Amendment

to

Record of Decision

for

USDA Forest Service

Pacific Northwest Region

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Managing Competing and Unwanted Vegetation

February 1992

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

Background. 1

Purpose of This Amendment 1

mE ACTION..

RATIONALE.

PUBLIC COMMENT !

IMPLEMENTATION. 9

APPEAL RIGHTS 10

APPENDIX A -IMPLEMENTATION

INTRODUCTION

Background

The Record of Decision (ROD) of December 8, 1988, for the Final Environmental

Impact Statement for Managing Competing and Unwanted Vegetation includes

mitigation measures to reduce the human health risks associated with vegetation

treatment methods. Three mitigation measures in the ROD prohibit women from

performing certain herbicide applications because potential risks of

gender-specific health effects from direct contact exceeded levels identified

by the Forest Service as acceptable risks.

On March 20, 1991, the U.S. Supreme Court decided International Union v.

Johnson Controls, Inc., 111 S.Ct. 1196 (1991). The Supreme Court concluded

that an employer is prohibited from discriainating against a woman because of

her capacity to become pregnant, unless her reproductive potential prevents her

from performing the duties of her job. The Forest Service has determined that

the three mitigation measures from the Record of Decision appear to be

inconsistent with this Supreme Court ruling.

Purpose of This Amendment

This amendment to the 1988 ROD removes the gender-specific mitigation measures

to comply with the Supreme Court's ruling. This amendment adds nine, new

mitigation measures to avert potential risks to human health that could occur

because the gender-specific measures are no longer in effect.

This amendment changes how the Pacific Northwest Region protects workers from

gender-specific health effects. while protecting them from discrimination inemployment. 

No other provisions of the selected alternative for the Regional

program. Alternative H. or the ROD are changed.

No provisions of the Mediated Agreement are affected by revoking

gender-specific worker restrictions. (The "Mediated Agreement" is a legal

document signed by parties to the lawsuit under which the Forest Service had

been enjoined since 1984 from applying herbicides in the Pacific NorthwestRegion. 

Under the agreement, the parties jointly moved the court to dissolve

the injunction and dismiss the complaint against the Forest Service with

prejudice, and the Forest Service agreed to comply with additional requirements

for implementing the ROD.)

THE ACTION

As indicated in Appendix A, gender-specific worker restrictions will be removed

from the mitigation measures for vegetation management projects listed in the

ROD, page 19. The mitigation measures being removed are:

Female workers (either Forest Service employees or contract workers)will 

not be used as mixers or loaders in atrazine or bromacilapplications.
Page 2

Female workers (either Forest Service employees or contract workers)

will not be used in backpack spray or hack-and-squirt operations

involving the application of 2.4-D. glyphosate. dicamba. tebuthiuron.

triclopyr. simazine. or bromacil.

Female workers (either Forest Service employees or contract workers)will 

not be used in dalapon applications.

In addition, the footnote on page 19 of the ROD will be removed. The revisedfootnote, 

with gender-specific language eliminated, is now mitigation measure

#1.

As a part of this action, nine new mitigation measures will be added:

Research studies, including both laboratory studies of animals and

studies of human populations, demonstrate the potential for

gender-specific adverse health effects of glyphosate, dicamba,

tebuthiuron, triclopyr, simazine, bromacil, atrazine, 2,4-D, anddalapon. 

Any employees not wanting exposure to these herbicides will

be given alternate work assignments that do not involve direct contact

wi th herbicides. There are many assignments, even in herbicideoperations, 

which do not involve direct contact with herbicides.

The herbicide dalapon will not be used unless its registration is

restored by the EPA.

#3-- Each worker on herbicide application projects, whether Forest Service

employee or contract employee, shall be informed of any known

potential human health effects of the specific herbicides to be used

prior to starting the project. Each worker will be provided with a

copy of the "Methods Information Profile for Herbicides" and the

relevant "Herbicide Information Profiles" produced by the Pacific

Northwest Region. Prior to beginning the project, each worker shall

sign a statement indicating that she or he has reviewed the material,

and either agrees to work on the project as assigned, or requests a

reassignment.

#4-- All herbicide application projects shall have available at the work

site a permanent or portable eyewash unit and other washing facilities

with a supply of uncontaminated water and soap sufficient to wash

hands as required and the entire body in the event of accidental

contact with herbicides.

All workers should have a complete change of clothes available at the

work site in case of accidental exposure to herbicides. A complete

set of clean clothes should be worn daily.

#5--
Page 3

Where premixed packages exist in operationally efficient quantities

for herbicide formulations selected for use, they shall be used.

Exposure-reducing equipment such as drip-free couplings and nozzle

shields for hand-held spray wands shall be identified in the Job

Hazard Analysis. Where effective in reducing exposure under the

site-specific conditions of the project, this equipment shall be used

in both Forest Service and contract operations.

While mixing or loading atrazine for aerial or vehicle-mounted

operations, all workers shall wear, in addition to items which may be

required by the herbicide label or material safety data sheets, the

following personal protective equipment made from material impervious

to the herbicides involved: boots, long unlined gloves, sleeved

aprons (gowns), and a face shield which curves in at the neck.

Relevant contracts shall require the same equipment for contractworkers.

While mixing or loading simazine* for aerial operations, all workers

shall wear, in addition to items which may be required by the

herbicide label or material safety data sheets, the following personal

protective equipment made from material impervious to the herbicidesinvolved: 

boots, long gloves, sleeved aprons (gowns), and a face

shield which curves in at the neck. Relevant contracts shall require

the same equipment for contract workers.

For all backpack or hack-and-squirt applications involving glyphosate,

dicamba, tebuthiuron, triclopyr, simazine, bromacil, atrazine, or

2,4-D, the following equipment made from material impervious to the

herbicides involved shall be available at the job site for eachworker: 

overpants and jacket or coveralls, hood, unlined gloves, face

shields, and goggles. These items may be either disposable or

reusable; in either case they must be used in accordance with

manufacturer's directions and may not be used beyond the

manufacturer's recommended wear-times. Workers may elect to use all

or any of these items. However, impervious gloves and rubber boots

(which it may be the responsibility of the worker to purchase) as well

as any items required by the herbicide labels or material safety data

sheets must always be worn. Contracts for the application of the

herbicides specified above shall require the provision of the personal

protective equipment specified in this measure.

* A transcription error in the 1988 ROD erroneously prescribed

limitations on mixing/loading bromacil. This amendment correctly

refers to simazine in place of bromacil; cf. Characterization and

Management of Risk, page 54.
Page 4

For insertion into A Guide to Conducting Vegetation Management

Projects in the Pacific Northwest Region:

All contracts for herbicide application projects shall require

compliance with the procedures for informing workers of potential

health risks, and with the hygiene provisons contained in the ROD.

The Contracting Officer's Representative shall satisfy her/himself

that facilities which comply with the above requirements are on-site

prior to authorizing commencement of work. Contract reports filed at

the termination of the contract shall include certification by the

contractor that contract employees were provided with the required

information in a language they could understand.

All workers shall wash their hands prior to all breaks, prior to

smoking, eating or use of other ingestibles, and immediately after

ending the work day, and shall be advised not to touch other body

parts before washing.

A supplement to the EIS is not necessary. Council on Environmental Quality

Regulations (40 CFR 1502.9(C)) require preparation of a supplement to an

Environmental Impact Statement if the agency makes substantial changes in the

proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns; or there are

significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns

and bearing on the proposed action or its i.pacts. Neither situation applies

in this instance. Removal of the three mitigation measures does not constitute

a substantial change in the ROD. It revises the implementation procedures to

comply with existing laws. Both female and male workers will continue to be

protected from uninformed or involuntary exposure to herbicides. There are no

new circumstances or information relative to environmental concerns involved in

this amendment.

In addition to the action discussed above, other suggestions which are covered

in the Public Comment section below were considered.

RATIONALE

Three gender-specific mitigation measures will be removed from the ROD to

comply with federal law as decided by the Supreme Court in International Union

v. Johnson Controls, Inc. These restrictions, if not removed, could constitute

illegal discrimination in employment.

The removal of the three gender-specific mitigation measures does not affect

potential human health risks to members of the public.

