits and State 

Implementation Plan revisions. The hypothetical (“example”) emission scenario 

analyses prepared for the PEIS and PER are not subject to the Appendix W guideline; 

therefore, there is no requirement that “Less than five, but at least three, years of 

meteorological data” be used. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-556 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0505-025 

U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency 

Comment: The final PEIS should clarify the following values in Table 2-1 (of ENSR 

2005a). For example, the surface roughness for Glasgow, Montana, is 0.04 m. This is 

a value that is only slightly higher than the value of surface roughness over very 

smooth surfaces such as water. 

Response: Table 2-1 of ENSR (2005a) is correct. The “Applied roughness length” 

for “Grassland” of 0.04 m, used in the PCRAMMET meteorological data 

preprocessor, is based on Sheih et al (1979). 

EMC-0505-027 

U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency 

Comment: The Agency recommends that BLM eliminate modeling for TSP because 

there is not a TSP NAAQS [total suspended particle National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard], and recommends that BLM focus on the PM10 [particulate matter less 

than 10 microns in diameter] and PM2.5 [particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in 

diameter] NAAQS. 

Response: ENSR (2005b) quantified annual emissions of several air pollutants 

(carbon monoxide [CO], carbon dioxide [CO2], nitrous oxides [NOx], TSP, PM10, 

PM2.5, lead, sulfur dioxide [SO2], and volatile organic compounds [VOCs]) to provide 

the decision-maker and the general public a basis for comparing potential air quality 

impacts from five different vegetation treatment methods (including five alternatives 

for herbicide use). ENSR (2005a) provided modeled concentration estimates of 

particulate matter (including TSP, PM10, and PM2.5) for typical, but hypothetical 

emission scenarios for each of the five treatment methods at six representative 

locations throughout the western United States. The BLM not only “focuses” on 

NAAQS criteria pollutants, but also discusses ambient air quality standards 

(including TSP) and other pollutants of interest (such as CO2 and VOCs). 

EMC-0505-029 

U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency 

Comment: EPA recently proposed lowering the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS [particulate 

matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter National Ambient Air Quality Standard] to 

35 μg/m3

. Based on the modeling results presented in Table 4-3, the modeled 

emissions for the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (63.54 μg/m3

) from a prescribed fire in 

Fairbanks, Alaska, would exceed the proposed new 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Response: In the January 17, 2006 Federal Register, the USEPA published its 

proposal to lower the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS from 65 to 35 μg/m3

, retaining the 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 μg/m3

, retaining the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS at 150 

μg/m3

, and, revoking the annual PM10 NAAQS. The USEPA also requested comment 

on various other standards for PM10 and PM2.5, including using other standards or 

retaining the current NAAQS. The USEPA issued final standards on September 21, 

2006. 

Both the PEIS and PER (Chapter 4 under Air Quality) have disclosed and analyzed a 

detailed air pollutant emission inventory to compare potential air quality impacts 

among proposed vegetation treatment methods. In addition, concentration estimates 

of particulate matter for typical, but hypothetical emission scenarios (ENSR 2005a) 

were prepared to demonstrate how future quantitative air quality impacts can be 

evaluated once site-specific activities are actually proposed. Given the minimal 

predicted direct particulate matter impacts, if the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is eventually 

set to 35 μg/m3

, the hypothetical scenarios would not cause significant, adverse air 

quality impacts. The hypothetical modeled impacts (including the Fairbanks, Alaska, 

example) are the 1st maximum predicted values. The USEPA’s short-term particulate 

matter NAAQS is based upon the 98th

 Percentile (high) modeled values, 

corresponding to the “maximum eighth highest” value. Since the Fairbanks, Alaska, 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-557 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

example assumes less than eight days of operation, it is unlikely even the hypothetical 

modeled impact would violate a more restrictive 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Finally, 

even if the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is eventually lowered, and a site-specific 

prescribed burn was predicted to exceed the new NAAQS, it is likely the ultimate 

operational conditions would be modified from those assumed in this analysis (i.e., 

shorter burn duration, smaller individual burns, more aggressive “mop-up,” etc.). 

Effects of Vegetation Treatments, Soil Resources 

RMC-0222-086 Comment: Example: Differing Direction for Biological Soil Crusts. 

Salvo, Mark 

(Sagebrush Sea The Restoration Alternative [Alternative E] provides the following detailed directions 

Campaign), Cox, for biological soil crusts: (DEIS [Draft PEIS]: [page] G-8): Action- Prevention 3. 

Caroline (Northwest Reduce spread of invasive weeds caused by domestic livestock grazing: ...avoid 

Coalition for grazing in systems still containing a strong component of native perennials, biological 

Alternatives to soil crusts, or other features known to act as natural barriers to invasion or increase of 

Pesticides), and invasive exotic species. (DEIS [Draft PEIS]: [page] G-12): GOAL- Prevention 6 -

O’Brien, Mary Biological soil crusts shall be maintained as a partial shield preventing establishment 

or spread of invasive exotic species. Action – Prevention 35 - Using existing data, 

map and describe the presence and integrity of biological soil crusts at the Ecoregion 

and watershed levels within the 16 western states; locally develop maps at the 

subwatershed level. Action- Prevention 36 – Prepare and implement a general plan 

for damaged biological soil crusts. Action- Prevention 37 - Prohibit livestock grazing 

for at least five years following a fire in areas capable of maintaining biological soil 

crusts. Return of livestock will be delayed past five years if significant recovery of the 

biological soil crust has not occurred. (DEIS [Draft PEIS]: [page] G-14): ActionRestoration 20 - Consideration of the following must be documented prior to 

prescribed burns, if relevant: 1. long-term damage to biological soil crusts... 

In contrast, the following vague statements constitute the sole PER direction for 

biological soil crusts: (D[raft] PER: [page] 2-22): [During manual treatments]: 

Minimize damage to soil crusts. [During use of domestic livestock for vegetation 

management:] Minimize use of domestic animals if removal of vegetation may cause 

significant soil erosion or impact biological soil crusts. (D[raft] PER: [page] 2-23) 

[During mechanical treatments]: Minimize damage to soil crusts. These differing 

directions for biological soil crusts are one example that reveals that significant 

impacts and significant linkages with promotion of invasive species will be associated 

with the vegetation treatments proposed in the PER. This necessitates the preparation 

of an EIS. 

Response: See Appendix I of the Final PEIS regarding analysis of the Restoration 

Alternative. The standard operating procedures listed in Table 2-5 of the Final PER 

are accepted practices and explicit. The guidance for manual and mechanical 

treatments in this table state: Minimize damage to biological soil crusts (emphasis 

added). The PER does not prescribe how effects are to be minimized at this 

programmatic level, as specific mitigation of impacts to biological crusts is 

determined at the project and site-specific level. The requirements for biological soil 

crusts, as proposed in the Restoration Alternative, include actions that are beyond the 

scope of the PEIS analysis. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-558 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Effects of Vegetation Treatments, Water Quality and Quantity 

RMC-0233-034 Comment: The relative use of water by tamarisk as compared to native species 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife remains inconclusive. Studies (McDonnell et al., 2004; Glenn and Nagler, 2005) have 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

shown that water use by tamarisk depends on many factors, including multiple 

environmental variables, time of year, and life stage of the plant. The Service 

recommends the final PEIS/PER provide more evidence/research to support this 

claim other than the USFS [U.S. Forest Service] unsubstantiated claim. We 

recommend that the BLM take a more circumspect approach that reflects the 

questions and unknowns about this topic. 

Response: It is because of the variability associated with numerous species and sitespecific conditions that the PEIS has remained at a broad programmatic level. At the 

local level, factors such as those suggested in the comment will be assessed, along 

with the impacts besides water use that tamarisk is causing to the native plant 

community when determining the appropriate treatment for the species. 

Effects of Vegetation Treatments, Wetlands and Riparian Areas 

RMC-0233-035 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

RMC-0233-036 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

RMC-0233-039 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

Comment: The draft PER states that approximately 9,000 acres of wetland and 

riparian habitat would be treated annually, using insects as the biological control 

method. There is no specific discussion, however, of using the tamarisk leaf beetle 

(Diorhabda elongata), nor the potential effects from its use. For the final PEIS/PER, 

we recommend an expanded discussion on the tamarisk leaf beetle, particularly 

regarding the need for post-treatment revegetation to mitigate loss of habitat and to 

prevent re-invasion by tamarisk or other non-native species. 

Response: See response to Comment EMC-0446-062 under PER Vegetation 

Treatment Programs, Policies, and Methods, Biological Control. The commentor’s 

issues regarding the tamarisk leaf beetle (Diorhabda elongate) will be addressed on a 

site-specific basis, using information provided in the PER. 

Comment: It is unclear in the D[raft] PEIS/PER if livestock will he used to control 

vegetation in wetland and riparian areas. On page 4-26 [of the Draft PER], the PER 

states, “...no livestock would be used ...” whereas on page 4-28 it states, “... there 

would be some use of livestock.” Please clarify this for the final PEIS/PER. 

Response: The statements referenced in the comment have been edited for clarity 

under Adverse Effects of Treatments and Effects of Biological Treatments in the 

Wetland and Riparian Areas section of the Final PER. There are no current plans to 

use livestock to control undesirable vegetation within wetland and riparian habitats, 

and any future plans to use livestock within these habitats would require extra 

attention to avoid potential impacts to the native riparian vegetation and physical 

characteristics of the stream channel or wetland. Although the opportunities to use 

grazing animals within wetland and riparian areas may be more limited, there is at 

least some potential for using domestic grazing animals to help control vegetation in 

these habitats, and the document has been revised to identify that possibility. 

Comment: The text states “Sensitive sites, such as wet meadows and riparian areas 

should be protected from excessive grazing”. The Service suggests that the BLM 

expand and further describe the methods to be used to protect these sensitive areas 

from excessive grazing in the final PEIS/PER. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-559 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Response: When using domestic animals to control invasive plants it would be 

necessary to ensure the protection of wet meadows, riparian areas or other sensitive 

sites. This would most likely be accomplished through either temporary or permanent 

fencing, or herding. This section was revised to more clearly discuss the use of 

“prescribed grazing” as a specific treatment designed to control vegetation. 

Effects of Vegetation Treatments, Vegetation 

EMC-0446-037 Comment: The PER should describe positive vegetative objectives by plant 

The Nature community and ecosystem as well as what plant species and fuel loads projects are 

Conservancy trying to remove. The PER should state what plant community and structure the BLM 

is trying to achieve by their proposed vegetation treatments in specific plant 

communities and ecosystems. 

Response: The PER discusses the beneficial effects of treatments in the section 

entitled Beneficial Effects of Treatments under each resource in Chapter 4. Benefits 

and objectives by plant community are described in the Vegetation section, and more 

specifically in the Wildlife Resources section, of Chapter 4 of the PER. We have also 

revised Table 2-2 in Chapter 2 of the Final PER that lists target species for treatments 

in different habitat types. 

EMC-0446-051 Comment: The PER states that 70 percent of Fire Regime Condition Class 3 occurs 

The Nature in Temperate Desert Ecoregion, that over half of fuels reduction projects will occur 

Conservancy there, and that the treatments that will be most frequently used are prescribed fire and 

mechanical treatments (chaining, plowing, disking, etc.). Information in the report 

does not appear to support the need for treatment or these methods of treatment. 

Many of these communities have been invaded by invasive species that have made 

them highly susceptible to wildfire and increased the fire frequency in many areas. 

For example, in large areas of the Temperate Desert Ecoregion downy brome 

(Bromus tectorum) invasion has led to, or threatens to lead to, sharply increased fire 

frequencies and subsequent devastation of native plant and animal communities. 

Sagebrush communities, the perennial shrub plant community that makes up 75 

percent of this ecoregion, has a fire return frequency of 50-100 years ([Draft] PER 

[page] 4-34). Sagebrush is typically killed during a burn and most species require 30­

50 years to return to dominance on the site. The PER states that fires at intervals of 

less than 30-50 year cycles would adversely affect native communities and that on 

sites with invasive annual grasses, such as downy brome, prescribed fire would 

likewise negatively affect sagebrush communities. It is not clear how additional 

prescribed fire will benefit these community types, since downy brome and other 

invasive species that provide the hazardous fuels in these communities will increase 

with increased fire and native species such as sagebrush will be killed. 

Response: In part, a large number of acres in this ecoregion would be treated using 

fire and other methods because the majority of BLM-administered lands and Fire 

Regime Condition Class 3 lands occur in this ecoregion. Although all treatment 

methods would be used in this ecoregion, BLM land managers recognize that 

prescribed fire or other methods may not be appropriate for all treatment situations. 

