CHAPTER 1 

INTRODUCTION 

PROPOSED ACTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................................1-1 

Organization of the Vegetation Treatments Assessments.......................................................................................1-2 

Proposed Action.......................................................................................................................................................1-3 

Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action .....................................................................................................................1-4 

Decisions to be Made and Scope of Analysis..................................................................................................................1-4 

Scope of Analysis.....................................................................................................................................................1-5 

Decisions to be Made...............................................................................................................................................1-5 

Documents that Influence the Scope of the PEIS............................................................................................................1-6 

Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, and Policies.........................................................................................................1-6 

Federal Laws, Regulations, and Policies that Influence Vegetation Treatments...................................................1-6 

NEPA Requirements of the Program.......................................................................................................................1-8 

Interrelationships and Coordination with Agencies.........................................................................................................1-9 

National Level Coordination................................................................................................................................. 1-11 

State and County Level Coordination................................................................................................................... 1-11 

Non-governmental Organizations......................................................................................................................... 1-12 

Cooperative Weed Management Areas................................................................................................................ 1-12 

Consultation ................................................................................................................................................................... 1-12 

Public Involvement and Analysis of Issues .................................................................................................................. 1-12 

Public Scoping Meetings ...................................................................................................................................... 1-13 

Scoping Issues and Concerns................................................................................................................................ 1-13 

Development of the Alternatives.......................................................................................................................... 1-13 

Issues Not Addressed in the Draft PEIS............................................................................................................... 1-13 

Public Review and Comment on the Draft Programmatic EIS, ER, and BA...................................................... 1-14 

Limitations of this PEIS................................................................................................................................................. 1-14 

Preview of the Remainder of the PEIS.......................................................................................................................... 1-15 

List of Tables 

1-1 Key Issues (and Number of Comments) Identified During Scoping and Location Where Issues Are 

Addressed in the PEIS and PER ..................................................................................................................... 1-16 

List of Figures 

1-1 Relationship of the PEIS to BLM Field Offices............................................................................................. 1-10 

1-2 How this Programmatic EIS is Organized...................................................................................................... 1-17 

List of Maps 

1-1 Public Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management................................................................. 1-19

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides 1-i June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 

PROPOSED ACTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED 

CHAPTER 1 

PROPOSED ACTION AND 

PURPOSE AND NEED 

Introduction 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), an agency of 

the U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI), administers 

vegetation on nearly 261 million acres (public lands; 

treatment area) in 17 states in the western U.S., 

including Alaska (Map 1-1). These lands encompass 

approximately 1 out of every 5 acres from the Rocky 

Mountains to the Pacific Ocean. Management and 

control of vegetation for resource and habitat

enhancement is accomplished using a variety of

treatment methods, including, but not limited to:

herbicides, prescribed fire and wildland fire use for 

resource benefit (collectively termed “fire use”), manual

and mechanical methods, and biological controls such 

as insects, pathogens, fish, and domestic grazing 

animals. 

In recent years, the severity and intensity of wildfires in

the West has increased dramatically from levels in the

1970s and 1980s. Although the recent increase in 

wildfires is directly related to drought conditions

throughout the western U.S., it is also influenced by

changes in the vegetation on public lands that have

occurred during the past 50 years and have resulted in 

increases in hazardous flammable fuels. Hazardous 

fuels include living and dead and decaying vegetation 

that form a special threat of ignition and resistance to

control. As the population has increased in the western

U.S., the loss of life and property has also increased as

more people live in close proximity to public lands in 

areas now referred to as the wildland urban interface

(WUI). 

Much of the change in vegetation and increase in

hazardous fuels on public lands can be attributed to fire

exclusion policies over the past 100 years. Contributors 

to this change include natural influences, such as

intermittent and long-term drought over the past 40

years. They also include anthropogenic influences, such 

as alteration of vegetation and habitat at the local and 

landscape levels through authorized uses on public 

lands (e.g., livestock grazing and timber management), 

full fire suppression policies to protect infrastructure 

and vegetative resources, and the increased spread of

noxious weed species and invasive vegetation. 

Some noxious weeds and other invasive vegetation,

such as downy brome

1

 (also known as cheatgrass), act

as hazardous fuels in upland landscapes. Downy brome

is a self-perpetuating winter annual that spreads easily 

across upland landscapes altered by fire, through a

prolific seed source. Wind and soil erosion transport the

seed over wide areas and into previously undisturbed

habitats. 

Invasive vegetation and noxious weeds are highly

competitive and can often out-compete native

vegetation, especially on recently disturbed sites.

Invasive vegetation and noxious weeds are the 

dominant vegetation on an estimated 35 million acres of

public lands (USDI BLM 2000a). The estimated rate of

weed spread on western public lands in 1996 was 2,300 

acres per day (USDI BLM 1996). Invasive vegetation

and noxious weeds degrade or reduce soil productivity, 

water quality and quantity, native plant communities, 

wildlife habitat, wilderness values, recreational 

opportunities, and livestock forage, and are detrimental

to the agriculture and commerce of the U.S. and to 

public health (National Academy of Sciences 1968, 

USDI BLM 2000b). Weed infestations can become

permanent if left untreated. 

In response to the threats of wildfire and invasive 

vegetation and noxious weeds, the President and 

Congress have directed the USDI and BLM, through

implementation of the National Fire Plan (USDI and 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA] Forest Service 

2001a), and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 

2003, to take more aggressive actions to reduce 

catastrophic wildfire risk on public lands. The actions

would be taken to protect life and property, and to

manage vegetation in a manner that provides for longterm economic sustainability of local communities, 

 

1

 Common and scientific names of plants and animals given in

this PEIS are provided in Appendix A. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides 1-1 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
PROPOSED ACTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED 

Terminology 

Active ingredient (a.i.) is the chemical or biological

component that kills or controls the target pest. 

Fire use a term not used in federal fire policy. It is used in

the context of the PEIS/PER to refer to prescribed fire or 

wildland fire use to meet resource objectives. 

Hazardous fuels include living and dead and decaying 

vegetation that form a special threat of ignition and 

resistance to control. 

Herbicide is a chemical pesticide used to treat vegetation.

Invasive plants are plants that are not part of (if exotic), or

are a minor component of (if native), the original plant 

community or communities that have the potential to 

become a dominant or co-dominant species on the site if

their future establishment and growth are not actively 

controlled by management interventions, or are classified as

exotic or noxious plants under state or federal law. Species

that become dominant for only one to several years (e.g., 

short-term response to drought or wildfire) are not invasive 

plants. 

Native species historically occurred or currently occur in a

particular ecosystem and were not introduced. 

Noxious weeds are designated by federal or state law as

generally possessing one or more of the following

characteristics: aggressive and difficult to manage; parasitic;

a carrier or host of serious insects or disease; or non-native,

new, or not common to the U.S. 

Prescribed fires are any fire ignited by management actions

to meet specific objectives. A written, approved prescribed

fire plan must exist, and NEPA requirements (where

applicable) must be met, prior to ignition. 

Undesirable plants are species classified as undesirable,

noxious, harmful, exotic, injurious, or poisonous under state

or federal law, but not including species listed as endangered

by the Endangered Species Act (ESA), or species indigenous

to the planning area. 

Weeds are plants that interfere with management objectives

for a given area at a given point in time. 