By removing these restrictions, the potential for adverse health effects to

female workers could increase. However, three remaining provisions of the ROD

and Mediated Agreement, coupled with two of the new mitigation measures in this

amendment will protect both female and male workers from uninformed and

involuntary exposure. In addition, seven other new mitigation measures provide

additional protection against exposure to all workers while eliminating

previous discriminatory restrictions.
Page 5

The three remaining provisions referred to above are:

The ROD directs that "Females, or other employees not wanting exposure to

these herbicides will be given alternate work assignments that do not

involve direct contact with herbicides. There are many assignments, even

in herbicide operations, that do not involve direct contact withherbicides." 

(ROD, p. 19) This provision, rewritten to comply with the

lessons of the Supreme Court opinion, is retained in this amendment.

The Mediated Agreement commits the Forest Service to prepare information

profiles describing each herbicide available for use, including its

potential human health effects, in plain language. The information

profiles will be available to workers, decisionmakers, and the public

(Stipulated Order, pp. 21-23).

The ROD and Mediated Agreement commit the Forest Service to monitor and

evaluate new information on vegetation treatment methods, includingherbicides. 

The Forest Service is currently putting procedures in place to

do so. Information profiles will be revised if new information indicates

significant differences from previous predictions of effects (Stipulated

Order, p. 13, and pp. 23-24).

The combined effect of these existing measures along with the proposed new

mitigation measures maintain or enhance the commitments of the ROD to protect

human heal th. One mitigation measure expands the agency requirements to

actively inform workers about herbicides before they agree to applyherbicides. 

Other new mitigation measures expand the availability of

protective clothing and equipment for employees who choose to work on herbicide

projects, to allow them to reduce their potential exposure. And the

opportunity for any worker to obtain alternative assignments is reaffirmed.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Public comment on proposed amendments to the ROD was solicited by a letter

from the Regional Forester to a mailing list derived from those who had

received the FEIS in 1988 (approximately 6000 people).

Sixty-six letters were received in response, representing 1.1% of those whose

comments were solicited. Eighteen letters were written on official stationery

of governmental agencies, educational institutions, environmental

organizations, or private industry; the remainder were submitted by individuals

acting on behalf of themselves or their families. A majority of respondents

supported elimination of the current restrictions on female employees, either

expressly (19) or by implication.

In addition, a large number of respondents included specific recommendations

for agency action. Recommendations were grouped into one or more of fourareas: 

1) those which supported additional procedures for protecting humanhealth; 

2) those which suggested procedures designed to ensure and document

worker understanding of the risks of herbicide applications; 3) those which

would limit the ability of workers to exercise personal judgement when making

decisions about accepting work involving herbicides; and 4) those which were

outside the scope of the amendment or were non-substantive. Detailed

descriptions of these areas follow.
Page 6

Public comment on protective procedures: A significant number of respondents

(26) supported additional procedures designed to further protect all employees

from direct contact with herbicide. Eleven responses suggested that use of

additional protective clothing or equipment (such as chemically impermeable

clothing) should be mandatory rather than at the option of the employee. One

respondent added that other employee safety concerns such as the potential for

heat exhaustion should be figured into the equation.

Another respondent suggested that the equipment be physically issued to each

worker on the site, so that workers would have to make an effort to refuse to

wear it rather than merely verbally refusing it.

Ten respondents recommended that premixed formulations and items such as

drip-free couplings should be required (although increased cost was

recognized), and several letters supported one or more of the following:

1) Requiring a complete physical and toxicological workup for each worker

prior to beginning applications;

2) Providing a portable shower as well as hand- and eye-washing facilities

on the work site;

3} Providing extra changes of clothes and clothes washing facilities at

campsites for multiple-day projects;

Mandating hand washing before all breaks, eating, and at end of day;

4)

on the work site; 5) Prohibiting any ingestibles (food, tobacco, etc.

6) Replacing backpack operations with the use of ATV's and mechanizedsprayers; 

and

7} Developing a "handling plan" for herbicides and having a non-applicator

observe its implementation.

Forest Service response: Certain items of protective clothing will be

mandatory for those mixing and loading operations which were previously

identified (FEIS, "Characterization of Risk," p. 54) as operations which

presented unacceptable levels of risk for women. These requirements will apply

equally to men and women.

For backpack and hack-and-squirt operations, certain items of protective

clothing must be on hand at the work site for each employee to wear ifdesired. 

At a minimum, all employees must wear impermeable boots, unlined

impermeable gloves, and other clothing specified by the herbicide label and

material safety data sheets. Additional protective clothing will remain

available at the option of the employee, because site conditions will influence

the need for and effectiveness of protective clothing. Supervisor/worker

discussion of site-specific protection needs is preferred to inflexible

requirements to use certain equipment at all times, regardless of site

conditions.
Page 7

Where premixed formulations of the selected herbicide exist in sizes feasible

for forestry applications, they will be used, regardless of additional cost.

Drip-free couplings, spray nozzle shields, and other protective equipment will

be used where the Job Hazard Analysis indicates they would be effective in

reducing exposure under the site-specific conditions of the project.

The existing provisions of the Health and Safety Code (Forest Service Handbook6709.11) 

which require eyewash facilities at the work site during herbicide

operations have been restated as a mitigation measure. A portable shower is

not required by those provisions. However, an adequate supply of

uncontaminated water and soap for washing the entire body in case of accidental

contact will be required.

A new measure advises workers to wear clean clothes daily and to bring an extra

set of clothes to the work site. Individuals may decide for themselves how to

supply themselves with adequate clean clothing for project work.

This amendment will not detail all the specific personal hygiene requirements

suggested by some of our respondents. Direction for washing hands before

breaks, not smoking or eating before washing, etc., will appear in regional

guidance. Prohibiting ingestibles on the work site will not be necessary if

personal hygiene procedures are followed.

"Handling plans" are currently required within the context of overall project

planning and the Job Hazard Analysis. Having a non-applying worker observe the

operations for safety is already required for certain operations and is a

site-specific option for others. Similarly, substituting ATV operations for

backpack operations remains a site-specific option. While appropriate for some

circumstances, there are many sites such as steep slopes where the use of ATV's

would be either dangerous or ineffective.

The human health risk analysis in the FEIS concludes that the risk of applying

herbicides is acceptable if mitigation measures are applied. A health effects

reporting system has been developed to identify and document any trends in

illness or injury associated with any method of vegetation management,

including the use of herbicides. Providing physical evaluations for workers is

not warranted, based on health effects predicted for these operations.

Public comment on informative procedures: Almost all respondents who dealt

with the issue {16} supported the concept that workers should be provided with

sufficient information to decide for themselves whether or not to applyherbicides. 

Additional comments centered on ensuring and documenting employee

understanding of the material.

Suggestions included:

1} 

Having contractors certify that workers have been trained in safe

handling/application procedures for herbicides;

2) Ensuring that written information is easy to understand, scientifically

sound, and actually read by prospective employees;

3) Providing a health professional to respond to worker questions onherbicides;
Page 

8

4} 

Requiring a signed statement or a test to ensure that the worker has

read and understands the material;

5) Providing a written form for the worker to indicate what personalprotective 

equipment she/he wishes to use; and

6} Emphasizing to the employee that herbicide safety is generallycontroversial.

Forest Service response: Procedures for informing workers of potential health

effects of herbicides have been clarified. Additional regional guidance will

ensure that all Forest Service contracts for herbicide projects contain clauses

implementing the informational procedures and protective equipment required by

this document. Contractors will be obligated to ensure that their employees

receive the required information in a language they can understand. All these

procedures are in addition to numerous Federal and State laws concerned with

the application of herbicides, including training. Current regional policy

requires that contractors certify the type of herbicide training each worker

has received. Applicators, except those applying general-use herbicides with

non-motorized equipment, are also required to be licensed in the state in which

they are applying the herbicide. This license requires the passing of a

written test.

Each 

worker will be required to sign a statement that she/he has reviewed the

information provided, and either agrees to work or requests a reassignment not

involving direct contact with herbicides.

The Forest Service will provide information on potential health effects of

herbicides through Information Profiles produced by the PNW Region. These

profiles will discuss possible effects, risk assessments of Forest Serviceprojects, 

and the quality of available information. Local poison control

centers are identified in project plans in case a spill or accident occurs.

If these sources do not resolve a worker's concerns about personal safety oreffects, 

the Forest Service will not encourage the worker to apply or be

exposed to herbicides for that particular operation.

The controversial nature of the issue is already discussed in the Vegetation

Management Treatment Methods Profile for Herbicides published by the PNW Region

in 1991.

Public comments on limiting procedures: Five responses which would limitworker 

discretion opposed removing the current gender-restrictions, generally

because of concerns over individual judgement abilities. One response urged

the agency to actively discourage females from applying the herbicides inquestion. 

One response suggested the agency provide pregnancy test kits for

use by female workers. Seven responses stated the agency should eliminate

discrimination by prohibiting both males and females from applying herbicides

Forest Service response: To continue to restrict women. or to actively

discourage them from herbicide applications is inconsistent with the Supreme

Court decision in the Johnson Controls case. Restricting both men and women

from these operations would eliminate management options provided by the

Preferred Alternative in the FEIS. These options were rigorously examined

before approval in the 1988 Record of Decision.
Page 9Since, 

under the terms of the Johnson Controls decision, female workers would

not be prohibited from approved herbicide projects, whether pregnant or not,

the decision whether to obtain pregnancy testing remains the personal choice of

the individual worker.

Public comment de~med outsid~ the_sc~pe: Twenty-five responses were assessed

(at least in part) as being beyond the scope of the ROD amendment. These

included comments which advised the agency to cease use of the herbicides inquestion, 

or of all herbicides altogether. Some letters also advised the

agency that there is no assurance that protective regulations will be followed

or that protective equipment will actually work. Twelve other responses either

duplicated provisions already in the ROD or could not be addressed in the ROD

(e.g., one said it was a waste of time to seek public comment).

Forest Service response: The Forest Service continues to recognize. as it did

in 1988. that there is substantial concern in the general public over the use

of herbicides. The relative safety of the herbicides available for use in the

PNW Region and the specific accompanying mitigation measures in the original

ROD and this amendment are intended to minimize risk to the human and naturalenvironment. 

Although no method of applying herbicides can guarantee zero

exposure to any worker. exposure can be reduced. The educational program

described in this amendment. coupled with Forest Service requirements on

equipment and hygiene will substantially reduce the likelihood of exposure.

For greater detail. please refer to the FEIS Managing Competing and UnwantedVegetation. 

which is available from any Forest Service office in the PNWRegion. 

or from the Regional Forester at the enclosed address.

As part of their participation in the development of this decision, the

Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP) submitted two

articles which suggested that some herbicides might have reproductive effects

on males as well as females. This information will be considered by the PNW

Region under the Mediated Agreement as a potential source for revisions of the

Risk Analysis, pending further toxicological evaluation. It does not directly

affect this amendment and the mitigation measures which are designed to protect

both males and females equally.

IMPLEMENTATION

This decision may be implemented seven days following publication of legal

notice in The Oregonian, Portland, Oregon, and The Seattle Post-Intelligencer,Seattle, 

Washington.
Page 10

APPEAL RIGIfI'S

This Decision may be appealed in accordance with the provisions of 36 CFR 217

by filing a written notice of appeal within 45 days of the date of publication

of legal notice of this Decision in The Oregonian and the SeattlePost-Intelligencer. 

Two copies of the appeal must be filed with the reviewingofficer:

F. 

Dale Robertson, Chief

USDA Forest Service

P.O. Box 96090

Washington, D.C 20090-6090

The notice of appeal must include sufficient narrative evidence and argument to

show why this decision should be changed or reversed (36 CFR 217.9). Only the

decisions to remove three gender-specific mitigation measures, and to add new

measures are subject to appeal.

Date
APPENDIX A -IMPLEMENTATION

In the 1988 Record of Decision for the FEIS Managing Competing and UnwantedVegetation, 

page 19:

DEL~E: 

Paragraphs 4 through 6, each of which begins "Female workers."

DELKrE: Entire footnote which begins "Research studies."

ADD: 

From the 1992 Amendment to the Record of Decision. pages 2-3. the

paragraphs labeled #1 through #9. inclusive.