Prescribed fire can harm sagebrush communities, but when conducted with other 

treatments, including mechanical pre-thinning, prescribed fire, and seeding with 

native vegetation can reduce the amount of downy brome found in or near sagebrush 

communities. Also, there is a significant grassland component in the Temperate 

Desert Ecoregion that is greatly reduced from historic levels. Chapter 3 of the PER 

under Vegetation describes how turn-of-the-century grazing and management 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-560 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0446-052 

The Nature 

Conservancy 

EMC-0446-053 

The Nature 

Conservancy 

practices have led to degraded grass and shrublands and significant increases in 

pinyon juniper woodlands at the expense of shrublands and grasslands. It also 

describes how some shrublands have been reduced in sagebrush with increased 

components of rabbitbrush, horsebrush, and broom snakeweed. What land managers 

have tried to do in more recent times is to learn from those past mistakes, and with 

improved technology and planning, and to conduct better restoration treatments in 

order to improve conditions of the grasslands and shrublands in the Temperate Desert 

Ecoregion. Improved grazing practices coupled with prescribed fire, mechanical, and 

chemical treatments are used to control undesirable vegetation components, and then 

areas are seeded to help establish and maintain desired perennial species. Prescribed 

fire would be most useful in areas where the desired plant community was perennial 

grassland, and that would over time become dominated by shrubs. Many of these 

treatments would also be used to create fuel breaks and protected areas around 

communities to reduce more intense burning fuels such as pinyon and juniper. 

Comment: Mechanical treatments without a substantial investment in reseeding with 

native species, including native shrubs, will likewise not benefit these communities 

[temperate desert communities that have been invaded by invasive species]. The 

[Draft] PER states that while mechanical treatments may increase grass production in 

the short term, they would have adverse effects to native shrublands over the long 

term ([Draft] PER [page] 4-45). The PER should more explicitly analyze and display 

the trade-offs being made between short-term benefits and long-term harm to these 

ecosystems and the many species that depend upon these shrublands. The level of 

investment in native seed production appears to be inadequate to support the needs of 

these proposed vegetation treatments as well as the Burned Area Emergency 

Rehabilitation program. 

Response: The Vegetation and Wildlife Resources sections of Chapter 4 of the PEIS 

discuss some of the short- and long-term trade-offs of modifying plant communities 

using vegetation treatments. Additional information is provided in the Cumulative 

Effects Analysis section of Chapter 4 of the PEIS. The trade-off between losing 

weedy and other invasive plant communities and gaining native plant communities is 

analyzed in more detail at the local level. Also see responses to Comment MC-0584-

012, Comment EMC-0584-092, and Comment EMC-0584-095 under PEIS 

Alternatives, Herbicide Treatment Planning for the level of investment in seed 

production. 

Comment: Two references to fire return intervals for the pinyon-juniper community 

appear to contradict each other, one stating that the return interval is 100-200 years 

and another (from 1924) stating 10-30 years. Those two figures are not reconciled but 

cause quite different results when looking at departure intervals for this plant 

community. The PER states that, “In pinyon-juniper communities that have been 

altered by past land use, burning could negatively affect native plant species” ([Draft] 

PER [page] 4-36) while pointing out in Chapter 3 [of the Draft PER] that most of 

these communities have been altered by past land use. The issues that were raised 

under item #4 above regarding reference conditions and interactions between fire and 

local vegetation also apply to this issue. More specific consideration of the interaction 

of fire with native shrubs and downy brome should be included, including an analysis 

of potential undesirable effects and guidelines for appropriate fire use in different 

shrub/invasive plant situations. 

Response: The text of the Final PER under Vegetation has been changed in response 

to these concerns. See the Vegetation sections discussing pinyon-juniper communities 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-561 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0446-054 

The Nature 

Conservancy 

EMC-0446-059 

The Nature 

Conservancy 

in Chapters 3 and 4. Also see responses to Comment EMC-0446-051 and Comment 

EMC-0446-052 under PER Effects of Vegetation Treatments, Vegetation. 

Comment: The Draft PER calls for substantial increases in the amount of vegetation 

that will be treated with both prescribed and wildland fire, up to 2.1 million acres 

each year. The Nature Conservancy strongly supports the use of fire as a management 

tool, where appropriate, as it is an important and natural ecological factor in many 

vegetation types and ecoregions. The Draft PER calls for increases in the use of fire 

“primarily for historic fire regimes and to control wildfires in the WUI [wildland 

urban interface]” ([see] p. 1-6 [of the Draft PER]), however it targets 63 percent of 

fire treatments in the Temperate Desert Ecoregion, with nearly half (48 percent) in 

evergreen shrublands. Chapter 3 of the PER discusses the historic increase of fire 

frequency and severity in these same shrublands. It is not clear that the appropriate 

plant community is being targeted for these treatments. 

Response: In Chapter 1 of the PER under Determination of Treatment Acreages, 

HFR refers to “hazardous fuels reduction” (acronym defined on under Terminology 

in Chapter 1 of the PER), not “historic fire regime.” Chapter 3 mentions that junipers 

were historically restricted to shallow, rocky soils and rough topography by 

occasional fire in sagebrush grass. The data that were collected from field offices did 

not differentiate between burning in pure sagebrush grass and burning in sagebrush 

grass with conifer encroachment. Some percentage of the prescribed fire in evergreen 

shrublands of the Temperate Desert Ecoregion is for control of pinyon and especially 

juniper that has encroached into highly productive mountain big sagebrush 

communities. If these communities still have a remnant understory of native species, 

they can often recover on their own without additional treatments. Analysis 

performed at a more site-specific level should limit prescribed fire use in lower 

elevation sagebrush sites dominated by Wyoming big, basin big, or low sagebrush, 

that are more likely to be dominated by downy brome after fire. As stated in Chapter 

4 of the PER under Beneficial Effects of Chemical Treatments in the Vegetation 

section, the focus of treatments in the Temperate Desert Ecosystem is to benefit sagegrouse and other wildlife. Such treatments would occur as part of the 1 million acres 

treated to restore ecosystem health (see Determination of Treatment Acreages in 

Chapter 1 of the PER). The PER does acknowledge that treatments in evergreen 

shrublands on sites with a large component on invasive annual grasses could 

negatively affect evergreen shrublands. However, some level of restoration could be 

attempted if followed by intensive monitoring and revegetation. As stated in Chapter 

4 of the PER under Beneficial Effects of Chemical Treatments in the Vegetation 

section, the success of treatments would depend on numerous factors, and could 

require the use of a combination of methods to combat undesirable species. Chapter 2 

of the PER under Prevention of Weeds and Early Detection and Rapid Response 

acknowledges that weeds colonize highly disturbed ground as well as degraded plant 

communities or even intact communities. It reiterates that the BLM is required to 

develop a noxious weed risk assessment when an action may introduce or spread 

noxious weeds, that modification of actions must take place to reduce the likelihood 

of infestations when the risk is determined to be moderate or high, and that control 

measures to be implemented must be identified if weeds do infest the site. This 

direction as well as direction for monitoring post-treatment is part of BLM policy in 

BLM Manual 9011. 

Comment: The BLM is proposing to treat 2.2 million acres of public land each year 

using mechanical treatments including tilling, plowing, chaining, drilling, seeding and 

other means. Eighty percent of all mechanical treatments will occur in the Temperate 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-562 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0503-017 

John Day-Snake 

Resource Advisory 

Council 

Desert Ecoregion; forty-one percent in evergreen shrubland with the target being 

woody species such as sagebrush ([Draft] PER [page] 4-43). The rationale for these 

treatments is not clear unless it is to temporarily increase forage production. These 

shrublands have historically been adversely affected by previous mechanical 

treatments, invasion of noxious species and increased fire frequency. The PER 

concludes that these treatments could have adverse effects to native evergreen 

shrublands over the long term ([Draft] PER [page] 4-45). Additional analysis and 

discussion of the trade-offs being made between short-term benefits and long-term 

negative effects on this ecosystem and the species it supports should be presented, 

since there appears to be a high likelihood that special status species, such as sage 

grouse could be affected by targeting treatments toward sagebrush in this ecoregion. 

Response: The primary reason for proposing treatment of 2.2 million acres each year 

on public lands is Presidential and Congressional mandates to reduce the risk of 

wildfires and improve ecosystem health in publicly managed forest and rangelands, 

as discussed in Chapters 1 and 2 of the PER. Chapter 3 of the PER contains a 

description of the Temperate Desert Ecoregion, and a discussion of the current 

condition of many rangelands and woodlands in this ecoregion, which have been 

altered by invasion of non-native species, exclusion of fire, and past management 

activities. Chapter 4 of the PER, under Effects of Mechanical Treatments in the 

Vegetation Section, states that 41% of treatments would occur in evergreen shrubland 

communities and 18% in evergreen woodlands, but that these treatments would not 

target woody species such as sagebrush for removal. The discussion in Chapter 4 also 

states that the primary mechanical treatment proposed is drill seeding, which is used 

in restoring degraded sites, such as those that have been invaded by annual grasses 

following wildfires. There may be some instances where mechanical treatments 

would be used specifically to control or reduce sagebrush in order to reduce fuel 

loading or create fuel breaks around communities or provide for more landscape 

diversity for wildlife or forage. Other likely treatment scenarios include mechanical 

treatments in woodlands that have encroached on former shrublands or are heavily 

infested by insects to reduce hazardous fuel cover and restore shrubland habitat. 

Where resource management planning and local objectives require repeated 

treatments of evergreen shrublands to meet resource objectives, mechanical methods 

could have adverse effects to native communities over the long term. Land use plans 

guide land use and vegetation management decisions within a geographic area and 

provide specific goals, standards, and objectives to apply to vegetation treatment 

projects (see Vegetation Treatment Planning and Management, Site Selection and 

Treatment Priorities in Chapter 2 of the PER). Site-specific analyses will be used to 

determine the best way to meet resource objectives while minimizing unintended 

impacts to natural resources. The overriding goal is to restore desirable vegetation 

based on site-specific analyses, which include assessment of site potential, land health 

and current conditions, causes of existing degradation, and likely effectiveness of 

treatments. 

Comment: We [the John Day/Snake Resource Advisory Council] like the use of 

ecosystem divisions in the report to discuss vegetation treatments. The BLM lands 

within our RAC [Resource Advisory Council] area are located in the Temperate 

Desert Ecoregion. The document states that 60% of fire treatments would occur in 

these vegetation types although the review of fire effects in the report state that in the 

evergreen shrubland (sagebrush types) repeated fires in less than 30 to 50 years would 

generally have an adverse affect on native communities with an increase of annual 

grasses. We want to emphasize that those using prescribed burning should proceed 

with caution in these sagebrush and juniper communities with tendencies for nonBLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-563 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0584-066 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

RMC-0040(1)-013 

Resource Concepts, 

Inc. 

native annual grasses to dominate. Monitoring is essential. 

Response: Fire treatments are one of a suite of treatments that would be used to 

restore Temperate Desert communities. Over half of the manual treatments an 

overwhelming majority of the mechanical treatments, and over 70% of the acres 

treated using herbicides would be in the Temperate Desert. The BLM is aware of the 

risks associated with use of fire in sagebrush communities, and would take them into 

account when developing vegetation treatment programs. For instance, prescribed 

fires may be timed to occur before downy brome produces seeds, and may be 

combined with reseeding to encourage establishment of more desirable species. For 

more information about monitoring, please see the Monitoring section of Chapter 2 of 

the Final PER. We have included additional information on monitoring objectives 

and requirements that was not included in the Draft PER. 

Comment: Use of material for biomass fuels should not be allowed. Biomass 

projects export nutrients from often nutrient-deficient sites, and reduce litter and 

ground cover, leading to greater site aridity. Biomass removal results in removal of 

woody debris and other important habitats for native wildfire, or plant materials that 

may be important for watershed stabilization, and that ultimately provides in-stream 

habitat structure for aquatic species, including TES [threatened, endangered, and 

sensitive] fish species. Biomass use is an extractive, commercial use of public lands 

with widespread harmful ecological impacts. 

Response: The program analyzed in the PER would utilize only a portion of the 

woody residue that is in excess of the levels necessary to maintain natural functions. 

The BLM Biomass Utilization Strategy (implemented through Instructional 

Memorandum No. 2005-192) has established the requirements that biomass will be 

offered for 50% of mechanical fuels treatments by Fiscal Year 2008. Where treatment 

includes removing biomass, best management practices will be applied that leave an 

appropriate amount of down woody to maintain ecological functions, such as nutrient 

cycling, wildlife habitat, and the native fire regime. These practices include avoiding 

whole tree removal, scattering tree tops, and prescribed burning following biomass 

removal to release nutrients from needles, twigs, and limbs left on site. Research has 

shown that the preponderance of nutrients is retained in needles, twigs, and small 

limbs rather than tree boles. 

Comment: Pg. 4-45 [of the Draft PER], the section on the effects of mechanical 

treatments in the Temperate Desert Ecoregion includes a statement that mechanical 

treatments which do not uproot vegetation would have little effect on plant species 

composition, other than an increase in cover of herbaceous species. The document 

goes on to state that shrubs would resprout fairly quickly. Big sagebrush does not 

resprout after mowing treatments, but rabbitbrush, desert peach, and ephedra species 

do. This type of treatment would favor a change in species composition toward 

rabbitbrush rather than sagebrush. In general, mechanical mowing treatments are not 

completely effective at killing sagebrush plants (Davis 1983). In this case, sagebrush 

plants surviving mechanical treatments will continue to grow and provide a seed 

source, but they do not resprout. Also mowing treatments would change species 

composition to favor herbaceous species rather than shrub species for several years. 

Response: Thank you for the additional information and clarifications. The text of 

the PER has been changed to include your information, as follows: “Mechanical 

treatments that do not uproot vegetation would have little overall effect on understory 

plant species composition. However, compositional changes to overstory shrub 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-564 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0040(1)-014 

Resource Concepts, 

Inc. 

RMC-0049-017 

Wilson, Robert E. 

(University of Nevada 

Cooperative 

Extension) 

species may occur, as certain shrub species are more adapted to this type of 

disturbance and would resprout readily, while others must reseed themselves from 

shrubs that survive treatment or from adjacent areas. Mowing treatments would favor 

herbaceous species rather than shrubs. However, mowing is generally not considered 

to be useful for long-term control of sagebrush, as the effects last less than 5 years 

(Davis 1983) and in general little overall effect on plant species composition would 

be expected in the long term.” 

Comment: Pg. [Page] 4-50 [of the Draft PER], only six percent of the annual 

graminoid or forb subclass in the Temperate Desert region is proposed for biological 

control methods. The document does not address the use of livestock grazing to 

control cheatgrass in monoculture stands or areas of dense infestation. This biological 

control method must be addressed in this section and added as a treatment method in 

the Temperate Desert ecoregion, even though BLM managers did not propose this 

treatment during the scoping of the document. Studies are underway in Nevada that 

will demonstrate the value and purpose for livestock grazing to occur on cheatgrass 

range as a means of cheatgrass control and wildfire presuppression. 

Response: The data in Table 4-12 of the PER represents projected treatments and are 

somewhat based on historic use of these different tools. The 6% figure in this table 

does not represent a cap, but is our best estimate based on projected future treatments 

(see Determination of Treatment Acreages in Chapter 1 of the PER). This table 

contains information on treatments such as “prescribed grazing,” which are 

specifically designed to control targeted invasive species or other undesirable 

vegetation, and changes in permitted actions (such as changes in the livestock grazing 

season of use on an ongoing grazing permit) are likely not fully represented by these 

figures. If new research reinforces the use of livestock to control downy brome and 

other fuels, that information will be taken into account as the BLM develops sitespecific plans, and the use of domestic livestock through either “prescribed grazing” 

or “permitted grazing” will likely increase. 

Comment: Page 4-35 [of the draft PER] The lack of information in Table 4-5 [of the 

Draft PER] leads the reader to inaccurate or incomplete conclusions. For example: 

Why is a particular species enhanced by fire? This is key information needed to 

address how a manager will address weed infestations following fire. It is currently 

information I have not seen included in BARE [Burned Area Emergency Response] 

team analysis. 

Response: There is much more specific information on fire effects than is appropriate 

for this general overview. More detailed information on the effects of fire on all but 

one of these species (cogongrass) can be found in the Fire Effects Information System 

(http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/welcome.htm). More detailed explanations of 

postfire vegetation recovery mechanisms can be found in Miller 2000 (Miller, M. 

2000. Fire autecology. Chapter 2 in Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on 

flora [J.K. Brown and J.K. Smith, Jane Kapler, eds.] General Technical Report 

RMRS-GTR-42. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. Ogden, Utah). 

Given that the recovery mechanisms and prefire abundance and condition of native 

plants and weedy species are known, the effects of a particular fire can be inferred 

from knowledge of the fire’s intensity and severity, and the size of patches created. 

These factors control the impact of the fire on the plant’s reproductive capacity, and 

determine the postfire environment, both of which can influence the duration of fire 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-565 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0081-004 

Arizona Game and 

Fish Department 

RMC-0081-008 

Arizona Game and 

Fish Department 

RMC-0222-087 

Salvo, Mark 

(Sagebrush Sea 

Campaign), Cox, 

Caroline (Northwest 

Coalition for 

Alternatives to 

Pesticides), and 

O’Brien, Mary 

effects on each species. 

Comment: The use of prescribed fire is the Department’s preferred alternative for 

vegetation treatments outside of the Sonoran and Mojave Desert ecozones. Fires 

timed to provide low-intensity, mosaic burns are preferred. We recognize fire may be 

ineffective in achieving management goals for areas dominated by cheatgrass [downy 

brome] and other invasive species, and that alternatives need to be explored. We 

strongly recommend that post-fire management include an appropriate level of 

grazing deferment, preferably at least two growing seasons. 

Response: The BLM will take all available site-specific information into account 

when developing treatment programs. In many cases where fire is used, low-intensity, 

mosaic burns will likely be preferred by the BLM. The presence of downy brome on 

a site will also been taken into account. In some cases, another treatment may be 

selected, or prescribed fires may be timed to occur before downy brome produces 

seeds, and combined with reseeding to encourage establishment of more desirable 

species. 

Chapter 2 of the PER, under Vegetation Treatment Standard Operating Procedures 

and Guidelines, lists the BLM’s Standard Operating Procedure to avoid grazing by 

domestic and wild animals on treatment sites until vegetation is well established. The 

appropriate length of time would be determined at the local level when developing 

treatment programs. 

Comment: Herbicide application alone, or combined with other treatments has 

proved effective in reducing noxious vegetation. Currently some application of this 

methodology, combined with mechanical control, is being used with some success in 

southeastern Arizona to restore Chihuahuan desert grasslands. We request close 

coordination between the BLM and the Department occur prior to application of 

herbicides due to the potential negative affects these may have on fish, wildlife, 

and/or native plant species. 

Response: It is the BLM’s intent to continue to coordinate with agencies regarding 

proposed vegetation treatments. As stated in Chapter 1 of the PEIS, the potential 

effects of herbicides on various resources will be analyzed at the regional, state, 

and/or project level as appropriate. The public and agencies will have an opportunity 

to participate in the environmental review process during the development and 

analysis of local vegetation management programs. 

Comment: As a non-NEPA document, the PER “gets away” with making claims 

minus scientific evidence. This reveals the lack of “equivalence” of the PER to a 

NEPA document. Example: Herbicides in sagebrush As noted later in these 

comments [page 28] in the case study regarding sagebrush and invasive species 

treatments in sage grouse habitats, there is a far more complicated relationship 

between herbicide and other sagebrush community treatments and sage grouse habitat 

that the simplistic conclusion that herbicide use leads to native vegetation ([Draft] 

PER [page] 4-53: notes in italics added): 

The use of herbicides would benefit plant communities [i.e., apparently without 

regard to whether the plant communities are exotic European livestock forage 

pastures] with weed infestations by decreasing the growth, seed production, and 

competitiveness of target plants, thereby releasing native species from competitive 

pressures (e.g. water, nutrient, and space availability) and aiding in their 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-566 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

reestablishment. [This assumes, without evidence, that it is competitive pressures and 

not trampling, compaction, or other pressures that is reducing or eliminating the 

native species and favoring invasive species.] The degree of benefit to native 

communities would depend on the toxicity of the herbicide to the target species, and 

its effects on non-target species as well as the success of the treatments over both the 

short and long term. [The preceding is tautological: “The degree of benefit to native 

communities would depend on...the success of the treatments.”] Some treatments are 

very successful at removing weeds over the short term but are not successful at 

promoting the establishment of native species in their place. In such cases, seeding of 

native plant species would be beneficial. [Neither the PER not the DEIS estimate 

what acreage would require seeding of native plant species; the amount of native seed 

this would require, nor the demonstrated success of such seedings under various 

habitat conditions] The success of treatments would depend on numerous factors, and 

could require the use of a combination of methods to combat undesirable species 

[Neither the PER nor DEIS estimate what acreage will require “a combination of 

methods” or what methods will be involved in those combinations.] 

There are no references offered for the above conclusions, and yet there is no 

effective way for scientists or others to challenge the conclusions, because the report 

is free of NEPA requirements for accuracy. 

Response: The PER summarizes information available from various scientific 

sources including information summarized in previous EISs undertaken by the 

agency. The list of references used in the development of the PER are found in 

Chapter 5 of the PER. See also responses to Comment RMC-0222-003 under 

Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis, Comment RMC-0222-

005 under PEIS Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Organization of the 

Vegetation Treatments Assessments, and Comment RMC-0222-082 under PEIS 

Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, Scope of Analysis for an explanation of the 

acres used and the relationship of the PER to the PEIS. 

In regard to the success of treatments, numerous examples of successes in restoring 

native plant communities are documented for the public on several agency websites 

related to implementing the National Fire Plan and Healthy Forest Restoration Act. 

The BLM’s Legacy Program also outlines the success of past treatments implemented 

over 25 years ago. BLM partners in Cooperative Weed Management Areas 

(CWMAs), such as the Montana Tri-State Weed Management Area, document 

accomplishments and successes in habitat restoration in their annual operating plans, 

also available on the Internet. Recent examples of accomplishments for the BLM 

from 2001 through 2006 are summarized in the U.S. Department of Interior’s 

Sustaining Landscapes and Habitat for Wildlife through Cooperative Conservation. 

Mark Shaefer, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, testifying before 

the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works in 1999 summarized BLM 

accomplishments for 1998 in completing 465 projects to improve 1,460 miles of 

stream corridors and wetlands, completed assessments of over 5,000 miles of streams 

and 20,000 acres of wetlands, and maintained 694 riparian and wetland improvement 

projects. In 2004, the Office and Management and Budget generally concluded the 

Habitat Restoration activities of the BLM were Moderately Effective for habitat 

restoration activities (available at: 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pma/interior.pdf. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-567 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0222-138 

Salvo, Mark 

(Sagebrush Sea 

Campaign), Cox, 

Caroline (Northwest 

Coalition for 

Alternatives to 

Pesticides), and 

O’Brien, Mary 

RMC-0233-038 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

RMC-0233-040 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

Comment: Ironically, while claiming that grazing management cannot be addressed 

in the PER, the BLM includes “livestock” as a “public land resource” (akin to water, 

wildlife, wilderness and other public values) ([Draft] PER: [page] 3-55) that will 

benefit from vegetation treatments described in the invasive species management. 

Livestock grazing is also identified as a tool for managing invasive species, even 

though grazing is a vector for invasive weeds ([Draft] PER: [page] 4-88). 

Response: See response to Comment RMC-0080-004 under PEIS Alternatives, 

Alternative E - No Use of Sulfonylurea and other Acetolactate Synthase-inhibiting 

Active Ingredients. With proper management and authorizations, grazing animals can 

be an effective tool in reducing hazardous fuels and maintaining the vegetative 

character of an area. The use of grazing animals for vegetative control is distinct from 

livestock grazing under the Taylor Grazing Act. 

Comment: The D[raft] PEIS/PER stares that “most of the mechanical treatments in 

evergreen shrubland would involve tilling or plowing of sagebrush, followed by 

seeding or drilling”. The Service has concerns regarding the proposed use of seeding 

in fragile evergreen shrubland habitats. By seeding areas, the BLM may inadvertently 

introduce invasive weeds to otherwise “weed-free” areas. Please reconsider this 

action in the final PEIS/PER. 

Response: Table 2-5 in Chapter 2 of the Final PER contains Standard Operating 

Procedures for revegetation activities. Prevention actions include the use of weed-free 

seed, hay, pellets, mulch, fill, gravel, soil, and mineral materials on public lands. 

Other measures listed in the table include power washing of equipment. BLM Manual 

direction (1742-1 and 1745) and subsequent policy direction (IM No. 2006-073) 

provide guidance on introduction of non-native species and use of weed-free seed on 

BLM-administered lands. Current policy requires testing of seed for noxious weeds 

and other invasive species of concern before accepting seed orders as a means of 

complying with internal guidance, state seed laws, and the Federal Seed Act 7 USC 

1551-1611. These measures are all designed to minimize the risk of introducing 

invasive species through revegetation and seeding activities. 

Comment: While there may be specific habitats for which it is true, there is no clear 

biological basis to support the general statement suggesting long-term benefits of 

prescribed fire on plants through reduction of fuel buildup. This is particularly the 

case in the arid west throughout which cheatgrass (downy brome; Bromus tectorum) 

is established and which spreads more readily with fire. Furthermore, this widelydistributed invasive grass increases the likelihood of future fire ignition where dense 

stands are established, increasing the likelihood of establishing even denser stands of 

cheatgrass. 

Response: Although there are some situations in which prescribed fire may not be 

beneficial in vegetation management (e.g., some areas with downy brome), as 

discussed in Chapter 3 of the PER, Vegetation, Ecological Processes that Underlie the 

Effects of Fire on Flora, prescribed fire can be important in restoring more normal fire 

regimes and reducing fuels buildup. In areas infested with downy brome, several 

treatment methods, early burning, and reseeding may be needed. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-568 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Effects of Vegetation Treatments, Fish and Other Aquatic Organisms 

RMC-0233-024 Comment: The loss of allochthonous materials should be addressed more directly. In 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife the effects section, BLM refers to the loss of allochthonous materials by removing 

Service Region 6 plant material in a round-about way (5-11 “limit populations of terrestrial and aquatic 

California/Nevada insects”). We would suggest adding language discussing a change in the energy 

Operations Office dynamics of the stream. This may be good (i.e. removing evergreen palms and 

replacing with deciduous ash) and allow more material to be blown in, etc.; however, 

impacts to the riparian system could affect nutrient dynamics which drive primary 

production and can ultimately affect aquatic listed species. 

Response: The text of the PER and Biological Assessment (BA) have been changed 

to include the recommended information on nutrient dynamics. See Chapter 5 of the 

BA, under Effects Common to All Treatment Methods, and Chapter 4 of the PER, 

under Effects to Special Status Fish and Other Aquatic Organisms. 

Effects of Vegetation Treatments, Wildlife Resources 

EMC-0234-020 Comment: The BLM document is relying on ancient supporting documents, like that 

Dremann, Craig on page 4-84 [of the Draft PER]: “Burning at 3- to 5-year intervals restores vigor and 

retards succession to optimize habitat for prairie chickens (Kirsch 1974),” --- theories 

that haven’t proved out in practice for the last three decades. 

Response: We have reviewed additional sources on burning and prairie chicken 

nesting and lekking habitat and found that some studies concur with the results 

presented above, while others disagree. We have presented both perspectives in the 

revised discussion of burning and prairie chicken habitat in Chapter 4 of the Final 

PER under Wildlife Resources. 

RMC-0081-007 Comment: We recommend the BLM use domestic grazing animals as a means of 

Arizona Game and vegetation treatment with caution. While certain grazing systems can and do provide 

Fish Department benefit to certain plant communities, our experience in arid ecosystems is less than 

satisfactory. Additionally, due to disease concerns, use of domestic sheep and/or 

goats is not acceptable in areas inhabited by bighorn sheep, or in any adjacent area 

where the potential for any contact with bighorn sheep could occur. 

Response: The BLM would consider potential effects to plant communities and 

ecosystems when developing treatment programs at the local level. The site 

conditions and the risks to native communities would be considered carefully. As 

stated in Chapter 4 of the PER, 90% of biological control treatments including those 

involving domestic animals, would occur in the Temperate Steppe and Mediterranean 

ecoregions, rather than arid desert ecosystems. 

The potential for domestic grazing animals to adversely affect bighorn sheep is 

discussed in the Biological Assessment (BA). The BA requires that the BLM 

implement the following conservation measure to reduce risks for transfer of viruses, 

parasites, and bacteria from domestic sheep to bighorn sheep: “Do not use domestic 

animals as a vegetation treatment in bighorn sheep habitat.” 

RMC-0144-012 Comment: Page 4-72 [of the Draft PER] statement: “The Wildlife Management 

Wyoming Game and Program, a sub-program under the Wildlife and Fisheries Management Program, is 

Fish Department responsible for wildlife management on public lands.” We request a clarification of 

this statement as the majority of wildlife management authority resides with the states 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-569 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0222-123 

Salvo, Mark 

(Sagebrush Sea 

Campaign), Cox, 

Caroline (Northwest 

Coalition for 

Alternatives to 

Pesticides), and 

O’Brien, Mary 

and is the responsibility of state fish and wildlife agencies. We again recommend 

additional development of a strong partnership in consultation and collaboration with 

state fish and wildlife agencies during the planning, development, execution and 

monitoring of vegetation treatments. We would also like assurances that current 

MOUs [Memoranda of Understanding] by and between state BLM offices and state 

agencies will be honored. 

Response: The BLM is responsible for wildlife habitat management on public lands, 

while state fish and wildlife agencies manage animal populations (i.e., through 

harvest regulations) on public lands, but also have an interest in how BLM habitat 

management actions affect wildlife populations. As discussed in Chapter 1 of the 

PER, Interrelationships and Coordination with Agencies, the BLM coordinates 

closely with other local, state, and federal agencies in the management of fish and 

wildlife habitat, and would continue to abide by previous MOUs developed with 

these agencies. 

Comment: The following information on effects of fire on sage grouse is excerpted 

from Rowland (2004), which was not referenced in the PER. 

Prescribed fire has been used not only to remove sagebrush, primarily to enhance 

livestock forage, but also with the expressed goal of improving habitat conditions 

for sage-grouse and other wildlife (Klebenow 1973). Although some studies have 

demonstrated neutral or even positive effects on sage-grouse habitats from fire 

(e.g., Martin 1990, Fischer 1994, Pyle and Crawford 1996, Crawford and Davis 

2002), others have documented population declines and long-term habitat 

degradation (Connelly et al. 2000a), Nelle et al. 2000). While some short-term 

benefits, such as increases in annual forbs, may accrue from prescribed burning, 

nesting cover in particular may be reduced and thus become less sustainable 

(Wrobleksi 1999, Nelle et al. 2000). A 9-yr [year] study in southeastern Idaho 

examined lek attendance in relation to prescribed burning and suggested that 

declines in breeding populations of sage-grouse were more severe following fire 

(Connelly et al. 2000a). The study area was Wyoming big sagebrush/bluebunch 

wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata) site, with 23 cm [centimeter] average 

annual precipitation. Four years of pre-treatment data were obtained before a 

5,000-ha [hectare] portion was burned; nearly 60% of the sagebrush was 

eliminated, leaving a mosaic of sagebrush and grassland types. Although declines 

in lek attendance occurred throughout the study in both treatment and control 

sites, declines were greater in the burned area. Following the burn, the number of 

active leks declined 58%, from 12 to 5, in the treatment versus 35%, from 17 to 

11, in the control. Furthermore, the mean number of males/lek postburn was 6 in 

the treatment versus 17 in the control, whereas these variable values had been 

similar at both sites prior to treatment. Attendance at the major leks following fire 

declined 90% at the treatment site versus 63% at the control. 

Response: Information similar to that provided in the comment is given in Chapter 4 

of the PER under Wildlife Resources. Also see response to Comment EMC-0585-211 

under PEIS Environmental Consequences, Wildlife Resources. However, we have 

included additional information on the effects of burning on sage-grouse habitat in the 

Final PER. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-570 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0233-013 Comment: Based on calculations using data provided in the draft PER and draft 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Biological Assessment, approximately 3,960,000 acres of temperate desert ecoregion 

Service Region 6 (which includes sagebrush) would be treated on an annual basis using fire, 

California/Nevada mechanical treatments and herbicide applications. This is nearly two-thirds of all the 

Operations Office annual treatments across all BLM lands. We are concerned at this time that only very 

general effects to species dependent on these habitats were provided in the D[raft] 

PEIS. Even though the Service has determined that the greater sage-grouse 

(Centrocercus urophasianus) is unwarranted for listing at this time, we continue to 

have concerns regarding sage-grouse population status, trends and threats, as well as 

concerns for other sagebrush obligates. We urge the BLM to use extreme caution in 

proposed application of vegetation management in sagebrush ecosystems in the final 

PEIS/PER so as to not further exacerbate causes of decline for this species, and other 

sagebrush obligates. 

Response: As discussed in the PER under Vegetation, Adverse Effects of 

Treatments, approximately 50% of treatments would occur in the Temperate Desert 

Ecoregion. As discussed in Chapter 4 of the PER, the BLM recognizes that treatments 

have both beneficial and adverse affects on species using sagebrush habitats, 

including sage-grouse. Improving habitat for sagebrush obligate species is an 

important goal of vegetation management in this ecoregion, and the BLM would 

strive to implement projects that meet program objectives—control invasive species 

and reduce hazardous fuels—while also improving habitat for wildlife. 

RMC-0233-015 Comment: Mechanical treatments, if carefully designed and executed, can be 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife beneficial to sage-grouse by improving herbaceous cover, forb production, and 

Service Region 6 resprouting of sagebrush (Braun 1998). However, adverse effects have also been 

California/Nevada documented (Connelly et al. 2000). Mechanical treatments in blocks greater than 100 

Operations Office ha [hectare] (247 ac [acres]), or of any size seeded with exotic grasses, degrade sagegrouse habitat by altering the structure and composition of the vegetative community 

(Braun 1998). 

Response: The PER under Wildlife Resources discusses the need to keep treatment 

blocks generally about 250 acres or less to ensure a mosaic of habitat types and 

minimize habitat fragmentation. We have included the information discussed above 

in the Final PER under Wildlife Resources, Effects of Mechanical and Manual 

Treatments. 

Effects of Vegetation Treatments, Livestock 

RMC-0217-025 Comment: The BLM is also confused about the effects of livestock grazing on exotic 

Sierra Club Utah plants. “Domestic animals, such as cattle, sheep, or goats, control the top-growth of 

Chapter certain non-native invasive and noxious weeds which can help to waken the plants, 

and reduce the reproduction potential. ([Draft] PER [page] 2-12) This seems to 

happen magically to non-native invasive and noxious weeds but not to native plants. 

The BLM never acknowledges that grazing harms all plants in the same way it harms 

any plants such as exotics or weeds. 

Response: The PER does not suggest that authorized grazing would automatically 

result in control of invasive or noxious species. The use of domestic animals to 

control undesirable vegetation implies “prescribed grazing” specifically designed to 

control a particular invasive species (grazing would occur during a period of time 

when it is most likely to damage the undesirable vegetation, and animals would be 

concentrated on the area of infestation). “Prescribed grazing” is a viable option in 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-571 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

many, although certainly not all, situations. For instance, if both undesirable and 

desirable plant species were present and vulnerable to grazing at approximately the 

same times, the use of domestic livestock to help control the undesirable vegetation 

would not be very effective. As discussed under Biological Control in the section on 

Vegetation Treatment Methods, the potential effects to desirable competing species 

are identified, and if deemed necessary, restriction of grazing during critical growth 

periods for these species is recommended. The potential for overgrazing desired 

vegetation, rather than the undesirable vegetation, is also identified. Statements 

indicating that domestic animals would likely affect non-target vegetation or other 

resources are also found under the Effects of Biological Treatments in the Vegetation 

and Wildlife Resources sections of Chapter 4 of the PER. The PEIS team did 

acknowledge that grazing can affect both undesirable and desirable plants, but if 

carefully timed and planned, “prescribed grazing” can be used to help control 

undesirable vegetation in some situations. 

RMC-0217-027 Comment: Many weed species are less palatable than desired vegetation, so the 

Sierra Club Utah animals may overgraze desired vegetation rather than the weeds. ([Draft] PER [page] 

Chapter 2-12). This is another piece of magic. Suddenly the livestock are no longer going to 

eat the non-native and noxious weeds noted just a few paragraphs earlier. In fact this 

is again one of the serious flaws in assuming that livestock can perform any kind 

weed control. Unless someone leads the cattle or sheep from plant to plant and forces 

it to eat the less desirable species it will not happen. 

Response: Concerning livestock control of non-native invasive species, the PER 

states that domestic animals control the top growth of “certain” non-native invasive 

and noxious weeds. Some undesirable species can be affected by grazing, but other 

undesirable species may not be readily controlled by livestock grazing. Therefore, 

although using domestic animals to graze undesirable vegetation is a viable option in 

some situations, it would not be effective in all situations and must be evaluated on a 

site-by-site basis. Using domestic animals to graze undesirable vegetation requires 

careful planning and knowledge of both the undesirable plant species and the species 

of animal being used to help control that vegetation. There will continue to be many 

situations in which the use of domestic animals to control vegetation would be 

ineffective, and could result in adverse impacts to other resources. Recent research, 

however, indicates that animals can be “conditioned” or trained to consume some 

undesirable plant species in greater quantities without causing significant impacts to 

the more desirable vegetation. This research may improve our ability to use domestic 

grazing animals to control vegetation in the future. 

Effects of Vegetation Treatments, Wilderness and Special Areas 

RMC-0057-008 Comment: Before mechanical treatments are used managers should consider whether 

California Wilderness the area is managed for motorized or non-motorized recreation (such as those 

Coalition managed under a semi-primitive non-motorized recreational opportunity spectrum) 

should not be subjected to mechanical treatments. 

Response: The purpose of this PEIS is to provide broad environmental analysis and 

information for vegetation treatments that can be used by local BLM field offices to 

support local land-use planning. Land use plans, developed with public input, will 

analyze the various vegetation treatment methods suitable for specific areas. 

Mechanical treatments in areas where the setting character is managed to provide a 

semi-primitive non-motorized recreation experience generally would not be allowed. 

The authorized officer could use one of the other methods available, such as 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-572 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

prescribed fire, manual, or biological treatments for this area. 

Mechanical treatments may be appropriate in areas where a decision has been made 

to restrict recreation access to non-motorized modes. Generally the recreation 

opportunity spectrum is meant to apply to the management of recreation activities, 

which may differ significantly in nature and impact from a mechanical treatment 

being applied for purposes other than recreation. Recreation and other resources must 

be considered on a site-specific basis in the process of making a decision to apply 

mechanical treatments. 

RMC-0057-011 Comment: The D[raft] PEIS [Draft PER] states “The focus of the PER is not to 

California Wilderness restrict, limit, or eliminate FLPMA [Federal Land Policy Management Act]-

Coalition authorized activities as a means to restore land health” ([page] 1-6 [of the Draft 

PER]). Yet by allowing mechanical treatments in areas with wilderness 

characteristics, the plan is likely to encourage motorized uses that are inconsistent 

with land use plans. As a result, the plan will negatively impact non-motorized 

recreation in areas that were planned as such in local land use plans. 

Response: All proposed projects are required to be in conformance and consistent 

with local land use plans. Effects of treatments under any method, including 

mechanical, to areas with wilderness characteristics, would be addressed in sitespecific NEPA analysis at the time the project is proposed. 

RMC-0144-013 Comment: [PER page] 3-107 Should add Wyoming Wilderness Study Areas. 

Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department Response: Map 3-12 has been revised in the PEIS and PER to show Wilderness 

Study Areas in Wyoming. 

Biological Assessment for Vegetation Treatments on Bureau of Land 

Management Lands in 17 Western States 

EMC-0238-006 Comment: In analyzing risks of exposure from the various active ingredients 

California Partners in proposed for use under the Alternatives, the Biological Assessment [BA] lists a risk 

Flight to large ungulates and others from long-term exposure when animals spend 

significant time foraging within a treated area. To minimize the opportunity for such 

risk, we recommend that large target areas be treated in a mosaic pattern, treating an 

area multiple times if necessary, to decrease the likelihood that animals will forage on 

treated vegetation for an extended period of time. 

Response: The PEIS recognizes the risks to large mammals from consuming large 

quantities of grass that has been treated with certain herbicides. The mitigation 

presented in the PEIS includes several measures to minimize impacts to wildlife that 

forage on grass, including minimizing the size of application areas for certain 

herbicides, applying certain herbicides only at the typical application rate, limiting 

application of certain herbicides to spot treatments in rangeland and wildlife habitat 

areas, and not applying certain herbicides in rangelands at all. In addition, the PEIS 

presents additional mitigation for threatened, endangered, and sensitive (TES) 

wildlife species that is based on the mitigation presented in the Biological Assessment 

and is more protective. These mitigation measures include (but are not limited to) not 

broadcast spraying many of the herbicides proposed for use in habitats used by TES 

large ungulates. At the local level, treatment programs will be planned to minimize 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-573 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0274-003 

Noble, Emily A. 

EMC-0525-024 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-236 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

effects to any large ungulates that may be present, using these mitigation measures as 

a guideline. Additional mitigation may be developed at the local level, as appropriate. 

The decision to treat areas in a mosaic pattern, should it be appropriate, would be 

made at the local level. 

Comment: How will herbicides affect endangered species? Is this an effort to shut 

up those birdlovers who cherish rare and not-so-rare species? 

Response: The BLM cooperated extensively with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

and National Marine Fisheries Service (Services) during development of the PEIS, 

PER, ecological risk assessment protocol, and ecological risk assessments. Members 

of these agencies participated in several meetings and on weekly calls for nearly a 

year during development of the risk assessment protocol to ensure that their concerns 

regarding threatened and endangered species and other species of concern were 

addressed. The BLM prepared a Biological Assessment (BA) to accompany the PEIS, 

which addressed the effects of treatments on threatened and endangered species. The 

Services reviewed the BA and made a determination of the likely effects to threatened 

and endangered species and species proposed for listing from the proposed vegetation 

treatments. 

Comment: The [P]EIS, PER, Biological Assessment, Risk Assessment and all other 

documents ignore the realities of the current ecological conditions and status of native 

biota across arid BLM lands. Instead, BLM blindly proposes more of the same 

activities that have caused these conditions and species declines in the first place! No 

effort is made to assess, in a biologically meaningful way, the direct, indirect and 

cumulative impacts of the [P]EIS/PER on small, isolated populations of declining 

native special status and T&E [threatened and endangered] species in fragmented 

landscapes. 

Response: The direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of treatments on special 

status populations is discussed in most detail in the Biological Assessment (BA), and 

a summary is provided in Chapter 4 of the PEIS and PER. Factors leading to 

fragmentation, and the role herbicides and other treatments would play in reducing 

fragmentation, are discussed in the Cumulative Effects Analysis in Chapter 4 of the 

PEIS. Loss and fragmentation of habitat has contributed to the decline of some 

species, as discussed in the BA. However, public lands provide large blocks of habitat 

that are impacted minimally by human activities. These lands reduce fragmentation 

and contribute to the protection and conservation of sensitive species. 

Comment: The wording in the Intro of the Weed BA [Biological Assessment], really 

twists the mind. The increase in treatments is described as the “Proposed Action”. 

Yet, there has never been any NEPA review of the Proposed Action, which treats 

much more acreage than was ever proposed to be treated before, or assessed in the old 

stack of NEPA docs. The “treatment” covered by the BA is not just herbicide 

treatment - it is all methods of killing trees and shrubs such as sagebrush. 

Response: The BA is required under the Endangered Species Act for federal actions 

that have the potential to impact listed species, and species proposed for listing. Nonherbicide treatment methods were not evaluated in the PEIS because they have been 

analyzed in earlier NEPA EISs. However, the Services felt that to adequately address 

impacts to listed and proposed species under the Endangered Species Act, especially 

since a BA was not prepared as part of the earlier EISs, an assessment of potential 

impacts to species from all treatment methods was needed under the ESA to meet 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-574 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EMC-0585-237 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

EMC-0585-238 

Western Watersheds 

Project 

RMC-0208-027 

California Oak 

Foundation 

consultation requirements. 

Comment: BA [Biological Assessment] at [page] 1-1: “At the time earlier EISs were 

completed, the BLM was proposing to treat only about 16% of the total acreage that 

would be treated under the program that is now being proposed”. This exposes the 

fallacy of the BLM claim that the old EISs covered the effects of the non-herbicide 

vegetation treatments to be conducted. 

Response: The previous EISs addressed the use and effects of non-herbicide 

treatments in the areas for which the EISs were developed. The use of non-herbicide 

methods in an integrated pest management framework has been affirmed in all past 

EIS records of decision, based on impact analysis. This PEIS does not propose any 

new decisions relative to the use of non-herbicide treatments. The determination of 

acres assessed in this PEIS is discussed under Determination of Treatment Acres in 

Chapter 1 of the PER. Although the acres identified for analysis exceed estimates of 

earlier EISs, the actual number of acres treated is dependant upon the goals and 

objectives identified in individual land use plans, many of which are still in place 

since the previous EISs were developed. This PEIS does not authorize specific 

treatments nor increase the rate of treatments over current implementation. The 

impacts relative to non-herbicide treatments are estimated to be the same as the 

impacts identified in previous EISs. 

Comment: BLM has prepared the BA [Biological Assessment] to be used just like 

the Programmatic Risk Assessment – to provide ESA [Endangered Species Act] 

consultation coverage for all of these greatly expanded actions that have never 

undergone NEPA. 

Response: As noted for Comment EMC-0585-236 under Biological Assessment, 

non-herbicide treatment actions were evaluated in earlier EISs. However, BAs to 

address the potential effects of BLM treatments to listed and proposed species were 

not done concurrently with earlier EISs. Thus, at the request of the Services, the BLM 

evaluated all treatment methods as part of the BA. 

Comment: Although the Draft BA [Biological Assessment] addresses some of these 

special status species, it omits at least four that are known to inhabit oak woodlands. 

Specifically, the Draft BA failed to include discussion of the following endangered 

species: the long-toed salamander (Ambystoma macrodactylum); the loggerhead 

shrike (Lanius ludovicianus); the little pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris): 

and the mountain beaver (Aplodontia rufa). Based on these omissions alone, the Draft 

BA is inadequate. (City of Sausalito v. O’Neill (9th Cir. 2004) 386 F.3d 1186, 1216 

[explaining that appellate courts “will find a biological assessment inadequate only if 

the agency ‘entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem’ ”].) 

Moreover, these endangered species are only those species associated with oak 

woodlands. It seems likely that if the BA failed to account for these species, it failed 

to account for endangered or threatened species that inhabit other ecosystems. This 

constitutes a deficiency in the Draft BA and the Draft PEIS. (Ibid.) 

Response: These four listed species—the long-toed salamander (Ambystoma 

macrodactylum croceum ), the San Clemente loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus 

mearnsi), the little pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris pacificus), and the 

mountain beaver (Aplodontia rufa nigra)—do not reside on BLM-administered lands 

and were not identified nor included in the species list provided by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service for the consultation. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-575 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0233-019 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

RMC-0233-021 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

RMC-0233-022 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

Comment: Blanket statements regarding buffers may not always be appropriate. 

Some taxonomic groups of plants are more susceptible to herbicide effects and may 

require larger buffers as protection from herbicide drift. Often these sensitivities are 

included on the herbicide label; i.e., legumes are particularly susceptible to Milestone. 

In some cases they are not on the label; i.e., the Crassulaceae as a group are generally 

highly susceptible to glyphosate. This information is difficult to compile because it is 

often based on anecdotal experience under field conditions; however some attempt 

should be made to differentiate buffers for specific groups of plants, where possible, 

and this information should be added to the BA [Biological Assessment] as general 

guidance to field offices. For the Final PEIS/PER, please include an allowance for 

field offices to be allowed the flexibility of customizing buffers based on their site 

conditions if sufficient technical information or field experience is available to 

support the buffer size. 

Response: The buffer distances provided in the Conservation Measures section for 

plants are based on conservative models and are intended to provide broad-level 

guidance for preventing impacts to non-target threatened, endangered, and proposed 

for listing (TEP) plants. Surrogate plants species for risk assessments were selected 

from classes of plants most susceptible to the herbicide being analyzed, and Toxicity 

Reference Values for TEP plants were developed conservatively using highly 

sensitive endpoints (such as germination). Although buffers derived from risk 

assessments are intended to be protective of all TEP plant species, they do not 

consider all information about individual species or site conditions at the project 

level. It is intended that such information will be considered when conservation 

measures are developed at the local level. As stated in the effects summary, additional 

conservation measures would also need to be developed by local offices and 

developed into site-specific BAs in order to ensure a determination of not likely to 

adversely affect. The text of the BA has been changed to include modification of the 

conservation measures presented in the BA, as appropriate. 

Comment: We offer the following information for your final BA [Biological 

Assessment] on the Aquatics Section for this project: A) Spray herbicide applications 

should have adequate zones and not applied during a time that would impact 

spawning for each individual species. This would include run-off from seasonal 

events (including summer monsoons), B) Vegetation control activities should not 

result in an altered aquatic habitat. Alterations to aquatic habitat that should be 

considered include changes in sedimentation, nutrient availability, light and thermal 

load. 

Response: The conservation measures presented in Chapter 5 of the BA incorporate 

the provided recommendations. These measures have been developed as the 

minimum steps that would be required to prevent impacts to aquatic species and their 

habitats. Additional conservation measures would be developed at the local level, as 

appropriate, based on more specific knowledge of the habitat and life history of the 

suite of listed species that could be affected by proposed treatment programs. 

Comment: Overall, the species accounts for Nevada species were very good. The 

Service’s field office in southern Nevada can provide some additional references for 

the Ash Meadows naucorid. We suggest they use and include updated census data for 

aquatic species in southern Nevada from the Nevada Department of Wildlife. 

Response: Given its breadth and the time spent compiling information in the 

Biological Assessment (BA), it contains some outdated information, as an exhaustive 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-576 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0233-023 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

RMC-0233-026, 028 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

RMC-0233-027 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

literature review for each species was not feasible. It would be impossible for the 

BLM to continually update the information for every species in the BA. However, the 

BLM believes that the information contained in the BA is suitable for a programmatic 

analysis of effects. Since all aquatic species were lumped together for the effects 

analysis, additional census information would not have a bearing on this analysis. 

However, updated information will be included into species accounts done for BAs at 

the project level and the BLM will contact local and state fish and wildlife agencies 

for assistance in completing biological assessments at the local level. 

Comment: All pupfish were combined and the section is not as thorough as, for 

example, the springfish sections. The section should be expanded for consistency 

sake. The Owens pupfish varies greatly from the Devils Hole pupfish. It will be 

difficult to show effects to any pupfish in Nevada from BLM activities other than 

residual effects within the food chain; however, there are Ash Meadows Amargosa 

pupfish on BLM lands in Nevada. 

Response: The text of the Final Biological Assessment has been changed in response 

to this comment. Pupfish have been covered in more detail. See the appropriate 

pupfish background sections in Chapter 5. 

Comment: There are no known occurrences for the Western prairie fringed orchid 

(Plantanthera praeclara) in Montana or Wyoming or pallid sturgeon 

(Scaphirhynchus albus) in Colorado or Wyoming. Additionally, the piping plover 

(Charadrius melodus) and interior least tern (Sterna antillarum) are only migrants in 

Wyoming and do not nest there. However, impacts to these species could still occur 

from activities in Wyoming if any management activities result in depletion to the 

South Platte River system (e.g. water drafting for fire management) This is also true 

for the whooping crane (Grus americana) and bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). 

There are no known occurrences of the American burying beetle (Nicrophorus 

americanus) in Wyoming. 

Response: The states listed in the table refer to the location of local BLM offices. In 

most cases the office state is equivalent to the state in which the species occurs. In 

some cases, however, the local office administers BLM lands in more than one state. 

As explained in footnote #1 to Table 1-1 of the Biological Assessment (BA), in these 

cases, a species may occur in one or more of these states, and may not occur in the 

same state as the BLM office. The western prairie fringed orchid, pallid sturgeon, 

piping plover, interior least tern, and American burying beetle occur in Nebraska 

(which falls under the Wyoming office). In response to this comment, Colorado has 

been removed from the pallid sturgeon line in Table 1-1 of the Final BA. The 

whooping crane and bald eagle appear in Wyoming, according to the USFWS 

Threatened and Endangered Species System Web Site. 

Comment: The humpback chub (Gila cypha), bonytail chub (Gila elegans), 

Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius) and razorback sucker (Xyrauchen 

texanus) do not occur in Wyoming. However, impacts to these species could still 

occur from activities in Wyoming if any management activities result in a depletion 

to the Green River system, including the Little Snake River of the Colorado River 

system (e.g. water drafting for fire management). 

Response: The text of the Final Biological Assessment (BA) has been changed in 

response to this comment. See footnote #1 in Table 1-1 of the BA. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-577 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0233-029 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

RMC-0233-030 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

RMC-0233-031 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

RMC-0233-032 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

RMC-0233-033 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

RMC-0233-037 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

Comment: Critical Habitat for the desert yellowhead (Yermo xanthocephalus) is 

present on BLM lands in the amount of 360 acres. 

Response: Table 1-1 of the Final Biological Assessment (BA) has been changed in 

response to this comment. 

Comment: There is an approved recovery plan for the Kendall Warm Springs dace 

(Rhinichthys osculus thermal) (USFWS, 1982). 

Response: Table 1-1 of the Final Biological Assessment (BA) has been changed in 

response to this comment. 

Comment: The whooping crane has been extirpated from Wyoming. We also 

suggest the BLM delete the paragraph regarding the Grays Lake whooping crane 

flock as that flock has been extirpated (page 6-87 [of the Biological Assessment]). 

Response: See responses to Comment RMC-0233-027 under the Biological 

Assessment and Comment RMC-0233-029 under the Biological Assessment. The 

whooping crane occurs in Nebraska, which falls under the Wyoming office. The text 

of the Final Biological Assessment has been changed in response to this comment. 

See the whooping crane background section in Chapter 6 of the BA. 

Comment: There are five geographic recovery plans written for the bald eagle. For 

Wyoming and Montana please refer to “Recovery Plan for the Pacific Bald Eagle,” 

(USFWS, 1986). For Colorado and Utah, refer to the “Northern States Bald Eagle 

Recovery Plan,” (USFWS, 1983). 

Response: Table 1-1 of the Final Biological Assessment (BA) has been changed in 

response to this comment. Local BLM offices will consult whichever recovery plan is 

geographically applicable when doing ESA [Endangered Species Act] consultation at 

the project level. 

Comment: The gray wolf (Canis lupus) is listed as experimental nonessential 

throughout Wyoming and portions of Montana and Idaho, i.e. the Yellowstone and 

central Idaho nonessential experimental populations (NEPs) (FR [Federal Register] 

Volume 70, No. 4, 2005). However, for purposes of Section 7 consultation, the gray 

wolf is considered threatened on any National Park or National Wildlife Refuge 

within these two NEPs. In Colorado, Utah, and the rest of Montana it is listed as 

Endangered. 

Response: Table 1-1 of the Final Biological Assessment (BA) has been changed in 

response to this comment. Because the state-by-state listing status for the gray wolf is 

complex and confusing, the table has been revised so that the states of concern are 

presented without their associated listing status. Local BLM offices will determine 

which wolf Distinct Population Segments or experimental, non-essential populations 

would potentially be affected by proposed treatment programs. 

Comment: The information regarding blowout penstemon (Penstemon haydenii) is 

outdated. While this species does occur in Nebraska, it was also discovered in 

Wyoming in 2000. The plant’s current known range in Wyoming consists of the 

Ferris dunes area in northwest Carbon County where the plant is restricted to two 

habitat types: steep, northwest facing slopes of active sand dunes with less than 5 

percent vegetative cover; and on north facing sandy slopes, on the lee side of active 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-578 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0233-041 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

RMC-0233-042 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

RMC-0233-044 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

blowouts with 25-40 percent vegetative cover. Recent surveys have indicated that 

systematic surveys are warranted in all lower elevations (below 6700 feet) in 

Wyoming where sand blowout features are located. Threats to the plant occur when 

sand dunes are removed or are overly disturbed by vehicular traffic. 

Response: The text of the Final Biological Assessment (BA) has been changed in 

response to this comment. See the blowout penstemon background section in Chapter 

4 of the BA. 

Comment: There is not an adequate biological basis provided to support the assumed 

plant responses to fire in Table 4-1 (Biological Assessment), especially the beneficial 

effects assumed for the blowout penstemon, Colorado butterfly plant (Gaura 

neomexicanu vav. coloradensis), and Ute ladies’-tresses orchid (Spiranthes 

diluvialis). These species may have an equal likelihood of experiencing adverse 

effects due to fire as a result of habitat condition, species biology, life-stage of plants 

present and that stage’s response to fire, plant community at specific location, and 

land management. Based on information provided, an adverse effect should be 

assumed for these species. 

Response: Table 4-1 in the Final Biological Assessment (BA) has been changed in 

response to these concerns. 

Comment: Refer to the Recovery Plan for the Endangered and Threatened Species of 

Ash Meadows, Nevada (http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plans/1990/900928d.pdf) 

for better biological information for Ash Meadows endemic species. The additional 

information for Amargosa niterwort is incorrect. The niterwort is generally found 

adjacent to the active stream channel in the Carson Slough and appears to be adapted 

to periodic disturbance related to flooding and sediment deposition. Characterizing 

both the Amargosa niterwort and Ash meadows milkvetch as part of a climax 

community is not appropriate given their habitat dynamics. These communities have 

very little, if any, serial succession as classically defined. Additional information 

provided for the Ash Meadows milkvetch, Ash Meadows sunray, and Ash Meadows 

blazing star is also inaccurate. These species are also found in upland areas not 

directly associated with springs and spring flows from the Ash Meadows aquifer. See 

the Ash Meadows Recovery Plan and update the threats to all species. An additional 

threat to the spring loving centaury, Ash Meadows ivesia, Ash Meadows gumplant, 

Ash Meadows blazing star, Ash Meadows sunray includes competition with non 

native plant species. 

Response: The text of the Final Biological Assessment (BA) has been changed in 

response to this comment. See Table 4-1 and the background sections for the Ash 

Meadows plant species in Chapter 4 of the BA. 

Comment: Based on the lack of site specific details regarding project implementation 

and the lack of a biological support regarding assumptions about potential project 

related impacts to plants, we do not believe that the proposed Conservation Measures 

identified for plants reduce the level of impact to a “not likely to adversely effect” 

determination. To ensure this. Additional Conservation Measures would need to be 

developed for these species on a site-specific basis. 

Response: The BLM submitted the Biological Assessment to the Services as part of 

consultation for the proposed vegetation treatment program. They will determine if 

additional conservation measures are needed to ensure a “not likely to adversely 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-579 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0233-045 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

RMC-0233-047 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

RMC-0233-049 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

RMC-0233-050 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

RMC-0233-051 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

RMC-0233-052 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

affect” determination for plants. 

Comment: Statement should be reworded “Where seeding is warranted, bare areas 

should be seeded as soon as possible after treatment ....”' Many herbicides have 

residual effects on seed germination and seedling establishment. Reseeding and any 

revegetation activities following herbicide treatment should take this into account. 

Using “as soon as appropriate” would be better wording. 

Response: The suggested rewording has been incorporated in the Biological 

Assessment. The BLM follows current policy, uses the best available science, and 

relies on the professional judgment of employees in making determinations on when 

seedings take place. 

Comment: Third sentence states “....but maintains good numbers of [Pahranagat 

roundtail chub] adults in a single microhabitat in the lower portion of the natural 

channel (Hardy 1982).” This statement is inaccurate. The last survey (2001) indicated 

a population no larger than 17 individuals. The population is very susceptible to 

extirpation in the wild. 

Response: The text of the Final Biological Assessment (BA) has been changed in 

response to this comment. See the Pahranagat roundtail chub background section in 

Chapter 5 of the BA. 

Comment: Replace last sentence with “[Woundfin] Spawning occurs April to July, 

depending upon the timing of snow melt runoff, which should be during the period of 

declining flows.” 

Response: The text of the Final Biological Assessment (BA) has been changed in 

response to this comment. See the woundfin background section in Chapter 5 of the 

BA. 

Comment: Increased turbidity may affect [Mohave tui chub] larvae or juveniles but 

adults appear to tolerate turbidity. 

Response: The subject of this comment is not clear. The page number given in the 

comment (5-29) does not contain a discussion of the Mohave tui chub, as indicated. 

Comment: Main threats [to the Nevada speckled dace] include predation by tilapia, 

and habitat loss due to declining water flows. The species is restricted by its cold 

water intolerance. 

Response: The text of the Final Biological Assessment (BA) has been changed in 

response to this comment. See the Nevada speckled dace background section in 

Chapter 5 of the BA. 

Comment: The habitat of the Kendall Warm Springs Dace (Rhinchthys osculus 

thermalis) is currently owned and managed by the USFS [U.S. Forest Service], 

Bridger Teton National Forest. Therefore, this species should he removed from the 

analysis of effects, or the BLM should clarify if vegetation treatments would be 

occurring on lands where there will be potential affects to hydrology on USFS lands. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-580 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0233-053 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

RMC-0233-054 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

RMC-0233-055 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

Response: The text of the Final Biological Assessment (BA) has been changed in 

response to this comment. See the Kendall Warm Springs dace background section in 

Chapter 5 of the BA. 

Comment: The BA [Biological Assessment] states that “a fire capable of consuming 

a large amount of vegetation and exposing a large area of bare soil would likely result 

in a surge of nutrients into the aquatic system. This temporary increase in nutrients 

could temporarily benefit many TEP [threatened, endangered, and proposed] fish 

species by increasing food production” (page 5-56 [of the Draft BA]). While there 

may be long-term benefits of nutrient loading of aquatic systems after prescribed fire, 

or other vegetation methods, we believe that the BA does not adequately address the 

short term, direct and indirect effects of the proposed vegetation treatment methods 

on threatened, endangered and proposed aquatic species. Gresswell (1999) 

summarizes the results of numerous research reports which have identified direct and 

indirect effects to aquatic species from vegetation treatments. We request this 

information be incorporated into the analysis of direct and indirect physical, chemical 

and biological effects of vegetation treatments to those threatened, endangered and 

proposed species and included in the final BA for the final PEIS/PER. 

Response: The direct and indirect effects of fire on aquatic habitats and species in 

Greswell (1999) are discussed in the Draft BA. Biomass reduction and sedimentation 

are discussed under Effects Common to All Treatment Methods, and the other effects 

specific to fire are discussed under the Prescribed Fire Treatments subheading. 

Additional information from the Gresswell paper has been incorporated into the 

effects analysis of the Final BA, Chapter 5. 

Comment: This section seems directed towards salmon. We would recommend in 

the basins that do not contain trout but have other sensitive aquatics; that ground 

disturbing activities would be considered on a case-by-case basis and BMPs would be 

implemented to ensure minimal erosion or impact to the aquatic habitat. Insects and 

mollusks may not have a specific date where they are more sensitive to disturbance, 

and many of the fish in the desert have longer breeding/larvae periods (i.e. 

springfish). 

Response: The text of the Final Biological Assessment (BA) has been changed in 

response to this comment. See the Conservation Measures section in Chapter 5 of the 

BA. 

Comment: The draft BA [Biological Assessment] states that “within riparian areas, 

do not fuel/refuel equipment, store fuel, or perform equipment maintenance (locate all 

fueling and fuel storage areas, as well as service landings outside of protected riparian 

areas).” The Service recommends revised wording for this statement as presented: 

“Within 150 feet of wetlands or riparian areas, do not fuel/refuel equipment, store 

fuel, or perform equipment maintenance (locate all fueling and fuel storage areas, as 

well as service landings outside of protected riparian areas).” 

Response: The text of the Final BA has been changed in response to this comment. 

See the Conservation Measures section in Chapter 5 of the BA. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-581 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0233-056 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

RMC-0233-057 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

RMC-0233-058 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

RMC-0233-059 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

Comment: We question the need for fertilizer in desert habitats, and it generally 

should not be used in this habitat. Additionally, excess nitrogen in runoff can cause 

algal blooms and eutrophication in aquatic systems. 

Response: The text of the Final Biological Assessment (BA) has been changed in 

response to this comment. See the Conservation Measures section in Chapter 5 of the 

BA. 

Comment: Several of the bullets say the same thing. Appropriate dispersion 

techniques used for range management should be employed to prevent damage to 

riparian areas but increase weed control. This includes judicial placement of 

saltblocks, troughs, fencing. This should be analyzed on a case-by-case. If it is 

deemed that livestock will negatively impact a riparian area, then it would he logical 

to exclude them. If placement of these items would enhance the weed-control 

effectiveness without damaging the riparian system (erosion, etc.), then they should 

not be excluded. 

Response: The text of the Final Biological Assessment (BA) has been changed in 

response to this comment. See the Conservation Measures section in Chapter 5 of the 

BA. 

Comment: The current distribution of the Wyoming toad is limited to Mortenson 

Lake National Wildlife Refuge (MLNWR) and possibly Hutton Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge (HLNWR). The toad was also recently reintroduced to a small 

research project site in the Laramie Plains (2003) and on private land in Centennial, 

Wyoming (June 2005) as a result of a Safe Harbor Agreement dated August 2004. 

Current recommendations call for surveys when proposed projects occur within 1 

mile of any border of MLNWR or HLNWR during the toad’s active season (May 

through September). Please incorporate new occupied sites as they become 

established into the guidelines for the final PEIS/PER. We request the BLM insure 

that current recovery efforts would not be impacted by the proposed vegetation 

management actions, and that proposed activities would not limit recovery 

opportunities for this species in the final PEIS/PER. 

Response: The text of the Final Biological Assessment (BA) has been changed to 

include the information provided in the first part of this comment. See the background 

section on the Wyoming toad in Chapter 6 of the BA. The BLM will take current 

recommendations about where all TEP (threatened, endangered, and protected) 

amphibians/reptiles may occur into account when conducting surveys prior to 

treatments. As discussed under Background in the BA, information presented in the 

document is likely to change over time. Any new sites that become established by the 

Wyoming toad in the future will be considered during consultations at the local level 

prior to vegetation treatments. At the local level, the BLM will take into account 

recovery efforts for all species when developing its treatment programs. 

Comment: The use of prescribed fire in the Mojave Desert has not been considered a 

tool to benefit desert tortoise habitat. The Mojave desert scrub plant community is not 

fire-adapted and does not recover for many years following fire. Therefore, we 

recommend that prescribed fires do not occur in desert tortoise habitat. The fourth 

sentence under Indirect Effects is inaccurate; desert tortoises do not require open, 

grassy areas. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-582 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0233-060 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

RMC-0233-061 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

Response: The text of the Final Biological Assessment (BA) has been changed in 

response to this comment. See the sections on indirect effects of prescribed fire 

treatments on amphibians and reptiles, and conservation measures for amphibians and 

reptiles, in Chapter 6 of the BA. 

Comment: [Page 6-37 of the Draft Biological Assessment] States “data pertaining to 

contact of herbicides with reptiles is unavailable”; however, the last sentence in the 

paragraph states “that it is assumed that the analysis is adequate for reptiles and 

amphibians.” Herbicides identified in the document that may result in adverse health 

effects should not be considered for large-scale application in desert tortoise habitat. 

Response: The text of the Final Biological Assessment (BA) has been changed for 

clarity in response to this concern. See the section on the effects of herbicides on 

amphibians and reptiles in Chapter 6. Herbicides that have been identified as 

potentially causing adverse health effects to terrestrial vertebrates will not be 

considered for large-scale application in desert tortoise habitat. The Conservation 

Measures section for amphibians and reptiles lists the minimum that would be 

required of the BLM to prevent adverse effects to the desert tortoise and other 

species. Measures include restrictions on broadcast spraying herbicides with the 

potential to cause adverse health effects to the desert tortoise under any exposure 

scenario. See the Conservation Measures section for amphibians and reptiles in 

Chapter 6 of the BA for more information. 

Comment: Further, we recommend that BLM develop and implement a study to 

determine what effects may occur as a result of direct contact or ingestion of 

herbicides that may be used in desert tortoise habitat. 

Response: The risk assessments were intended to determine the potential for adverse 

effects to reptiles from dermal contact with herbicides and ingestion of contaminated 

vegetation. The BLM acknowledges that data on the effects of herbicides on 

herpetofauna are minimal, but conservative assumptions and uncertainty factors are 

used in risk assessments to overestimate risks so that the results will be sufficient for 

developing mitigation to protect listed herpetofauna, such as the desert tortoise. The 

BLM estimates that herbicide use will be relatively low in subtropical desert habitats 

(herbicide treatments are planned for just over 5,000 acres). The conservation 

measures listed in Chapter 6 of the Biological Assessment (BA) are the minimum 

steps the BLM would have to take to ensure protection of the desert tortoise and other 

listed species. When specific treatment programs are developed at the local level, it 

may be determined during impacts analysis and consultation with the Services that 

additional mitigation measures are necessary. 

As discussed in Chapter 2 of the PEIS and PER under Special Status Species, “before 

any vegetation treatment or ground disturbance occurs, BLM policy requires a survey 

of the project site for species listed or proposed for listing, or special status species”. 

This is done by a qualified biologist consulting state and local databases, and visiting 

the site at the appropriate season. If a proposed project may affect a proposed or listed 

species or its critical habitat, the BLM consults with the USFWS and/or NMFS. A 

project with a “may affect, likely to adversely affect” determination requires formal 

consultation and receives a Biological Opinion from the USFWS and/or NMFS. A 

project with a “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” determination requires 

informal consultation and receives a concurrence letter from USFWS and/or NMFS. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-583 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0233-063 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

RMC-0233-064 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

RMC-0233-065 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

RMC-0233-067 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

Comment: Please include footnotes or additional text that references the section in 

the final [P]EIS where a reader can find the more detailed information. Please include 

a statement in Table 6-2 [of the Biological Assessment] to reference the D[raft] PEIS 

section, which explains “effects to terrestrial vertebrates from the herbicides would 

depend on the product used, if more than one product is used, if the products are 

combined, how often the product(s) would be applied, the application method of the 

herbicide(s), and when the application(s) would occur. 

Response: The PEIS does not contain more detailed information about effects of 

herbicides on threatened and endangered species. The PEIS discusses effects to 

wildlife in general (which is based on less protective risk categories). However, the 

text of the Final Biological Assessment (BA) has been modified to direct the reader to 

Chapter 2 of the BA and Appendix C of the PEIS, which do contain more detailed 

information about the risk assessment process. In addition, tables that summarize the 

risk assessment results as predicted effects on different types of species (throughout 

Chapters 4, 5, and 6 of the BA) have been modified to clarify the information that is 

being presented. 

Comment: Please correct the information in Table 6-2 [of the Draft Biological 

Assessment] for the “No effects” characterization under the “Direct Spray” and 

“Dermal Contact with Sprayed Vegetation” columns. This pertains to grassland birds 

and also to mammals. The section of the final PEIS where the information used in 

determining the “No effects” characterization to terrestrial vertebrates should be 

referenced in the table. Similarly, the “Adverse effects/No effects” characterization in 

the “Direct Spray” column of Table 6-2 should be clarified or the appropriate section 

in the final EIS referenced. It is unknown if this characterization is describing acute 

effects, chronic effects, or both. If effects characterization is only for acute effects, the 

Table should state this in the title or the table headings. If chronic effects are not 

addressed the document should state why chronic effects are not addressed. 

Response: Tables 6-1 through 6-5 and the section on ecological risk assessment 

methodology in Chapter 2 have been clarified in the Final Biological Assessment 

(BA). 

Comment: If chronic effects are addressed in the “Adverse effects/No effects” 

characterization, then the table needs to clarify what type of chronic effect is affected 

(e.g. reproduction, growth, etc.). 

Response: The Final Biological Assessment (BA) refers the reader to the ecological 

risk assessments for more information. Types of chronic effects vary by chemical and 

surrogate species, and it is outside the scope of the BA to discuss them. The BA 

analysis considers any level of risk (acute or chronic) to correspond to an 

unacceptable adverse effect to the species in question; therefore conservation 

measures have been designed to avoid all potential risks. 

Comment: The herbicides are listed in Table 6-2 [of the Biological Assessment] by 

chemical name except for the herbicide Overdrive (the trade name). Please provide 

consistency in the table, and list the chemical name as sodium salt of diflufenzopyr 

for this herbicide in the final PEIS. Herbicide toxicity information for effects to 

reptile and amphibians is lacking in the draft PEI[S]. Amphibians, in particular, are 

often more sensitive than mammals and birds to chemicals because of respiration 

through their skin. Therefore, the general classification of “No effects” to terrestrial 

vertebrates, if this table includes effects to amphibians and reptiles, is incorrect for 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-584 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0233-068 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

RMC-0233-069 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

many of the herbicides. We suggest that unless specific information is available for 

all terrestrial vertebrate groups (e.g., mammals, birds, and reptiles/amphibians), the 

herbicide cannot be assumed to have no effects. 

Response: On March 3, 1999, the USEPA announced approval of applications to

conditionally register the following products:

USEPA Registration Number – 7969-157: Diflufenzopyr – Technical Herbicide –

Acid formulation; USEPA Registration Number – 7969-151: Diflufenzopyr – Sodium

Salt (93%); and USEPA Registration Number – 7969-150: Distinct® = Diflufenzopyr

– Sodium Salt (21.4%) and Dicamba – Sodium Salt (55%) 

Of the three products, only the diflufenzopyr + dicamba has received full registration 

and was originally registered for use in field corn and non-crop areas, being sold 

under the trade name Distinct®. As the registration process proceeded, diflufenzopyr 

+ dicamba expanded its label to include application onto pasture, hay, and rangeland 

situations. These, along with the noncropland sites were placed under the trade name 

Overdrive® (which has the same EPA Registration Number as Distinct®) in 2004, 

with the cropland applications remaining under the trade name Distinct®, along with 

applications in what are identified as fallow and fence line areas. Therefore, the 

common name of the herbicide Overdrive® is diflufenzopyr + dicamba. 

See responses to Comment EMC-0643-077 under PEIS Environmental 

Consequences, Wildlife Resources, Comment EMC-0643-079 under PEIS 

Environmental Consequences, Fish and Other Aquatic Organisms, and Comment 

EMC-0046-002 under PEIS Environmental Consequences, Wildlife Resources 

regarding the effects of herbicides to amphibians and how this issue is addressed in 

the Final PEIS. As noted in these comments, amphibians are similar to fish in their 

response to herbicides. Thus, risks to amphibians from use of herbicides has been 

modified in the Final PEIS and Biological Assessment, as needed, to show risks 

based on risks to fish rather than risks to other terrestrial animals. 

Comment: We recommend that the BLM coordinate with the Service to design a 

study to evaluate the potential direct and indirect effects of herbicide use on the desert 

tortoise. In the absence of information on the potential effects of herbicides on the 

desert tortoise, including persistence of herbicides on forage plants, we recommend 

that applications be applied when desert tortoises are less active (e.g., November 

through February). Desert tortoise burrows should be avoided to the greatest extent 

possible during herbicide treatments. 

Response: Any herbicide treatments applied within desert tortoise habitat will be 

required to comply with all existing desert tortoise protocols (timing, burrow 

avoidance, pre-surveys, etc.) and will be subject to Endangered Species Act Section 7 

consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Herbicides would 

only be applied to target vegetation according to specific terms and conditions as set 

forth by the USFWS for the protection of the desert tortoise and its habitat. 

Comment: The species [Yuma clapper rail] is also present in southwest Utah along 

the Virgin River and in Nevada along the Virgin and Colorado Rivers. 

Response: The text of the Final Biological Assessment (BA) has been changed in 

response to this comment. See the Yuma clapper rail background section in Chapter 6 

of the BA. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-585 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0233-070 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

RMC-0233-071 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

RMC-0233-072 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

RMC-0233-073 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

RMC-0233-074 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

RMC-0233-075 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

RMC-0233-076 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

Comment: Workers removing vegetation could also destroy nests. 

Response: The text of the Final Biological Assessment (BA) has been changed in 

response to this comment. See the section on direct and indirect effects of manual 

treatment methods on the Yuma clapper rail in Chapter 6 of the BA. 

Comment: Inaccurate statement- “Most birds [Yuma clapper rails] would likely flee 

the site and so avoid direct exposure to herbicides during treatment”...” Birds that 

have not fledged are not able to flee and will receive direct exposure. 

Response: The text of the Final Biological Assessment (BA) has been changed in 

response to this comment. See the section on direct effects of manual treatment 

methods on the Yuma clapper rail in Chapter 6 of the BA. 

Comment: We would not recommend fire treatments in Yuma clapper rail habitat 

since fire often favors establishment of invasive species. 

Response: The text of the Final Biological Assessment (BA) has been changed in 

response to this comment. See the Conservation Measures section for the Yuma 

clapper rail in Chapter 6 of the BA. 

Comment: We recommend using the final recovery plan (August 2002) as the main 

source [for the southwestern will flycatcher] as it contains the most up to date 

information for this species. 

Response: The text of the Final Biological Assessment (BA) has been changed in 

response to this comment. See the southwestern willow flycatcher background section 

in Chapter 6 of the BA. 

Comment: Last paragraph. This information [for the southwestern willow flycatcher] 

is out of date. Critical habitat was redesignated on October 19, 2005, and now 

includes 737 river miles of habitat in Nevada and Utah. 

Response: The text of the Final Biological Assessment (BA) has been changed in 

response to this comment. See the southwestern willow flycatcher background section 

in Chapter 6 and Table 1-1 in Chapter 1 of the BA. 

Comment: Southwestern willow flycatcher and Bells vireo are neotropical migrants 

so there will be no direct mortality if burns occur in the winter. 

Response: The text of the Final Biological Assessment (BA) has been changed in 

response to this comment. See the section on direct effects of prescribed fire on the 

least Bell’s vireo, Inyo California towhee, and southwestern willow flycatcher in 

Chapter 6 of the BA. 

Comment: Manual removal without proper clearance surveys could result in 

destruction of the nest and any eggs [of the least Bell’s vireo, Inyo California towhee, 

and southwestern willow flycatcher]. 

Response: The text of the Final Biological Assessment (BA) has been changed in 

response to this comment. See the section on direct and indirect effects of manual 

treatment methods on the least Bell’s vireo, Inyo California towhee, and southwestern 

willow flycatcher in Chapter 6 of the BA. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-586 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0233-077 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

RMC-0233-078 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

RMC-0233-079 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

RMC-0233-080 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

Comment: Released biological control agents could potentially compete with native 

species or affect prey species in some way [for the least Bell’s vireo, Inyo California 

towhee, and southwestern willow flycatcher]. 

Response: The text of the Final Biological Assessment (BA) has been changed in 

response to this comment. See the section on direct and indirect effects of biological 

control agents on the least Bell’s vireo, Inyo California towhee, and southwestern 

willow flycatcher in Chapter 6 of the BA. 

Comment: Replanting or reseeding treated areas with native species after treatments 

may be needed to speed up the creation of suitable habitat [for the southwestern 

willow flycatcher]. Adjust spatial and temporal scales of treatments so not all suitable 

habitat in any given year is affected. On large projects, revegetation of affected areas 

should also be timed to replace 

Response: The text of the Final Biological Assessment (BA) has been changed in 

response to this comment. See the Conservation Measures section for the 

southwestern willow flycatcher in Chapter 6 of the BA. The final portion of the 

comment has not been addressed, since it is incomplete and its intent could not be 

ascertained. 

Comment: The draft BA [Biological Assessment] does not adequately analyze the 

direct effects of the proposed treatment methods to bald eagles during the 

breeding/nesting season. With the exception of biological control treatments, all 

proposed methods of vegetation treatment include some level of human activity 

within the treatment area. Extensive research exists documenting the heightened 

sensitivity of breeding and nesting bald eagles to human disturbance (Greater 

Yellowstone Bald Eagle Working Group (GYBEWG) 1996, Montana Bald Eagle 

Working Group (MBEWG 1994), Weekes 1974, Mathisen 1968). Responses to 

human disturbance vary and may include short term, temporal, or spatial avoidance of 

the disturbance, to total reproductive failure and abandonment of breeding areas 

(GYBEWG 1996, Anthony et al. 1995, MBEWG 1994, Stalmaster and Newman 

1978). Human disturbances can still be problematic later in the season and result in 

premature fledging (Grier 1969). Please utilize this information for the final BA. 

Response: The text of the Final BA has been changed in response to this comment. 

See the discussion of effects to bald eagles in Chapter 6 of the BA. 

Comment: The draft BA [Biological Assessment] identifies a 0.5 mile buffer 

distance for bald eagle nest sites and a 0.25 mile buffer for winter roost sites (page 6­

94 [of the Draft BA). Since this BA addresses proposed vegetation treatments across 

17 States, all of which are within the range of the bald eagle, we do not believe that 

the proposed buffer distances are appropriate across such varied nesting habitats. The 

Service recommends that the programmatic conservation measures for bald eagle nest 

sites start with 1 mile buffer for active bald eagle nests in open country. Then in more 

heavily forested or mountainous areas, where the line-of-sight distance from the nest 

is shorter, this buffer distance could potentially be reduced (see Stalmaster and 

Newman 1978, USFWS 1986). For bald eagle communal winter roosts, we 

recommend that disturbance be restricted within 1 mile of known communal winter 

roosts during the period of November 1 to April 1. Additionally, we recommend that 

ground disturbing activities be prohibited within 0.5 mile of active roost sites year 

round. Please utilize this information for the final BA. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-587 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0233-081 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

RMC-0233-082 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

RMC-0233-084 to 087 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

Response: The text of the Final BA has been changed in response to this comment. 

See the Conservation Measures section for the bald eagle in Chapter 6 of the BA. 

Comment: Terrestrial vertebrates include grassland birds and therefore, effects to 

terrestrial grassland birds from the use of herbicides should be addressed in the final 

BA [Biological Assessment]. Effects to grassland birds from herbicide use often are 

different than effects to terrestrial mammals. 

Response: The effects of grassland birds from the use of herbicides are addressed in 

applicable sections of Chapter 6 of the Final BA. Table 6-2 of the BA summarizes 

the effects associated with dermal exposure to the various herbicides, and Table 6-4 

of the BA summarizes the effects associated with dietary exposure to the various 

herbicides. For dermal exposure scenarios, small mammals were used to represent all 

terrestrial vertebrate species because they are the type of vertebrate that is most 

sensitive to herbicide exposure under laboratory conditions. For dietary exposure 

scenarios, a surrogate bird species with the same type of diet as the species in 

question was used. 

Comment: Pygmy rabbits (Brachylagus idahoensis) occur throughout the Great 

Basin. While the Service has written a negative 90-day finding for a petition to list 

this species throughout its range, we remain concerned with the status of any 

sagebrush obligate species. Therefore, we strongly encourage that the mitigation 

measures for this species (page 6-100, [Draft] Biological Assessment) be applied 

across the entire species range, and not be limited to Washington State in the final 

PEIS/PER. 

Response: The text of the Final Biological Assessment (BA) has been changed in 

response to this comment. See the Conservation Measures section for the pygmy 

rabbit in Chapter 6 of the BA. 

Comment: While the conservation measures for Preble’s meadow jumping mouse 

(Zapus hudsonius preblei) (Preble’s) and other rodents are likely to reduce the 

severity of project effects, they do not appear adequate to reduce the effects to 

Preble’s to a level considered insignificant or discountable. Therefore, based on the 

information provided, we would not be able to concur with a determination of not 

likely to adversely affect Preble’s. The nature of an “access route” is unclear on page 

6-123 [of the Draft Biological Assessment (BA)]. If these will be routes cleared of 

vegetation to facilitate vehicle travel through areas of occupied Preble’s habitat, they 

are likely to adversely affect Preble’s though direct mortality from equipment 

operation and vehicle use, habitat loss and displacement, disruption of travel 

corridors, and increased risk of predation during the time period for which the access 

route is in place (through access route restoration to native vegetation). The amount 

and duration of vegetation removal within occupied Preble’s habitat is unclear on 

page 6- 121 [of the Draft BA]. If significant percentages of available cover and forage 

are unavailable when Preble’s emerges from hibernation, an adverse effect to the 

mouse can be anticipated. Conservation measures to reduce the potential for adverse 

effects to Preble’s from grazing, if used as a biological control treatment, have not 

been identified on (pp. [page] 6-123 [of the Draft BA]). Therefore, we are concerned 

that grazing, if used for vegetation management, could result in habitat degradation 

and, thus, an adverse effect to Preble’s through habitat loss and displacement, as well 

as increased predation risk and disruption of travel corridors. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-588 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RMC-0233-089 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

RMC-0233-090 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

RMC-0233-092 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

RMC-0233-093 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 6 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office 

Response: The text of the Final BA has been changed in response to this concern. 

See the Conservation Measures section for the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse in 

Chapter 6 of the BA. 

Comment: Only reduction of hazardous fuels would be expected to benefit grizzly 

Bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) by reducing the likelihood of a future catastrophic fire 

(page 6-133 [of the Biological Assessment (BA)]). Domestic animals that are used to 

control weeds may attract grizzly bears and result in human/bear conflicts (page 6­

134 [of the BA]). We recommend that domestic grazers not be used to control weeds 

in areas with grizzly bear activity. 

Response: The text of the BA has been changed in response to this comment. See the 

sections pertaining to the grizzly bear in Chapter 6 of the BA that discuss indirect 

effects common to all treatments, indirect effects of domestic animals, and 

conservation measures. 

Comment: Conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential project effects to 

grizzly bears (page 6-135 [of the Draft Biological Assessment (BA)]) should include 

the enforcement of food storage and garbage disposal stipulations. In addition, 

contractors should be aware of, and provide to their employees and subcontractors, 

information on the protected status of the grizzly bear and on appropriate personal 

safety measures and behavior in grizzly bear habitat. 

Response: The text of the Final BA has been changed in response to this comment. 

See the Conservation Measures section for the grizzly bear in Chapter 6 of the BA. 

Comment: Effects of the proposed prescribed fire on Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) 

is discussed on pages 6-138 through 6-140 [of the Draft Biological Assessment 

(BA)]. As discussed in the Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy 

(Ruediger et al. 2000), denning habitat within a lynx analysis unit (LAU) should 

generally be larger than 5 acres and comprise at least 10 percent of lynx habitat. If 

there is less than 10 percent lynx habitat in an LAU, vegetation treatments that delay 

development of denning habitat structure should be deferred. Habitat connectivity 

within and between LAUs should be protected. 

Response: The text of the Final BA has been changed in response to this comment. 

See the Conservation Measures section for the Canada lynx in Chapter 6 of the BA. 

Comment: Black-footed ferrets (Mustela nigripes) are dependent on prairie dogs for 

food. Please include a discussion of the loss of prey base on this species as indirect 

effects of all proposed vegetation management options in the final PEIS/PER. We 

also encourage the BLM to protect all prairie dog towns for their value to the prairie 

ecosystem and the myriad of species that rely on them in their proposed actions. We 

further encourage you to analyze potentially disturbed prairie dog towns for their 

value to future black-footed ferret reintroduction. 

Response: The text of the Final Biological Assessment (BA) has been changed in 

response to this comment. See the section on Effects of Vegetation Treatments on 

Kangaroo Rats, the Utah Prairie Dog, and the Black-footed Ferret in Chapter 6. 

Protection of prairie dog towns for their value to prairie ecosystems would be 

addressed by the BLM at the local level, should one or more prairie dog towns occur 

in or near an area scheduled for treatments. While reintroduction of the black-footed 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-589 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

ferret is outside the scope of this PEIS/PER/BA, the BLM could consider this 

potential value of prairie dog towns at the local level. 

RMC-0233-091 Comment: The Service/Region 6 recommends that your proposed actions comply 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife with the Interagency Grizzly Bear Guidelines (1986) and the Final Conservation 

Service Region 6 Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in the Yellowstone Ecosystem (2003). 

California/Nevada 

Operations Office Response: The text of the Final Biological Assessment (BA) has been changed in 

response to this comment. See the Conservation Measures section for the grizzly bear 

in Chapter 6 of the BA. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides III-590 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS