APPENDIX E 

PROTOCOL FOR IDENTIFYING, 

EVALUATING, AND USING NEW 

HERBICIDES 

NEW HERBICIDE EVALUATION PROTOCOL

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page

Identification and Approval of New Chemical Products and Technologies............................................................ E-1

Networking ...................................................................................................................................................... E-1

Research and Demonstration ........................................................................................................................... E-1

Technical Research and Publications .............................................................................................................. E-2

Vendor Marketing............................................................................................................................................ E-2

Determining the Need for New Herbicides.............................................................................................................. E-2

Assessment of Hazards and Risks............................................................................................................................ E-3

NEPA Documentation ............................................................................................................................................. E-5

Review Existing NEPA Documents................................................................................................................ E-5

Prepare a New NEPA Document..................................................................................................................... E-6

Special Status Species ..................................................................................................................................... E-6

References................................................................................................................................................................ E-8

List of Figures 

E-1 New Herbicide Evaluation and Approval Process.................................................................E-3 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides E-i June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS

NEW HERBICIDE EVALUATION PROTOCOL 

APPENDIX E 

PROTOCOL FOR IDENTIFYING, 

EVALUATING, AND USING NEW 

HERBICIDES 

The U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land

Management (USDI BLM) may become aware of new

herbicide products and technologies that are developed 

and marketed in the future, and may consider 

application of these products or technologies in

vegetation treatment projects. The BLM may also want 

to use herbicides that were approved for use by earlier 

EIS Records of Decision, but are not approved for use 

under the Record of Decision for the Final

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

(PEIS). This appendix discusses the procedures that

the BLM would follow if an alternative is identified in

the Record of Decision that allows the BLM to use

herbicides approved for use in the past, and if new 

herbicides are approved for use in the future. 

Identification and Approval 

of New Chemical Products 

and Technologies 

Means by which the BLM could learn of new products

and their applications include, but are not limited to,

through professional networking, technical research

and publications, and vendor marketing. 

Networking 

Participation in professional networks is an important 

method for staying current on new herbicides, yielding

information on the technical, regulatory, efficacy, and 

environmental aspects of herbicide products in the

development phase and those currently on the market. 

The primary professional associations that BLM land

managers participate in and network with include, but

are not limited to: 

• U.S Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA) Office of Pesticide Programs; 

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); 

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS); 

• U.S Department of Agriculture (USDA)

Agricultural Research Service; 

• Natural Resources Conservation Service;

• Weed Science Society of America; 

• Western Society of Weed Science; 

• Society for Range Management; 

• State pest control associations; 

• State departments of agriculture; 

• Universities and colleges; 

• University extension services; 

• County conservation districts; and 

• County weed districts. 

For the most part, networking occurs at the local level,

with BLM professional staff and managers working 

with local representatives of the organizations 

mentioned above. Bureau of Land Management state

weed coordinators and vegetation management

professionals often represent the agency at annual

meetings and workshops. Bureau of Land 

Management Washington Office managers and staff 

network at national and international level annual

meetings, sponsor and attend regional and local 

meetings and workshops, and participate in field trips 

to treatment demonstration areas on public or private

lands. 

Research and Demonstration 

Demonstration areas for current and emerging 

technologies play an important role in facilitating 

research and evaluating efficacy of treatment 

applications. Current BLM practice allows for limited 

and controlled use of new herbicides on demonstration

plots up to 5 acres in size, with a maximum of 15 acres 

per field office. Approval to adopt a new herbicide for

research and demonstration use is provided by the

Washington Office after an initial evaluation of 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides E-1 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS
NEW HERBICIDE EVALUATION PROTOCOL

USEPA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) registration materials and

risk assessments. If research and demonstration results 

appear favorable, BLM then considers the herbicide 

for general approval after further human health and 

ecological risk assessments are undertaken, and the

results are evaluated through the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. 

Technical Research and Publications 

In addition to the professional journals associated with

vegetation management societies and associations, the

BLM obtains information on vegetation management 

and herbicide treatments from the following sources:

USDA Agricultural Research Service research

publications, university research summaries, 

cooperative extension service publications, USEPA 

registration data, toxicological and risk assessment 

studies, literature summaries, and technical databases. 

Databases and technical sources consulted by the BLM

include: AGRICOLA, ASFA (Aquatic Sciences and

Fisheries Abstracts), Biological Sciences,

BIOSIS/Biological Abstracts, Chemical

Abstracts/Scifinder Scholar, Environmental Science 

and Pollution Management, MedLine, Safety Science 

and Risk, Toxline, Water Resources Abstracts, Web of 

Science/Science Citation Index, and Zoological

Records. The general public and non-governmental

organizations also provide the BLM with information

through the NEPA process, and other participatory 

processes. 

Vendor Marketing 

Vendors of invasive plant control technologies,

including agrochemical company representatives,

contact the BLM to introduce new active ingredients 

and new formulations, and to provide updates on

existing products. These contacts may come in the

form of mailed brochures or advertisements, telephone

contacts, or personal visits. Companies may sponsor

seminars in local cities and towns to promote and 

educate local, county, state, and federal professionals

in the area on the safe use of products and

technologies. 

Occasionally, members of the public who are 

interested in various approaches to vegetation

treatment send relevant information to the BLM. As 

with vegetation treatment methods identified through 

other avenues, if the BLM determines that the

approach may have some utility for meeting its needs, 

a product demonstration or additional information may 

be requested. 

Determining the Need for 

New Herbicides

In order for the BLM to consider and approve a new

active ingredient or formulation, the BLM must first 

consider whether there is a need for an available 

product. Factors that would be considered when

assessing the need for adopting an available product

include, but are not limited to: spectrum of application,

efficacy, factors that could limit efficacy, extent or

scope of use, cost, availability, availability of

substitute or alternative products or technologies, 

expected effectiveness compared to any currently used 

methods, previous use reports at other sites and their 

outcomes, results from research and demonstration

use, training and personnel requirements, and any 

other relevant factors including hazards and risks.

Once a need is determined, the BLM would then

integrate the approval process with its annual budget

cycle. In general, the approval/budget process should

take approximately 2 fiscal years to complete once a 

need for an available product is identified (see Figure

E-1). 

The determination for the need is a primarily a

“bottom up” process that would typically start with the 

BLM field office collecting information regarding the 

need to: 1) add a new active ingredient to the BLM list

of approved active ingredients; 2) modify existing

labels (e.g., add aerial applications to a label); or 3) 

identify new active ingredients through contacts within

the local research community. Once the BLM field 

office determines a need, it would provide a summary 

and request as an attachment to its end-of-year (EOY) 

pesticide use report.

Once the request is made, it would then go to the state 

weed or pesticide coordinator, who would review the 

request and any other requests received. The state 

weed or pesticide coordinator would then screen the 

suggestions and requests, clarify any information 

required, submit additional requests and suggestions

identified throughout the year by other sources, and

provide a single summary request to the BLM

Washington, D.C., office with its annual state-wide

pesticide use report.

Before an herbicide active ingredient is proposed for 

consideration by the BLM field or state office, it will

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides E-2 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS
NEW HERBICIDE EVALUATION PROTOCOL 

End of Fiscal Year 0 Fiscal Year + 1 Fiscal Year +2

BLM Assistant Director 

approves request for inclusion

into Planned Target 

Allocations. 

1st Quarter 

Risk Assessments included in 

Washington, D.C., Office 

Planned Target Allocations. 

NEPA analysis completed. 

BLM Washington Office

Coordinator and Integrated

Pest Management Specialist 

review requests and forward to

Assistant Director.

2nd Quarter 

Protocol reviewed and revised

as Necessary Statement of

Work Developed Annual 

Work Plan. 

Results reviewed by

Washington Office 

Coordinator, Integrated Pest 

Management Specialist, and 

BLM Toxicologist. 

State Office Coordinator 

submits request list to BLM 

Washington Office with Endof-year Pesticide Use Report. 

3rd Quarter 

Contract awarded for Risk

Assessments and NEPA 

Analysis.

Determination made through 

Record of Decision. 

State Office Coordinator 

reviews request. 

4th Quarter 

Risk Assessment(s) completed 

and NEPA analysis initiated. 

New product added to list. 

Field office submits request to 

state office with End-of-year

Pesticide Use Report. 

Field office identifies need for

new product. 

Figure E-1. New Herbicide Evaluation and Approval Process. 

have a completed USEPA FIFRA registration in place,

and be labeled for use on the site proposed (e.g.

rangeland, pasture, non-cropland, aquatic habitat). The

BLM would not consider any active ingredients in its

review and approval process, including research and

demonstration, for products proposed to be registered, 

or in the registration process, before the FIFRA 

registration process is complete. The BLM would 

comply with changes in label directions that may occur

in the future, and would comply with state registration

requirements. Thus, if current state requirements do 

not allow the application of an herbicide being

considered for use by the BLM, the BLM would not 

apply that herbicide in the state where it is not

approved for use. 

Proposals and suggestions would be received and 

reviewed by the BLM office in Washington, D.C..

Specialists involved in this review would include the

senior weed specialist, integrated pest management 

specialist, rangeland specialist, and others who may 

have an interest in the determination to be made. This

group would determine whether the new active

ingredient being proposed would benefit the BLM, or 

if the benefit would be so limited in scope that the cost

to proceed would not be justified. This group would 

also determine whether a proposed label modification 

would benefit the entire BLM. Once the proposals and

suggestions have been reviewed, final 

recommendations would be forwarded by the

Rangeland Division Chief to the Assistant Director for

Renewable Resources and Planning for inclusion into

the following fiscal year’s budget process to conduct

risk assessments. 

Assessment of Hazards and 

Risks 

Any new herbicide considered for use by the BLM 

must be registered under FIFRA, which requires

product performance data relating to its effectiveness.

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides E-3 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS
NEW HERBICIDE EVALUATION PROTOCOL

This requirement was designed “to ensure that

pesticide products will control the pests listed on the

label and that unnecessary pesticide exposure to the 

environment will not occur as a result of the use of

ineffective products” (40 Code of Federal Regulations

[CFR] 158.202[i]). Therefore, any new pesticide 

registered under FIFRA is expected to be generally 

effective for the labeled uses. To further assess the

potential for site-specific effectiveness prior to an 

actual application in the field, the BLM field office

manager would investigate its use through professional

networks, technical publications, and research reports,

such as those described in the previous section. 

As stated above, the BLM only uses herbicide

products that are registered by the USEPA under

FIFRA. For an herbicide to be considered for use on 

public lands, a body of USEPA-reviewed

toxicological, environmental fate, and ecotoxicity data

submitted by the pesticide manufacturer to support its

registration application would be available for review, 

especially for new active ingredients. Active

ingredients for products undergoing re-registration

could have fewer data available if the original

registration package did not include extensive 

ecological toxicology data. These data could then be

used to conduct an assessment of the potential human 

health and ecological risks from the herbicide’s use,

including, but not limited to, the following

components:

• Identification of potential use patterns, 

including target plants, formulation,

application methods, locations to be treated, 

application rate, and anticipated frequency.

• Review of chemical hazards relevant to the

human health risk assessment, including 

systemic and reproductive effects, skin and 

eye irritation, allergic hypersensitivity, 

carcinogenicity, dermal absorption, 

eurotoxicity, immunotoxicity, and endocrine

disruption. 

• Estimation of exposure to workers applying

the chemical or re-entering a treated area. 

• Environmental fate and transport, including 

drift, leaching to groundwater, and runoff to

surface streams and ponds. 

• Estimation of exposure to members of the

public. 

• Review of available ecotoxicity data,

including hazards to mammals, birds, reptiles,

amphibians, fish, and aquatic invertebrates. 

• Estimation of exposure to terrestrial and

aquatic wildlife species.

• Characterization of risk to human health and 

wildlife. 

If the available toxicity or ecotoxicity data were

inconclusive, or if substantial disagreement should 

occur among the results of technical studies that could

affect the potential risk conclusions for the chemical, 

the BLM would conduct a formal peer review of the 

available scientific information to develop a consensus

as to the endpoint(s) in question. The peer review

process would include the following steps, based

largely on USEPA’s peer review process (USEPA 

2000): 

• The BLM would conduct a literature search of 

studies submitted to the USEPA, studies 

published in professional journals, and 

research projects conducted by other 

government agencies or universities. The

identified literature would be indexed and

abstracted.

• A peer review committee would be formed, 

consisting of reviewers with recognized

relevant technical expertise, who represent a

balanced range of scientific points of view,

and who do not have any real or perceived

bias or conflict of interest. The peer reviewers 

would be supplied with their charge, the

results of the literature review, and a 

description of the issue at hand. 

• The input of each reviewer would be sent to 

BLM. If the results of the peer review were

not consistent at this point, a working session

would be convened, in which the peer

reviewers would come together to discuss the

technical aspects of the questions and attempt

to reach a consensus. 

The details of the peer review process would be

determined by the question to be answered and the

nature of the controversy. To the extent they are

relevant, the guidelines and processes in USEPA’s 

Peer Review Handbook (USEPA 2000) would be

followed. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides E-4 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS
NEW HERBICIDE EVALUATION PROTOCOL 

After making a decision to budget for the risk

assessment(s), the next step would be to review the 

human health and ecological risk assessment 

protocols. The initial protocols to be reviewed are the

protocols used in this PEIS effort for the HHRA and 

ERA (see appendices B and C; ENSR 2004, 2005). 

The BLM assumes there would be further research

conducted on a continuing and ongoing basis, and

environmental standards and end-points would change

over time, as the science was refined. There would be

regulatory changes, as well, to keep pace with new

information. Therefore, it is required that the risk 

assessment protocols be reviewed by the BLM to

ensure they reflect the best science available and to 

ensure current standards for environmental review are

utilized while the risk assessments are conducted. If 

there were new information, or changes to

environmental standards were identified, the protocols

would be revised as required to meet the new

standards prior to conducting additional risk

assessments, whether for new active ingredients or 

new risk assessments for previously-approved active 

ingredients. Standards for literature review in the

protocols would also be reviewed and updated as 

necessary to ensure that all ecotoxicological literature

available was identified prior to conducting a risk

assessment. 

NEPA Documentation 

The potential use of new herbicides would require a

review to ensure compliance with NEPA. The review 

would follow the process outlined in the BLM

National Environmental Policy Act Handbook (H1790-1; USDI BLM 1988). The review process would

consist of the steps outlined in the following text. 

Review Existing NEPA Documents 

The following text describes the types of NEPA 

documents that would be reviewed to determine

whether any have fully covered the use of the

proposed new herbicide. 

BLM NEPA Documents 

The BLM would review this PEIS or other agency

Programmatic EISs for relevant information about the 

proposed herbicide. The BLM would also review

NEPA documents prepared by other federal agencies 

with the BLM as a cooperating agency for relevant

information. 

Other Agency NEPA Documents 

NEPA documents for which the BLM was not listed as

a cooperating agency, but for which the scope is

relevant to evaluation of the proposed herbicide, would 

also be reviewed by the BLM. Possible source 

agencies could include the USDA Forest Service, 

National Park Service, USDA Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service, and the military services. 

Depending on the outcome of the review, it might be 

appropriate to tier, supplement, or incorporate by

reference parts or all of existing document(s) as part of

the document preparation process: 

• Tiering (40 CFR 1508.28) could be used to 

prepare new, more specific, or more narrow 

environmental documents without duplicating 

relevant parts of previously prepared general

documents, such as this PEIS. Tiering is 

mostly used to avoid unnecessary paperwork;

documents can be tiered only if decisions

made in the new document would not change 

or modify the decision(s) of the more general

document. 

• Supplementing (40 CFR 1502.9c) is most 

often used to address alternatives not 

previously analyzed, and may lead to a new

decision. In this instance, a supplemental EIS 

(SEIS) to this PEIS could be prepared.

Supplemental documents are generally

prepared when there is a substantial change in

the proposed action that is relevant to

environmental concerns; that is, if there are

significant new circumstances or facts 

relevant to environmental concerns and 

bearing on proposed action or impacts that

were not addressed in the previous analysis. If 

the existing PEIS is supplemented, the same

standard procedural and documentation

requirements for EISs are followed (see 

Chapter 5 of the National Environmental 

Policy Act Handbook; USDI BLM 1988), 

except that additional scoping is optional. In 

addition, the SEIS must identify the EIS being 

supplemented and explain the relationship to

the prior analysis early in the text. Further, the

SEIS should identify changes in the proposed

project and/or significant new information or 

changed circumstances that necessitate

preparation of the supplement. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides E-5 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS
NEW HERBICIDE EVALUATION PROTOCOL

• Incorporating by reference (40 CFR 1502.21)

is a technique used to avoid redundancies in

analysis and to reduce the bulk of a NEPA 

document. An EIS must identify the 

documents that are incorporated by reference

and indicate where they are available for 

public review. Relevant portions of the

incorporated analysis must be referenced by

page number, and summarized in the EIS to

the extent necessary to provide the 

decisionmaker and public with an

understanding of significance of the

referenced material to the current analysis.

The new NEPA document must be able to

stand alone. 

If existing NEPA documentation was found to be

adequate, but the BLM was not formally a cooperating 

agency on the document, then the BLM would adopt

the document to comply with NEPA; adoption would

be in accordance with the requirements set forth in 40 

CFR 1506.3. 

If existing NEPA documentation was determined to be

inadequate, a new NEPA document would be

prepared.

Prepare a New NEPA Document 

The process for complying with NEPA for proposals

to approve the use of new active ingredients on BLM 

public lands differs from the standard NEPA screening 

process for other federal actions. For example, neither 

the USDI, nor the BLM have categorical exclusions 

(“a category of [federal] actions that does not

individually or cumulatively have a significant effect

on the human environment...for which, therefore,

neither an EA nor an EIS is required;” 40 CFR 1508.4)

that address the use of herbicides; therefore, this step

does not apply. The BLM, through this and previous 

EISs, has already determined that approval of 

herbicides for future use on public lands is a 

controversial federal action significantly affecting the 

human environment. It is therefore inappropriate to use 

an EA and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) 

for such approval. This is not to say a particular 

project involving the use of herbicides could not be 

assessed with an EA level analysis, properly tiered to a 

land use plan EIS or other NEPA document, such as

this Programmatic EIS. This determination of 

significance only applies to the approval of a new

active ingredient for use by BLM overall. Site-specific 

impacts for any project using herbicides would be

assessed at a level appropriate for the project, using the

standards for “Significantly” found under 40 CFR

1508.27. 

Initially, the BLM would use this PEIS as its basis for 

conducting future risk assessments and approvals.

Following the guidance under 40 CFR 1502.9 (4) 

Environmental Impact Statement, Draft, Final and

Supplemental Statements, the BLM would conduct risk

assessments on new active ingredients and build on the 

analysis contained in this PEIS through the issuance of 

a Supplemental EIS (SEIS). A final decision on

whether an active ingredient was approved would be 

recorded in a Record of Decision. Supplemental EISs 

would be utilized for approvals of new active

ingredients until such time as the need for a new

programmatic EIS was warranted and such a document

was prepared. For cost efficiency, it is recommended 

that BLM assess several active ingredients together in

one Supplemental EIS. 

Special Status Species 

Federal policies and procedures for protecting

federally-listed threatened and endangered plant and 

animal species, and species proposed for listing, were 

established by the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 

1973 and regulations issued pursuant to the Act. The

purposes of the Act are to provide mechanisms for the 

conservation of threatened and endangered species and 

their habitats. Under the ESA, the Secretary of the

Interior is required to determine which species are

threatened or endangered and to issue recovery plans 

for those species. 

Section 7 of the ESA specifically requires all federal

agencies to use their authorities in furtherance of the

ESA to carry out programs for the conservation of

listed species, and to ensure that no agency action is

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed 

species or adversely modify critical habitat. Policy and 

guidance (BLM Manual 6840) also stipulates that 

species proposed for listing are managed at the same

level of protection as listed species. 

The BLM state directors may designate sensitive 

species in cooperation with their respective state.

These sensitive species (special status) must receive, at

a minimum, the same level of protection as federal 

candidate species. The BLM will also carry out 

management for the conservation of state-listed

species, and state laws protecting these species shall

apply to all BLM programs and actions to the extent

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides E-6 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS
NEW HERBICIDE EVALUATION PROTOCOL 

that they are consistent with the FLPMA and other 

federal laws. 

The BLM would consult with the USFWS and NMFS. 

Should the BLM decide to use new herbicides or 

herbicide-application technologies in the future, as 

required under Section 7 of the ESA. As part of this 

process, the BLM would prepare a consultation 

package that could include a description of the 

program; species listed as threatened or endangered, 

species proposed for listing, and critical habitats that 

could be affected by the program; and a BA that 

evaluated the likely impacts to listed species, species 

proposed for listing, and critical habitats from the 

proposed vegetation treatment program. The BLM 

would also provide guidance on actions that would be 

taken by the BLM to avoid adversely impacting 

species or result destroying critical habitat. 

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 E-7 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS
NEW HERBICIDE EVALUATION PROTOCOL

References 

ENSR. 2004. Vegetation Treatments Programmatic 

EIS Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol. Report

Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management, 

Reno, Nevada. Westford, Massachusetts. 

ENSR. 2005. Human Health Risk Assessment Final 

Report. Report Prepared for the Bureau of Land 

Management, Reno, Nevada. Westford, 

Massachusetts. 

US Department of the Interior Bureau of Land 

Management (USDI BLM). 1988. National

Environmental Policy Act Handbook. Bureau of 

Land Management Handbook H-1790-1 

Washington, D.C. 

U.S Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 

2000. Peer Review Handbook 2nd Edition. 

Washington, D.C. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/osp/spc/prhandbk.pdf

BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides E-8 June 2007 

Final Programmatic EIS