Wildfires are unplanned, unwanted wildland fires including

unauthorized human-caused fires, escaped wildland fire use

events, escaped prescribed fire projects, and all other 

wildland fires where the objective is to put the fire out. 

Wildland fires are any non-structure fires that occur in the

wildland. Three distinct types of wildland fire have been 

defined and include wildfire, wildland fire use, and

prescribed fire. 

Wildland fire use fires are the application of the appropriate

management response to naturally-ignited wildland fires to

accomplish specific resource management objectives in predefined designated areas outlined in Fire Management Plans. 

Wildland urban interface (WUI) is an area where

structures and other human development intermingle with

undeveloped wildlands or vegetative fuels.

improved habitat and vegetation conditions for fish and

wildlife, and other public land uses. 

As a result of these actions, the amount of hazardous 

fuels reduction and other vegetation management work

conducted by the BLM are expected to increase from

current levels to about 6 million acres annually; about 

932,000 acres, or 16% of acres treated, would involve

the use of herbicides. The BLM last assessed its use of 

vegetation treatment methods during the late 1980s and 

early 1990s, by preparing Environmental Impact

Statements (EISs) and Record of Decisions (RODs) that 

covered vegetation treatment activities in 14 western

states in the continental U.S. (all states shown on Map

1-1, except Alaska, Nebraska, and Texas; USDI BLM

1985; 1987a, b; 1988a, b; 1989; 1991a, b; 1992a). The

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 [ROW]), and reduction of 

hazardous fuels to protect resources at risk from wildfire

damage. These EISs evaluated the environmental

impacts associated with vegetation control and

modification on approximately 500,000 acres of public

lands a year in the western U.S. The EISs also evaluated 

the human health and non-target species risks of using 

22 herbicide active ingredients on these public lands. 

The impacts of the proposed increased level of 

vegetation treatments related to the use of herbicides are

likely to be greater in magnitude than the impacts 

assessed in earlier vegetation treatment assessments 

prepared by the BLM for the western states. In addition,

the BLM has identified several new herbicides that it

would like to use that are more effective in treating 

certain types of vegetation than currently approved

herbicides. Thus, the BLM has determined that the 

potential for increased use of herbicides, and approval 

for use of additional herbicides on public lands, requires 

further assessment under the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA). 

Organization of the Vegetation 

Treatments Assessments 

The BLM’s assessment of vegetation treatment

activities on public lands consists of two interrelated

parts⎯this Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on

Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western

States Programmatic EIS (PEIS) addressing the BLM’s 

use of herbicides, and a Vegetation Treatments on

Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides 1-2 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
PROPOSED ACTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED 

States Programmatic Environmental Report (PER; 

USDI BLM 2007a) describing the environmental effects 

of using non-herbicide vegetation treatment methods on 

public lands. This organization was selected because the

primary issue of controversy identified through scoping,

and which required NEPA review, was the BLM’s 

continuing and proposed increase in the use of

herbicides in vegetation treatment programs needed to

implement the National Fire Plan and related 

initiatives. The use of herbicides has been affirmed as a 

central issue for analysis in all past EISs considered in 

this document. 

The use of the other non-herbicide techniques in an

integrated pest management approach has also been

affirmed in all previous EIS Records of Decision, and

the BLM is not proposing to make any decisions 

relative to the use of non-herbicide vegetation treatment

methods. 

Although more acres are proposed for treatment under 

all methods than were identified in previous EISs, the 

BLM has determined that additional analysis of treating 

these acres under non-herbicide methods in the PEIS is

unnecessary. Congress and the Administration made the 

decision for federal agencies to treat more acres to

reduce the threat of catastrophic fire. The PEIS and PER

broadly estimate the acres that could be potentially 

treated under each method for analysis purposes in the

PEIS. The acre totals used in this programmatic analysis 

are not site-specific as to locations or method(s) used. 

As identified below in Chapter 2, current land use plans 

guide the level of treatment activity necessary to meet

broad goals and objectives for vegetation. It is 

anticipated that acres identified for treatments in land

use plans and step down activity level plans would be 

modified in the future as they are revised or amended to 

reflect the increase in activity mandated by Congress, 

and that those plans will provide the necessary NEPA

analysis to support increased acres of treatment. 

Treatment of vegetation is not a static disturbance that

accumulates over time. Vegetation treatments are

dynamic and typically show results within the first two

growing seasons. Once vegetation objectives are met, 

the projects are maintained over time, resulting in viable

and resilient vegetation communities over the long term. 

As more acres are treated, more acres of vegetation 

meet management objectives as outlined in local land 

use plans. Projects implemented over the last ten to

twenty years typically have met their objectives and 

become part of the baseline for analysis of new projects.

Because of this dynamic continuum of treatment, 

revegetation, monitoring, and maintenance, the BLM

does not anticipate there would be any different or

significant impacts identified beyond what has been

analyzed in previous EISs. 

This PEIS analyzes the effects of herbicide use on

humans, plants, and animals and other environmental

and social resources associated with public lands. This 

analysis will provide the basis for a programmatic 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 consultation 

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on herbicide 

use, and the potential impacts of herbicide use on plant

and animal species of concern. 

The PER discloses 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. The PEIS provides an updated analysis of

impacts (direct, indirect, and cumulative) to public land 

environmental and socioeconomic resources from 

proposed vegetation treatment activities utilizing 

herbicides. The PER is linked to the PEIS in the

cumulative impact analysis of the PEIS, where all

methods of treatment, including the use of herbicides, 

are assessed. 

Proposed Action 

To maintain and improve the effectiveness of its 

vegetation management practices, the BLM proposes to: 

• Determine which herbicide active ingredients 

are available for use on public lands in the 

western U.S., including Alaska, to improve the 

agency’s ability to control hazardous fuels and 

unwanted vegetation. In addition to the

herbicides currently approved for use, 

additional active ingredients are being 

considered for use by the BLM in order to

address emerging weed problems associated

with public lands, such as downy brome and 

invasive aquatic species; and 

• In consultation with the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (USEPA), USFWS, and 

NMFS, develop a state-of-the-science risk

assessment methodology. This methodology

will serve as the initial standard for assessing 

human health and ecological risk for herbicides 

that may become available for use in the future. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides 1-3 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
PROPOSED ACTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED 

Actions related to the use of herbicides are addressed in

this PEIS. Actions related to the use of other treatment

methods are addressed in the PER. 

In order to ensure that the agency fulfills its

responsibility for protection of the public, Native

American and Alaska Native subsistence practices, 

public land workers, and federally-listed species, 

species proposed for listing, and BLM sensitive species

(collectively referred to as “special status” species), a

risk assessment was conducted (see appendices B and 

C). The assessment consisted of a comprehensive 

literature search, and in some cases new toxicological 

analyses, for 1) active ingredients currently in use to 

determine if there are any new human health and 

ecological health risks that have been identified since 

the chemicals were last assessed (1988–1992); and 2) 

active ingredients proposed for use by the BLM. This 

risk assessment was used in the assessment of the

human health and environmental effects of the various 

alternatives. An appendix was prepared in response to 

public comments on the risk assessments prepared for

the draft PEIS (Appendix D). Specifically, this appendix 

addresses three concerns raised by the public about the 

human health and ecological risk assessments: 

• Some surfactants may be more toxic to aquatic

receptors than the active ingredient in the

formulation. Using polyoxytheyleneamine 

(POEA) as an example, what are the potential

impacts of POEA in different formulations of 

herbicides containing glyphosate? 

• The risk assessments only address the potential 

impacts of the active ingredients, what about 

the toxicity of degradates?

• The risk assessments did not identify endocrine

disruption as a toxic endpoint. Are any of the 

herbicides considered to be endocrine 

disrupting chemicals? 

In addition, the BLM developed a risk assessment 

methodology to be used for analyses of herbicides 

proposed for use in the future (Appendix E). This

methodology is based upon the methodology used for 

the risk assessments for this PEIS. 

Purpose and Need for the 

Proposed Action 

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. 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 accruing from implementation of

the proposed action directly relate to restoration of fish 

and wildlife habitat and improvement of forest and 

ecological condition, which would meet BLM and

USDI objectives set forth in the Healthy Forests

Restoration Act of 2003 and BLM Handbook H-4180-1

(Rangeland Health Standards) to improve the health of 

the nation’s forests and rangelands. 

Decisions to be Made and Scope 

of Analysis 

This PEIS analyzes the effects of using herbicides for 

treating vegetation on public lands in the western U.S., 

including Alaska. These lands include Oregon and 

California Land Grant lands, Coos Bay Wagon Road

lands, and lands administered by the BLM through its 

National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS), such 

as Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs), designated 

Wilderness Areas, National Monuments, National 

Conservation Areas, National Recreation Areas, and

areas of critical environmental concern. 

Decisions expected to be made through this PEIS

process include: 

• Which USEPA-registered herbicides will be

available for use by the BLM and under what 

circumstances?

• Which vegetation management practices could 

be used with applications of herbicides and 

under what circumstances?

This PEIS makes broad assumptions on the numbers of 

acres to be treated annually by herbicides by each state

or in aggregate on a national scale to assist with the

impacts analysis. Because of the broad nature of this

PEIS and the uncertainty associated with timing and

location of treatments on a national scale, specific levels 

of acres to be treated by any method are appropriately 

assessed at the regional, state, or local level. For 

meaningful NEPA analysis, the BLM assesses the

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides 1-4 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
PROPOSED ACTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED 

overall acres to be treated by each resource program in 

its land use plan (LUP) EISs (see description of BLM 

resource programs in Chapter 2), thus these decisions 

would be made at a later time and at a more site-specific

level. 

Scope of Analysis 

The focus of this 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. This PEIS does not, however, evaluate 

vegetation treatment activities involving herbicides that

are not directly related to the need to reduce hazardous 

fuels, or to modify the vegetation community to

improve rangeland and/or forestland health. 

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

Forests Restoration Act of 2003. 

This PEIS will 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 will not make

land use allocations nor amend approved land use plans 

(Federal Register 2002). Human-related activities and 

natural processes have inherent risks and threats to the 

health of the land, which can lead to the decline of plant

communities and ecosystems. Although this PEIS refers

to activities consistent with the authorities under the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) 

and other statutes that may contribute, in some cases, to

land and resource degradation (e.g., livestock grazing, 

OHV use, recreation), its focus is on proactive 

vegetation treatments to maintain and restore ecological

conditions. The focus of the PEIS is not to restrict, limit, 

or eliminate FLPMA-authorized activities as a means to

restore land health. These types of management actions 

are defined and considered under land use planning 

regulations (43 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 

1610) and are outside the scope of this PEIS. 

Commercial timber activities conducted with the 

primary purpose of providing a sustained yield of 

timber volume to commercial industries are not 

included in this PEIS or the associated PER. Rather,

they represent a manner of vegetation harvest (i.e., the 

species [product] is removed and replanted for future 

harvest). Commercial timber allocations and sustainable 

harvest were previously analyzed in BLM LUP EISs for 

the field offices with timber programs. 

Although this PEIS addresses herbicide use in relation

to vegetation treatments, it does not address vegetation

treatments exclusively designed to increase forage

production or the effects of livestock grazing on 

vegetation. The effects on vegetation that result from

livestock forage use on public lands were analyzed in

previous EISs, both programmatically at the national 

level (USDI BLM and USDA Forest Service 1994) and 

at the local land use planning level, in either LUP EISs 

or as individual EISs or Environmental Assessments 

(EAs) at the field office level, as well as at the

allotment-specific level. 

This PEIS does not address abandoned mine land 

reclamation, or energy production. Abandoned mine

land reclamation is a form of site stabilization and 

remediation that does not necessarily involve vegetation

treatment activities, although in some cases vegetation 

treatments may be associated with site stabilization. The 

scope of analysis for the overall use of herbicides, and 

other methods of control outlined in the PER associated

with this PEIS, would sufficiently cover their use in

these types of activities. 

This PEIS will not analyze fire suppression operations, 

as they do not constitute vegetation treatment actions. 

This PEIS will address soil stabilization only where

specifically related to the vegetation treatment activities. 

Soil stabilization effects are related to post-fire

emergency stabilization (activities undertaken within 1

year of the fire control date) and rehabilitation 

(treatments applied up to 3 years after the fire control

date). 

This PEIS addresses the use of chemical herbicides in

general. Herbicides are also commonly used to control 

vegetation by those authorized to use public lands for 

ROW, lease holdings, oil and gas facilities, and other 

mineral developments. In many cases, the control of 

vegetation is stipulated in the ROW, lease, or 

authorizing permit. These permits and authorizations are 

issued in conjunction with a site-specific NEPA 

compliance document (EA or EIS), which assess the

impacts of the control method, and identifies mitigation 

to reduce development impacts on the environment. 

Decisions to be Made

At least 30 days after the USEPA publishes the Notice

of Availability (NOA) of the final PEIS, the BLM

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides 1-5 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
PROPOSED ACTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED 

decision-maker will evaluate public comment on the 

draft and final PEIS and prepare a ROD. The decision 

may be to select one of the alternatives in its entirety, or

to combine features from several alternatives that fall

within the range of alternatives analyzed in the PEIS.

The ROD will address significant impacts, alternatives,

environmental preferences, and relevant economic and

technical considerations. 

Documents that Influence the 

Scope of the PEIS 

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

that were prepared from 1985 through 1992 to evaluate 

the use of herbicides for vegetation treatment activities 

on public lands. These EISs include: Northwest Area

Noxious Weed Control Program EIS (USDI BLM 

1985), Supplement to the Northwest Area Noxious Weed 

Control Program (USDI BLM 1987b), California 

Vegetation Management Final EIS (USDI BLM 1988a), 

Final EIS Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in

Thirteen Western States (USDI BLM 1991a), and Final

Record of Decision Western Oregon ProgramManagement of Competing Vegetation (USDI BLM

1992a). 

These documents identify vegetation treatment activities 

involving the use of herbicides in 14 western states and

evaluate the risks of using 22 herbicide active 

ingredients. Where appropriate, information in these 

documents that is relevant to analysis of the current 

proposal is cited and incorporated by reference. 

Other documents and policies that influence the scope

of this PEIS include: 1) National Fire Plan (USDI and

USDA 2001a); 2) Healthy Forests Initiative of 2002

and Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (Public 

Law 108-148); 3) Chapter 3 (Interagency Burned Area

Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation) in BLM

Manual 620 (Wildland Fire Management; USDI 2004); 

4) A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland

Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment 10-

Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan

(USDI and USDA 2006a); 5) Protecting People and

Sustaining Resources in Fire Adapted Ecosystems: A 

Cohesive Strategy (USDA and USDI 2006b); 6) Draft 

Interagency Burned Area Emergency Response 

Guidebook (USDA and USDI 2006c); 7) Interagency 

Burned Area Rehabilitation Guidebook (USDA and 

USDI 2006d); and 8) Draft Burned Area Emergency 

Stabilization and Rehabilitation Handbook (H-1742-1;

USDI BLM 2006a). These documents provide policy 

and guidance for hazardous fuels reduction and land 

restoration activities to reduce the risk of wildfires and

restore fire-adapted ecosystems, and to rehabilitate and 

restore lands damaged by wildfires. The Meeting the 

Invasive Species Challenge Management Plan (National

Invasive Species Council 2001) and Partners Against

Weeds - An Action Plan for the BLM (USDI BLM

1996) identify appropriate actions to control weeds on 

public lands. 

Numerous other BLM manuals and handbooks were 

also consulted when developing the PEIS. These are 

listed in Appendix F. 

Relationship to Statutes, 

Regulations, and Policies 

Federal Laws, Regulations, and 

Policies that Influence Vegetation 

Treatments 

Several federal laws, regulations, and policies guide 

BLM management activities on public lands. The

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 

(FLPMA) directs the BLM to manage public lands “in a 

manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, 

historic, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, 

water resources and archeological values” and to

develop resource management plans (RMPs) consistent

with those of state and local governments to the extent 

that BLM programs also comply with federal laws and

regulations. The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 introduced 

federal protection and management of public lands by 

regulating grazing on public lands. The Oregon and 

California Grant Lands Act of 1937 provides for the

management of the revested Oregon and California and 

reconveyed Coos Bay Wagon Road grant lands for 

permanent forest production under the principle of 

sustained yield and for leasing of lands for grazing. 

Several acts provide for management and control of 

invasive vegetation. Two weed control acts, the

Carlson-Foley Act of 1968 and the Plant Protection 

Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-224; includes 

management of undesirable plants on federal lands) 

authorize the BLM to manage noxious weeds and to

coordinate with other federal and state agencies in 

activities to eradicate, suppress, control, prevent, or 

retard the spread of any noxious weeds on federal lands. 

The Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 established and

funded an undesirable plant management program, 

implemented cooperative agreements with state 

agencies, and established integrated management 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides 1-6 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
PROPOSED ACTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED 

systems to control undesirable plant species. The

Noxious Weed Control Act of 2004 established a

program to provide assistance through states to eligible 

weed management entities to control or eradicate

harmful, nonnative weeds on public and private lands.

The Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978

requires the BLM to manage, maintain, and improve the 

condition of the public rangelands so that they become 

as productive as feasible. 

The BLM must comply with numerous federal laws that

govern activities on public lands. The Clean Air Act, as 

revised in 1990, would primarily govern prescribed fire 

smoke emissions, and requires the USEPA and states to 

carry out programs to assure attainment of the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The Safe

Drinking Water Act is designed to protect the quality of

public drinking water and its sources. The Wilderness 

Act of 1974 provides management directions to protect 

wilderness values and guides activities and permitted

uses within these areas. 

The Clean Water Act regulates discharges into waters 

of the United States, including wetlands. As authorized

by the Clean Water Act, the National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit

program controls water pollution by regulating point 

sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the

United States. Based on a recent ruling by the USEPA 

(2006), an NPDES permit is not required for 

applications of herbicides directly to water in order to

control aquatic vegetation, or for application of 

herbicides that are present over or near water, where a

portion of the herbicide will unavoidably be deposited 

to the water in order to target the pest vegetation. The 

ruling does not apply to terrestrial herbicide applications 

that drift over and into waters of the U.S.; issues related 

to these applications are under review by the USEPA. 

USEPA regulates pesticides under two major federal

statutes. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and 

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) establishes procedures for the 

registration, classification, and regulation of all

pesticides. Before any pesticide may be sold legally, the 

USEPA must register it. The USEPA may classify a

pesticide for general use if it determines that the 

pesticide is not likely to cause unreasonable adverse 

effects to applicators, or the environment, or for 

restricted use if the pesticide must be applied by a

certified applicator and in accordance with other 

restrictions. All the herbicides evaluated in this PEIS, 

except diflufenzopyr as a stand-alone active ingredient, 

are registered with the USEPA. Diflufenzopyr is

approved as a formulation with dicamba and is labeled 

as Distinct, but could not be used as a stand-alone active 

ingredient by the BLM until it is registered with the 

USEPA. All applicators that apply them on public lands

(i.e., certified applicators or those directly supervised by 

a certified applicator) must comply with the application 

rates, uses, and handling instructions on the herbicide 

label, and where more restrictive, the rates, uses, and

handling instructions developed by the BLM. Under the 

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the USEPA 

establishes tolerances (maximum legally permissible

levels) for pesticide residues in food. 

The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 changed the

way the USEPA sets residue limits (tolerances) for 

pesticides on foods under the Federal Food, Drug, and 

Cosmetic Act, and the way the USEPA reviews and

approves pesticides under FIFRA. Specifically, the Act

mandated a single, health-based standard for all

pesticides in all foods; provided special protections for 

infants and children; expedited approval of safer 

pesticides; created incentives for the development and

maintenance of effective crop protection tools for 

American farmers; and required periodic reevaluation of 

pesticide registrations and tolerances to ensure that the

scientific data supporting pesticide registrations will

remain up to date in the future. 

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

regulates the disposal of toxic wastes, including the 

disposal of unused herbicides, and provides authority

for toxic waste cleanup actions when there is a known

operator. The Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)

regulates how to clean up spills of hazardous materials 

and when to notify agencies in case of spills. 

Several laws pertain to the protection of plants and 

animals and their habitats. The Migratory Bird

Conservation Act of 1929, as amended, makes it 

unlawful to directly, or indirectly, harm migratory birds. 

If the USFWS determines that migratory birds could be

harmed by BLM vegetation treatment actions, the two

agencies would develop a site-specific assessment and

mitigation to prevent harm to these birds. The 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 provides for 

conserving endangered and threatened species of plants

and animals. The ESA also requires that federal 

agencies consult with the USFWS and NMFS to ensure

that any actions that they authorize, fund, or carry out

are not likely to jeopardize the continued survival of a 

listed species or result in the adverse modification or 

destruction of its critical habitat. The Wild FreeRoaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971, as amended

by the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides 1-7 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
PROPOSED ACTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED 

provides for the management, protection, and control of 

wild horses and burros on public lands and authorizes 

the “adoption” of wild horses and burros by private 

individuals. The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 

1980 encourages federal agencies to conserve and 

promote the conservation of non-game fish and wildlife 

species and their habitats. The Sikes Act of 1974

authorizes the USDI to plan, develop, maintain, and 

coordinate programs with state agencies for the

conservation and rehabilitation of wildlife, fish, and

game on public lands. 

Laws and acts that pertain to the protection of historic 

and cultural resources and the rights of Native 

American tribes and Alaska Native groups include the 

Historic Sites Act of 1935, which provides for the 

preservation of historic American sites, buildings, 

objects, and antiquities of national significance. The

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966

requires federal agencies to take into account the

potential affects of their actions on properties that are 

listed or are eligible for listing on the National Register 

of Historic Places (NRHP), and to consult with State 

Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs), Indian tribes, 

and local governments regarding the effects of federal

actions on historic properties. The Archeological 

Resources Protection Act of 1979 prohibits the 

excavation, removal, damage, or other alteration or 

defacement of archaeological resources on federal or 

Indian lands without a permit. The American Indian

Religious Freedom Act of 1978 requires federal land 

managers to include consultation with traditional Native 

American or Alaska Native religious leaders in their 

management plans. The Native American Graves

Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 recognizes the 

property rights of Native Americans and Alaska Natives 

in certain cultural items, including Native American and 

Alaska Native human remains and sacred objects. 

Section 810 of the Alaska National Interest Lands

Conservation Act (ANILCA) addresses the effects of

proposed activities on Alaska Native subsistence uses. 

This PEIS follows the guidelines in several Executive

orders (EOs). Executive Order 11990, Protection of 

Wetlands, ensures that federal agencies minimize the

destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands, and 

enhance and preserve the natural and beneficial values 

of wetlands, when carrying out actions on federal lands. 

Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice, 

requires that federal agencies address the environmental

justice of their actions on minority populations and on 

low-income populations. Executive Order 13045, 

Protection of Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks, ensures that federal agencies 

identify and assess the environmental health and safety 

risks that may disproportionately affect children.

Executive Order 13084, Consultation and

Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments directs 

federal agencies to respect tribal self-government and 

sovereignty, tribal rights, and tribal responsibilities 

whenever they formulate policies “significantly or

uniquely affect Indian tribal governments.” Executive 

Order 13112, Invasive Species, directs federal agencies 

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. Executive Order 13186, Responsibilities 

of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, 

requires that federal agencies that have, or are likely to

have, a measurable negative effect on migratory bird

populations develop a Memorandum of Understanding

(MOU) with the USFWS that shall promote the 

conservation of migratory bird populations.

NEPA Requirements of the Program 

Federal agencies are required to prepare an EIS under 

NEPA when the proposed action is likely to have a 

significant impact on the quality of the human

environment (42 U.S.C. [United States Code] 4321 et

seq.; USDI BLM 1988c). An EIS is intended to provide 

decision-makers and the public with a complete and 

objective evaluation of significant environmental 

impacts, beneficial and adverse, resulting from the 

proposed action and all reasonable alternatives. 

The intent of this PEIS is to comply with NEPA by 

assessing the program impacts of using herbicides to 

treat vegetation on public lands administered by the 

BLM. Additional guidance for NEPA compliance and

for assessing impacts is provided in the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for 

Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40

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

and the BLM National Environmental Policy Act

Handbook H-1790-1 (USDI BLM 1988b). 

To the extent practicable, existing environmental

analyses were used in analyzing impacts associated with 

the proposed action and alternatives, including

information contained in documents listed in a previous

section, Documents that Influence the Scope of the

PEIS. 

This PEIS provides a broad, comprehensive background

source of information on which any necessary

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides 1-8 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
PROPOSED ACTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED 

subsequent environmental analyses can be tiered. In

general, the NEPA process may be done at multiple

scales depending on the scope of the proposal, as shown

in Figure 1-1. The broadest level, which this PEIS 

represents, is a national-level programmatic study. This 

level of study contains broad regional descriptions of

resources, provides a broad environmental impact

analysis, including cumulative impacts, focuses on 

general policies, and provides Bureau-wide decisions on

herbicide use and other available tools for vegetation 

management. Additionally, it provides an umbrella ESA 

Section 7 consultation for the broad range of activities 

described in the PEIS. 

The next scale of analysis represents a regional level of 

analysis, and may be prepared for regional or statewide 

programs. A regional level of analysis would typically 

focus on methods to be used, options, regional or 

statewide issues, and provide an ESA Section 7

consultation focused on regional issues. Examples of

these types of analyses are found in such documents as 

the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management 

Plan (USDA Forest Service and USDI BLM 1997), and

the Northwest Area Noxious Weed Control Program

EIS (USDI BLM 1985). 

Below the regional scale of analysis, there is the option 

to prepare a field office level of analysis. This analysis

may be prepared for district or field office-wide

programs. The analysis is tiered to either or both of the 

two higher scales of analysis and focuses on impacts of

methods and options for a single program, such as a 

field office invasive and noxious weed program or

prescribed fire and wildland fire use program. Local 

LUPs, such as RMPs and Management Framework 

Plans (MFPs), guide analysis at this level. Collectively, 

these LUPs outline the specific resource goals and 

objectives and use allocations for a specific geographic 

area. The uses and allocations allowed by the LUP are

analyzed in an EIS associated with the development of

the LUP. Land use plans are developed to include the

proposed action and alternatives that identify specific 

management strategies to meet particular national, 

regional, and local goals and objectives. This scale 

provides ESA Section 7 consultation focused on local 

issues and species of concern that occur within the field 

office’s administrative jurisdiction. 

The local scale provides project level analysis and is 

prepared for site-specific proposals. The analysis may

be tiered to any or all of the above scales of analysis. 

The analysis focuses on site-specific impacts of

implementing a single management proposal as 

identified through local planning. Examples include, but

are not limited to, weed control, prescribed fire,

hazardous fuel reduction, and WUI projects. Section 7 

consultation under the ESA focuses on the 

implementing actions. 

Tiering allows local offices to prepare more specific 

environmental documents without duplicating relevant

portions of this PEIS. Analyses done by local BLM 

offices will be prepared in accordance with NEPA 

guidance and will include public involvement as 

regulated by the CEQ, as well as follow USDI and

BLM manual and handbook guidance and pertinent

instruction memoranda. 

Interrelationships and 

Coordination with Agencies 

In its role as manager of nearly 261 million acres in the

western U.S., including Alaska, the BLM has developed 

numerous relationships at the federal, tribal, state, and

local levels, as well as with conservation and 

environmental groups with an interest in resource 

management, and members of the public that use public 

lands or are affected by activities on public lands. 

As noted previously, several federal agencies administer

laws that govern activities on public lands. Federal

agencies, including the Department of Defense, the

Department of Energy, the National Park Service, the 

USFWS, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs, and the USDA Forest Service, 

administer lands adjacent to or in close proximity to

public lands administered by the BLM, and have 

vegetation management issues that are similar to the 

BLM’s. Other agencies, such as the Agricultural

Research Service, the Animal, Plant, Health Inspection 

Service, the Natural Resource Conservation Service,

and the U.S. Geological Survey Biological Services, 

play vital roles in coordination with national, tribal, 

state, county and private interests through their 

oversight and coordination responsibilities. These

agencies and the BLM regularly coordinate on 

vegetation management and control efforts to benefit all 

federally-administered lands. Other local coordination

includes the sharing of equipment, training, and 

financial resources, and developing vegetation 

management plans that cross administrative boundaries. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides 1-9 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 

PROPOSED ACTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED 

National Level Coordination 

Invasive species management is coordinated by several

groups at the national level. The National Invasive 

Species Council was formed among several federal

agencies per Executive Order 13112 to develop

strategies to control invasive species on federal lands. 

Comprised of 16 federal agencies with direct invasive 

plant management responsibilities, the Federal

Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious 

and Exotic Weeds serves to coordinate invasive plant 

management activities in federal lands across the United

States and its territories. A related committee is the

Federal Interagency Committee on Invasive Terrestrial

Animals and Pathogens, which consists of ten federal

departments and agencies responsible for managing

non-vegetative invasive species in terrestrial

ecosystems. The BLM also coordinates with the

Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, which is cochaired by the USFWS and NMFS, and is responsible 

for coordinating efforts by the federal government and 

the private sector in controlling aquatic nuisance 

species. The BLM also produces national level

strategies for invasive species prevention and 

management (e.g., Partners Against Weeds: An Action 

Plan for the Bureau of Land Management [USDI BLM 

1996], and Pulling Together: National Strategy for 

Invasive Plant Management [USDI BLM 1998]). 

Fire and fuels management coordination involves both 

federal and state entities. The Wildland Fire Leadership

Council is a cooperative, interagency organization 

dedicated to achieving consistent implementation of the 

goals, actions, and policies in the National Fire Plan

and the Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy. The 

National Fire and Aviation Executive Board was 

established to resolve wildland fire management issues 

on an interagency level by improving coordination and 

integration of federal fire and aviation programs. 

The National Interagency Fuels Coordination Group, 

chartered under the National Fire and Aviation 

Executive Board, was established shortly after the 

National Fire Plan in October of 2001 under the 

direction and guidance of the Department of the 

Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs, BLM, USFWS,

National Park Service, and USDA Forest Service. The

primary purpose of the group is to provide leadership 

and coordination in uniting the Departments’ resources 

and fire management programs under a common

purpose for reducing risks to communities while

improving and maintaining ecosystem health. The

Group provides assistance and guidance in the 

development and implementation of an effective 

interagency fuels management program, which includes 

addressing risks from severe fires in WUI communities 

and restoring healthy ecological systems in other 

wildland areas. 

The National Wildfire Coordinating Group provides 

coordination among the following agencies and their 

programs: USDA Forest Service; USDI BLM, National 

Park Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and USFWS;

and the National Association of State Foresters. The 

BLM is also one of six federal agencies that provide 

scientific support for the management of fuels and 

wildland fires in the Joint Fire Science Program. 

State and County Level Coordination 

The BLM is required to coordinate with state and local 

agencies under several acts, including: the Clean Air 

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

NHPA. The BLM coordinates closely with state 

resource management agencies on issues involving the

management of public lands, the protection of fish and

wildlife populations, including federal- and state-listed

threatened and endangered species, invasive and

noxious weeds, fuels and wildland fire management, 

and herbicide application. Herbicide applications are 

also coordinated with state and local water quality 

agencies to ensure treatment applications are in

compliance with applicable water quality standards, and

do not result in unacceptable surface or ground water 

contamination. 

Local and state agencies work closely with the BLM to

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

often responsible for weed treatments on public lands. 

The BLM participates in exotic plant pest councils, state 

vegetation and noxious weed management committees, 

state invasive species councils, county weed districts 

and weed management associations found throughout

the west. 

The Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) directs 

the USDA Forest Service and USDI BLM to develop an 

annual program of work for federal land that gives 

priority to authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects 

that provide for protecting at risk communities or 

watersheds. The recommendations made by Community

Wildfire Protection Plans (described under Coordination 

in Chapter 2) are taken into account by the agencies in

accordance with HFRA, which gives priority in

allocating funding to communities that have adopted

these plans, or that have taken measures to encourage

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides 1-11 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
PROPOSED ACTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED 

willing property owners to reduce fire risk on private 

property (USDA Forest Service and USDI BLM 2004). 

All prescribed burning is coordinated with state and 

local air quality agencies to ensure that local air quality 

is not significantly impacted by BLM activities. 

Non-governmental Organizations 

The BLM coordinates at the national and local levels 

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

Advisory Councils, the Western Governors’ 

Association, the National Association of Counties, the

Western Area Power Administration, the National 

Cattlemen’s Association, the National Wool Growers 

Association, the Society of American Foresters, and the 

American Forest and Paper Association. The BLM also 

solicits input from national and local conservation and

environmental groups with an interest in land

management activities on public lands, such as The

Nature Conservancy. These groups provide information

on strategies for weed prevention, effective weed

treatment methods, use of domestic animals to control 

weeds, landscape level planning, vegetation monitoring, 

techniques to restore land health, and methods to ensure 

that prescribed burning does not impact the safe 

operation of power transmission lines. 

Cooperative Weed Management Areas 

Cooperative Weed Management Areas (CWMAs) are 

composed of local, private, and federal interests. 

CWMAs typically center on a particular watershed or

similar geographic area in order to pool resources and

management strategies in the prevention and control of 

weed populations. Much of the BLM’s on-the-ground 

invasive species prevention and management is done 

directly or indirectly through CWMAs. The BLM 

participates in numerous CWMAs throughout the west, 

several of which are showcase examples of interagency 

and private cooperation in restoring land health. 

Consultation 

As part of this PEIS, the BLM consulted with the 

USFWS and NMFS as required under Section 7 of the 

ESA (see Chapter 5 and Appendix G). The BLM 

prepared a formal initiation package that included: 1) a 

description of the program, listed threatened and 

endangered species, species proposed for listing, and 

critical habitats that may be affected by the program; 

and 2) a Biological Assessment for Vegetation 

Treatments on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 

17 Western States (BA; USDI BLM 2007b). The BA 

evaluated the likely impacts to listed species, species 

proposed for listing, and critical habitats from the 

proposed use of herbicides and other treatment methods 

in its vegetation treatment program and identified 

management practices to minimize impacts to these 

species and habitats. 

The BLM initiated consultation with Native American

tribes and Alaska Native groups to identify their cultural

values, religious beliefs, traditional practices, and legal

rights that could be affected by BLM actions. This 

included sending out letters to all tribes and groups that

could be directly affected by vegetation treatment

activities, and requesting information on how the 

proposed activities could impact Native American and

Alaska Native interests, including the use of vegetation 

and wildlife for subsistence, religious, and ceremonial

purposes (see Appendix G). 

The BLM conducted an Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act (ANILCA) § 810 Analysis of Subsistence. 

During this process, the BLM invited public participation and 

collaborated with Alaska Natives to identify and protect

culturally significant plants used for food, baskets, fiber, 

medicine, and ceremonial purposes. The findings 

required by ANILCA § 810 are given in Appendix H. 

The BLM also consulted with SHPOs as part of Section

106 consultation under the NHPA to determine how 

proposed vegetation treatment actions could impact

cultural resources. Formal consultations with SHPOs 

and Indian tribes also may be required during 

implementation of projects at the local level (see 

Appendix G). 

Public Involvement and Analysis 

of Issues 

The purpose of scoping is to focus the analysis in an

EIS on the significant issues and reasonable alternatives 

in order to eliminate extraneous discussion and to 

reduce the length of an EIS (USDI BLM 1988b). 

Scoping is an ongoing process that involves the public 

in developing an EIS. 

The BLM published a Federal Register (FR) Notice of

Intent (NOI) on October 11, 2001, notifying the public 

that the BLM had formed a team to prepare a PEIS on

the treatment of vegetation on public lands in the 

western U.S., including Alaska. The NOI also stated

that comments on the proposal would be accepted from

October 12 through November 11, 2001. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides 1-12 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
PROPOSED ACTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED 

A second Federal Register Notice of Intent was 

published on January 2, 2002, notifying the public of

the location of public scoping meetings, and extending

the public comment period until March 29, 2002. 

A third Federal Register Notice of Intent was published 

on January 22, 2002, notifying the public of changes to 

the meeting schedule. 

All affected states issued public notices of the scoping

period, which were placed in newspapers in or near 

locations where public meetings were held. In addition, 

information on the location of scoping meetings was 

provided by electronic mail in early December 2001, 

and again in early January 2002, to all members of the 

public that had placed their names on the electronic 

mailing list for the project before the date of the

announcements. 

Public Scoping Meetings 

Eighteen public meetings were held in 12 western

states, including Alaska, and one meeting was held in

Washington, D.C. The scoping meetings were 

conducted in an open-house style. Informational

displays were provided at the meeting, and handouts 

describing the project, the NEPA process, and issues 

and alternatives were given to the public. A formal

presentation provided the public with additional

information on program goals and objectives. This 

presentation was followed by a question and answer 

session. 

The BLM received 1,034 requests to be placed on the

project mailing list from individuals, organizations, and 

government agencies, and 381 written comment letters 

or facsimiles on the proposal. In addition, the public 

provided comments on the project at the public scoping 

meetings; over 2,800 catalogued individual comments 

(written and oral) were given during public scoping. In

many cases, multiple respondents submitted the same

comment. A Scoping Comment Summary Report for the 

Vegetation Treatments Programmatic EIS (ENSR 2002) 

was prepared that summarized the issues and

alternatives identified during scoping. This document

was made available to the public in July 2002. 

Scoping Issues and Concerns 

A wide range of issues was identified during scoping. 

Issues accounting for over 80% of the comments 

considered in the PEIS and PER are listed in Table 1-1. 

The primary issue of controversy identified through 

scoping, and which required NEPA review, was the 

BLM’s continuing and proposed increase in the use of 

herbicides in vegetation treatment programs needed to

implement the National Fire Plan and related 

initiatives. The use of herbicides has been affirmed as a 

central issue for analysis in all past EISs considered in 

this document. 

After scoping, the BLM determined that a NEPA

review was not required to assess the impacts of other 

treatment activities on environmental and social

resources on public lands at the national programmatic 

level. The use of these techniques has been affirmed in 

all previous EISs, and the BLM has authority under 

existing statutes to utilize these methods of treatment as

necessary. Program- and project-specific NEPA 

analysis of the use of these techniques, and under what 

circumstances, will occur at the land use planning and 

project level. 

Development of the Alternatives

The public comments influenced the development of

several vegetation management alternatives. As noted in

Table 1-1, numerous respondents suggested that the

BLM reduce or eliminate the use of herbicides, avoid 

aerial applications of herbicides, or avoid the use of 

sulfonylurea and other acetolactate synthase (ALS)-

inhibiting active ingredients. Based on these comments

and NEPA-review requirements, alternatives addressing

the use of herbicides are evaluated in the PEIS. The

effects of other non-herbicide vegetation treatments are 

described in the PER. 

Issues Not Addressed in the Draft PEIS 

Approximately 16% of comments received were not

addressed in the PEIS or PER because they were

beyond the scope of the document or did not meet the 

basic purpose and need of the project. The following are 

examples of comments not addressed in the PEIS or

PER: 

• Address the impacts of livestock grazing on 

aquifer recharge and wildlife habitat 

• Amend the Mining Act of 1872 

• Have scoping meetings in each district and 

extend the scoping period 

• Classify wild horses as big game for sportsmen 

• Increase penalties for violators of OHV rules 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides 1-13 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
PROPOSED ACTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED 

• The BLM is unconstitutional

Public Review and Comment on the 

Draft Programmatic EIS, ER, and BA 

The Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft 

Vegetation Treatments using Herbicides on Bureau of 

Land Management Lands in 17 Western States 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement was 

published in the Federal Register on November 10, 

2005. The public comment period was originally 

scheduled from November 10, 2005, through January 9, 

2006; however, a notice extending the public comment 

period through February 10, 2006, was published in the 

Federal Register on January 20, 2006. Public notices 

announcing the comment period were placed in 

newspapers with circulation in or near locations where 

public meetings were held. The BLM issued a press 

release on November 10, 2006, notifying the public that 

the Draft PEIS, PER, and BA were available for public 

review, and listing the schedule for public comment 

hearings. Information on the Draft PEIS, PER, and BA 

were also posted on the interactive website. The public 

was able to access the website to download a copy of 

the Draft PEIS, PER, and BA. 

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. These hearings allowed 

the BLM to provide an overview of the alternatives and 

to take public comments and subsistence testimony. 

Nearly 3,000 comments were received on the Draft 

PEIS, PER, and BA. Comments included letters, 

electronic mail, facsimiles, and comments provided at 

the public hearings in Boise and Sacramento (no public 

testimony was given at the other public hearings). A 

summary of the comments received and issues 

identified and specific comments and responses are 

presented in Volume III of this final PEIS. All 

comments are reproduced on the CD located in the back 

pocket of Volume I of the PEIS. 

Limitations of this PEIS 

This PEIS is a programmatic document that addresses 

the broad impacts associated with the proposed action 

and alternatives to the proposed action. Environmental

impacts are assessed at a general level because of the

broad land area analyzed in the PEIS. Site-specific

impacts would be assessed in NEPA documents 

prepared by local BLM offices and tiered to this 

document. 

The analyses of impacts of the use herbicides in this

PEIS are based on the best and most recent information

available. As is always the case when developing 

management direction for a wide range of resources, not 

all information that might be desired was available. The 

CEQ 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; 2) a statement of the relevance of the

incomplete or unavailable information to evaluating 

reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts on 

the human environment; 3) a summary of existing 

credible scientific evidence which is relevant to 

evaluating the reasonably foreseeable significant 

adverse impacts on the human environment; and 4) the

agency’s evaluation of such impacts based upon

theoretical approaches or research methods generally 

accepted in the scientific community. For the purposes 

of this section, “reasonably foreseeable” includes 

“impacts which have catastrophic consequences, even if 

their probability of occurrence is low, provided that the

analysis of the impacts is supported by credible 

scientific evidence, is not based on pure conjecture, and 

is within the rule of reason” (40 CFR 1502.22 b). 

For this PEIS, the primary effect of unavailable

information is the inability to quantify certain impacts. 

Where quantification was not possible, impacts have 

been described in qualitative terms. A summary of 

existing credible scientific evidence that is relevant to 

evaluating the reasonably foreseeable adverse impacts 

on the human and socioeconomic environment and

support the BLM’s evaluation of such impacts have 

been included in chapters 3 and 4, in the appendices that

accompany this PEIS, and in supporting documents that

were prepared for this PEIS that have been included on 

the accompanying CD or are available on the BLM 

website at http://www.blm.gov. A copy of the PER and

its supporting documents are also available at this 

website.

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides 1-14 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
PROPOSED ACTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED 

Preview of the Remainder of the 

PEIS 

If changes in the proposed vegetation treatment

activities and levels occur in the future, they would be

reviewed to determine whether additional 

environmental documentation was needed, including an

EA or EIS. This PEIS would serve as a source 

document that would be used to support any additional 

documentation that may be required. Any new or

additional actions would also be evaluated for 

compliance with federal, state, and local laws and 

regulations prior to implementation, and the public 

would be informed of any major actions that may be 

considered for implementation by the BLM as part of 

the NEPA compliance process. 

The format of this PEIS follows guidance provided by 

the CEQ and BLM National Environmental Policy Act 

Handbook H-1790-1 (USDI BLM 1988b). Because this

PEIS contains a broad range of information, Figure 1-2

shows the types of information found in the PEIS, and 

where it is located. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides 1-15 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS 
PROPOSED ACTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED 

TABLE 1-1 

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

Location Where Issues Are Addressed in the PEIS and PER 

Issue Where Addressed 

in PEIS and (PER)

Program Purpose and Need 

Focus on long-term ecosystem sustainability and biological diversity; clearly define restoration objectives 

(39) 

1-1, 1-3, 2-1, 2-5, 2-

22, Ch. 4. (Chs. 1, 2) 

Need to address all invasive plants, not just weeds (34) 1-1, 2-3, 2-22 (Chs. 2, 

4) 

Evaluate land use impacts, such as grazing and fire suppression, on the decline of ecosystem health (377) 1-1, 1-5, Ch. 4 (Chs.1, 

2, 4) 

Focus on addressing the causes rather than treating the symptoms (102) 2-5, 2-15, 2-23 (Ch. 

2) 

Address how PEIS will impact Resource Management Plans and other local planning (23) 1,-5, 1-8 (Ch. 1) 

Work closely with agencies, conservation groups, and private landowners on vegetation management (93) 1-9, 1-11, 2-25, 2-39, 

Ch. 5 (Ch. 1) 

Proposed Action

Ensure that adequate funds are available to treat enough land and monitor treatment success (45) 2-22 

Consider all treatment methods (11) 2-8, 2-14 (Ch. 2)

Naturally-occurring fires should be allowed to burn and restored to public lands (38) 1-1, (Chs. 2, 3, 4)

Use newer, less toxic herbicides where feasible, and limit use or avoid use of herbicides (75) 2-9, Ch. 4, App. B, C 

Describe how herbicides were chosen and evaluated in the PEIS (33) 2-9, Ch. 4, App. B, C 

Describe where acres will be treated and method of accounting for acres that receive multiple treatments (28) 2-21 (Ch. 1) 

Other Potential Alternatives

Reduce or eliminate the use of herbicides; apply from the ground rather than from the air (206) 2-19 

Fuels reduction should only occur in WUI or where there is a threat of significant wildfire (39) 1-1, 2-22 (Ch. 2)

Treat more acres; treat fewer acres (8) 2-22 

Develop a no-grazing alternative; develop a no-logging alternative; develop a no-OHV alternative (12) 1-5 

Develop restrictions on motorized vehicle use on public lands (72) 1-5 

Develop an alternative based on an ecosystem management approach (2) 2-20 

Restoration Goals and Best Management Practices 

Identify restoration objectives and focus on preventative measures to eliminate the causes of land degradation 

(103) 

2-22, Ch. 4 (Ch. 2) 

Restoration efforts should focus on restoring natural disturbance regimes and ecosystem processes (11) 2-22, Ch. 4 (Ch 4 ) 

Improve management of public lands for multiple use and maximum public benefit (22) 2-1 (Ch. 2) 

Use native plants and certified native seed, where practical, for revegetation (59) 2-22, 2-27 (Ch. 2)

Restrict grazing on lands that are being rehabilitated or that have not been impacted by livestock (10) 2-23, 2-32 (Ch. 2) 

Monitor success of treatments and establish performance measures to determine treatment success (42) 2-35 (Ch. 2) 

Include public education as part of the vegetation treatment program (39) 2-39 (Ch. 2) 

Environmental Consequences

Address the impacts on air quality from prescribed burning (18) (Ch. 4) 

Address the impacts of herbicides on water quality (39) 4-24 

Assess the role of fire in contributing to weed growth (44) (Chs. 1, 2, 3, 4) 

Evaluate the effects of herbicide treatments on non-target species (28) 4-44 

Address the role of grazing in controlling weeds and other invasive vegetation and hazardous fuels (27) (Ch. 4) 

Vegetation treatments should focus on restoring habitat and natural ecological processes (25) 1-1, 1-3, 2-1, 2-5, 2-8, 

Ch. 4 (Chs. 1, 2, 4) 

Address the impacts of treatments on species of concern (55) 4-71, 4-92, 4-124 (Ch. 

4) 

Describe how treatments will occur in wilderness areas (26) 2-16,2-29, 4-155

(Chs. 2, 4) 

Address the impacts of prescribed fire on powerline operations and safety (12) (Ch. 4) 

Evaluate the impacts to subsistence crops used by Native Americans and Alaska Natives (10) 4-149 (Ch. 4)

Address the risks to humans and fish and wildlife from use of herbicides and smoke from prescribed fire (54) 4-101, 4-174 (Ch. 4 ) 

Address how will vegetation treatments will affect the local economy (40) 4-163 (Ch. 4) 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides 1-16 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS
PROPOSED ACTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED

VOLUME 3 

Comments and Responses

Provides a summary of the comments received on the Draft PEIS, PER, and BA 

Figure 1-2 

How This Programmatic EIS is Organized.

Related Reports 

(on the CD located in the back pocket of the PEIS) 

1. Biological Assessment

2. Human Health Risk Assessment Final Report 

3. Ecological Risk Assessments for Each Herbicide Evaluated by the BLM

4. Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol

5. Comment Letters, Facsimiles, and Electronic Mail on Draft PEIS, PER, and BA

VOLUME 1 

Chapter 1 Proposed Action and Purpose and Need 

Summarizes the proposed action, purpose and need, and decisions to be made in this PEIS. 

Chapter 2 Alternatives 

Describes and compares the proposed management alternatives. 

Chapter 3 Affected Environment 

Presents existing natural and socioeconomic resources on public lands in the western U.S. 

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Evaluates the impacts of the alternatives on public land resources in the western U.S. and 

describes mitigation proposed for program-related impacts to resources. 

Chapter 5 Consultation and Coordination 

Describes the scoping and public hearing processes, agencies contacted, and government-togovernment consultation, and lists the preparers of the PEIS. 

Chapter 6 References

Lists the documents and other sources used to prepare the PEIS. 

Chapter 7 Glossary 

Provides definitions for important terms used in the PEIS. 

Chapter 8 Index 

Lists where significant issues, resource descriptions, NEPA terms, and agencies and groups

discussed in the PEIS are located. 

Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Symbols (fold-out at end of Volume 1) 

Lists the acronyms, abbreviations, and symbols used in the PEIS. 

VOLUME 2 

Appendixes

A. Common and Scientific Names of Plants and Animals Given in the PEIS 

B. Human Health Risk Assessment 

C. Ecological Risk Assessment

D. Evaluation of Risks from Degradates, Polyoxythylene-amine (POEA), and Endocrine 

Disrupting Chemicals 

E. Protocol for Identifying, Evaluating, and Using New Herbicides 

F. BLM Reference Manuals and Handbooks 

G. Consultation Agreements

H. ANILCA Section 810 Analysis of Subsistence Impacts 

I. American Lands Alliance Alternative and BLM Analysis of Alternative 

J. Special Status Species List

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides 1-17 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS