United States Department of the Interior

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Coos Bay District Office

1300 Airport Lane, North Bend, OR 97459

Web Address: http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/coosbay

E-mail: BLM_OR_CB_Mail@blm.gov

1792/9015 (ORC000) 

DOI-BLM-ORWA-C000-2017-0003-EA

DECISION RECORD

for the

Integrated Invasive Plant Management for the Coos Bay District

(DOI-BLM-ORWA-C000-2017-0003-EA)

Introduction

For 20 years, noxious weeds have been managed on the Coos Bay District following direction described in

the 1997 Integrated Noxious Weed Program on the Coos Bay District Environmental Assessment and 

accompanying Decision Record. That direction specifies control of noxious weeds using a variety of 

methods including early detection of new invaders, monitoring of 

activities known to facilitate noxious weed spread, inventory, and 

direct control using manual (hand-pulling and grubbing with 

tools), mechanical (chainsaws, mowing, tilling, discing, and 

plowing), biological control agents, targeted grazing, competitive 

seeding and planting, prescribed fire, and herbicides (glyphosate, 

2,4-D, dicamba, and picloram). Treatment has been restricted to 

noxious weeds only.

Nationally, the BLM has authorized the use of additional 

herbicides for a wide range of vegetation management purposes. 

The analyses of the effects are contained in the 2007 Final EIS and Record of Decision for Vegetation 

Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in 17 Western States (2007 PEIS; USDI 2007a, b) and the 2016 

Final EIS and Record of Decision for Vegetation Treatments Using Aminopyralid, Fluroxypyr, and 

Rimsulfuron (2016 PEIS; USDI 2016a, b). 

Prior to implementing the 2007 PEIS Record of Decision, the BLM chose to complete an Oregon-wide 

Environmental Impact Statement (Oregon FEIS)(USDI 2010a) to examine the effects, at the Oregon-wide 

scale, of the use of 18 herbicides (including the four authorized by Coos Bay’s 1997 Integrated Noxious 

Weed Program on the Coos Bay District Environmental Assessment and Decision Record) on invasive plants 

and for other purposes. That analysis found that the use of generally newer, more target-specific herbicides 

will reduce the likelihood of adverse environmental effects and be more effective at controlling invasive 

plants. The resultant 2010 Record of Decision (USDI 2010b) authorized BLM districts in Oregon to 

consider, through additional site-specific analyses, up to 17 herbicides for vegetation control1

. 

The 2007 and 2016 PEISs, and an accompanying 2007 Programmatic Environmental Report about nonherbicide treatments, contained Standard Operating Procedures summarized from existing laws and BLM 

 

1 In addition to the invasive plant treatments described in this EA, vegetation control analyzed in the Oregon FEIS also included controlling pests 

and diseases in State-identified control areas (e.g. sudden oak death); meeting safety and operation objectives in administrative sites, 

recreation sites, and rights-of-way; and achieving habitat goals for Special Status species (USDI 2010b:9).

Invasive plants are non-native aggressive plants 

with the potential to cause significant damage to 

native ecosystems and/or cause significant 

economic losses. 

Noxious weeds are a subset of invasive plants 

that are county-, State-, or Federally-listed as 

injurious to public health, agriculture, recreation, 

wildlife, or any public or private property.

Thus, the term “invasive plants” includes noxious 

weeds in this Decision Record.
2 

policies, as well as a list of Mitigation Measures (PEIS Mitigation Measures) suggested by the analysis and 

selected by their Records of Decision. Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation on the 2007 and 2016 

PEISs also resulted in Conservation Measures for federally listed species. The 2010 Record of Decision also 

adopted the 2007 PEIS Standard Operating Procedures and Mitigation Measures, as well as additional 

mitigation measures suggested by the Oregon FEIS. No potentially significant adverse effect identified in the 

analyses remained after the adoption of these measures. 

Invasive plant management is also consistent with the Northwestern and Coastal Oregon Resource 

Management Plan, which directs the District to implement measures to prevent, detect, and rapidly control 

new invasive plant infestations and use manual, mechanical, herbicides, and biological treatments to manage 

invasive plant infestations (USDI 2016f:80). 

A site-specific EA was prepared for the Coos Bay District2 analyzing the effects of expanding the current 

noxious weed program to include additional herbicide active ingredients along with other direct control 

methods, and to make those treatment methods available for use on other invasive plants, not just noxious 

weeds. This EA and its accompanying draft Finding of No Significant Impact were released in July 2018 for 

a 30-day public review period. 

Alternatives 

The EA addressed three alternatives in detail: the No Action Alternative – Noxious Weed Management

(Alternative 1), the Proposed Action – Invasive Plant Management with ARBO II Coverage (Alternative 2), 

and Invasive Plant Management with Additional ESA Consultation (Alternative 3). The EA also considered 

several other alternatives but did not address the potential impacts of these alternatives in detail for a variety 

of reasons (see EA, Chapter 2, Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study, EA:70-73). The

alternatives considered in detail addressed direct control methods and were set in the context of existing 

policy and direction for invasive plant prevention, detection, education, awareness, inventory, planning, 

integrated management, coordination, and monitoring (see EA, Chapter 2, Integrated Invasive Plant 

Management, EA:34-36). The alternatives also include Standard Operating Procedures developed by the 

BLM over decades of invasive plant management using herbicides and other treatment methods, Mitigation 

Measures adopted by the National and Oregon EISs to which the EA tiers, Conservation Measures from 

national-level ESA consultation applied to BLM Special Status species, and Project Design Criteria resulting 

from district or regional ESA consultation (see Appendix A of the EA, EA:183-226). The implementation of 

these measures and protections are assumed in the analysis and apply to all control activities. 

Both action alternatives seek to control existing documented invasive plant infestations on about 18,000 

gross acres (over 2,000 net acres)3

. There are tens of thousands of acres of unmapped invasive plants known 

on the District where treatments may also occur. Past annual treatment levels have been limited by funding 

and staffing to an average of 1,000 gross acres annually. Aerial herbicide applications have not and will not 

be used, nor treatments specifically for timber or forage production. 

The No Action Alternative examined the environmental effects of continuing treatment methods authorized in 

the existing noxious weed management program. The District would treat approximately 1,000 gross acres 

annually. Approximately 80 percent of those treatments would be with herbicides, 10 percent would be with 

manual methods, 10 percent would be with mechanical methods, and less than 1 percent would use targeted 

 

2 Approximately 3,740.5 acres of the Coos Bay District are administered by the Medford District. The effects of BLM’s invasive plant program on 

these acres were analyzed in the Medford District’s 2018 Integrated Invasive Plant Management Revised EA (USDI 2018a). 3 Gross acres are the area of land defined by drawing a line around the general perimeter of the infestation; the net acres are the actual acres 

of canopy cover of the plants (EA:26). 

 
3 

 

grazing or biocontrols. Mechanical treatments with large machinery (e.g., bulldozers) would only be done in 

the North Spit and New River habitat restoration areas and the Dean Creek Elk Viewing Area. Of the 

herbicide treatments, about 95 percent would be with glyphosate and 5 percent would be with 2,4-D, 

dicamba, picloram, or a tank mix of two or more of those. 

In addition, the District would use competitive seeding and planting on an average of 100 acres/year of 

noxious weed infestations; these sites would generally be about 1⁄2 acre in size and would occur in 

conjunction with other treatment methods. In the Dean Creek Elk Viewing Area, tilling may be done in 

advance of seeding and planting if soil compaction has occurred. Plants excluded from treatment would be 

invasive plants not listed as noxious weeds, and infestations of noxious weeds not reasonably controlled by 

the four herbicides and other treatment methods available under this alternative.

In western snowy plover habitat, 172 acres are designated as habitat restoration areas, including 100 acres at 

New River and 72 acres at the North Spit (see Figure 2-2). These acres are infested with European 

beachgrass and other noxious weeds. In these habitat restoration areas, approximately 100 acres of European 

beachgrass would primarily be treated mechanically twice a year, with heavy equipment such as tractormounted discs or bulldozers. At New River, no herbicides would be used in the western snowy plover habitat 

restoration area and, as described in the New River Foredune Management EA (USDI 2009a), European 

beachgrass stabilizing the 50-foot-wide vegetated foredunes along New River would not be treated. At the 

North Spit, in BLM-managed snowy plover habitat restoration areas, the BLM would treat up to 24 acres 

annually with glyphosate. In addition to treatments on BLM-administered lands, the BLM has a 2012 

interagency agreement to treat western snowy plover habitat restoration area lands managed by the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers. Invasive plant treatments on land managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

are not covered by this EA; however, treatments on BLM-managed lands would follow the guidelines 

described in the interagency agreement, or updated equivalent4

. The 2012 interagency agreement specifies 

that European beachgrass on the ocean foredune as well as a vegetated buffer east of it would not be treated, 

except for plover access cuts, where treatments would avoid the removal of the root system. While 

treatments in western snowy plover habitat primarily target European beachgrass, approximately three acres 

(net) of other noxious weed species (such as Scotch broom and field bindweed) in this area would be treated 

with manual or mechanical methods or glyphosate. 

As described in the Oregon FEIS to which this EA tiers, the existing noxious weed program on most districts 

is estimated to be 60 percent effective in treating noxious weeds and retreatments must occur about half the 

time (USDI 2010a:136). All treatments are constrained by the Standard Operating Procedures and other 

measures listed in Appendix A, by the herbicide application rates listed on Table 2-5, Herbicide Information, 

and by the other policy constraints described in the Integrated Invasive Plant Management section.

The Proposed Action limits herbicides and treatment methods to those consulted on in the 2013 Aquatic 

Restoration Biological Opinions (ARBO II, USDI 2013a, NMFS 2013), which programmatically addressed 

the effects of aquatic restoration activities (including invasive plant management) in Oregon and 

Washington. In addition to the manual and mechanical treatment methods, biological control agents, targeted 

grazing, and seeding and planting used under the No Action Alternative, non-herbicide treatment methods 

will increase the use of prescribed fire and add the use of weed barrier mats and propane torch spot 

treatments. Herbicides available for use under the Proposed Action will include 2,4-D, aminopyralid, 

chlorsulfuron, clopyralid, dicamba, dicamba + diflufenzopyr, glyphosate, imazapic, imazapyr, metsulfuron 

methyl, picloram, sulfometuron methyl, and triclopyr.

 

4 Provided any updates to the interagency agreement continue to follow guidance in the North Spit Plan (USDI 2005) and Biological Assessment 

of the BLM’s North Spit Plan as it may affect the Threatened Western Snowy Plover and its Critical Habitat (USDI 2007f) and associated 

Biological Opinion.
4 

 

The District will continue to treat approximately 1,000 gross acres annually with herbicides, manual and 

mechanical methods, and targeted grazing. Approximately 90 percent of those treatments will be with 

herbicides. As described under the No Action Alternative, mechanical treatments with large machinery (e.g., 

bulldozers or tractors with discs, plows, or mowers attached) will only be done in the North Spit and New 

River habitat restoration areas and the Dean Creek Elk Viewing area. Of the herbicide treatments, more than 

40 percent of the treatments will be with triclopyr, which is effective on woody species, like brooms, gorse, 

and blackberry. Aminopyralid (effective on thistles, starthistles, and knapweeds) will account for about 15 

percent of treatments, and use of glyphosate will decrease from about 95 percent (under the No Action) to 

approximately 15 percent. Table 2-10, Treatment Key (EA:59-69), identifies treatment options by treatment 

group, and briefly explains why a specific treatment will be used. Of the herbicide treatments, approximately 

95 percent will be spot treatments and 5 percent will be broadcast treatments.

In addition to the treatments described in the Treatment Key, the District will continue to use competitive 

seeding and planting to complement other treatment methods on an average of 100 acres/year. In the Dean 

Creek Elk Viewing Area, tilling may be done in advance of seeding and planting if soil compaction has 

occurred. Weed barrier mats will be used in conjunction with some seeding and planting; this will happen on 

approximately 1⁄4 acre annually in administrative sites and recreation sites, and treatments will occur over two 

to six months. Examples of areas where this may occur are a 4 or 5 foot strip next to the fence line at Dean 

Creek Elk Viewing Area or as a 30 by 100 foot tarp at the boat ramp at the North Spit ACEC. 

Prescribed fire will also be used in meadows and on dunes in the North Spit and New River ACECs, to 

control invasive plants, primarily grasses5. For example, in the Hunter Creek and New River ACECs, 

prescribed fire will be used to reduce seed and thatch of invasive annual and perennial grasses; in the Dean 

Creek Elk Viewing Area, it will be used primarily to reduce thatch and vigor of perennial reed canarygrass; 

and on dunes, it will be used to reduce thatch and vigor of perennial European beachgrass. These treatments 

have been done in previous years as habitat restoration but will be done as part of the invasive plant program 

under the Proposed Action. Prescribed fire will typically be used in conjunction with other treatments, such 

as seeding or application of herbicides on approximately 100 acres annually. Project sizes will generally be 

between 1 to 20 acres, except in the Dean Creek Elk Viewing Area, where prescribed fire treatments will

occur on up to 100 acres. Prescribed fire will be used in conjunction with an agency administrator-approved 

burn plan.

Treatments in the 172-acre western snowy plover habitat restoration areas will be implemented as described 

under the No Action Alternative, with the exception that invasive plants that are not listed as noxious weeds 

will be treated as well. While treatments in western snowy plover habitat restoration areas will primarily 

target European beachgrass, other invasive plant species in this area (such as Scotch broom, field bindweed, 

sea-rocket, false dandelions, wild radish, annual grasses, and sheep sorrel) will be treated with manual or 

mechanical methods or glyphosate.

As with the No Action Alternative, all treatments are constrained by the Standard Operating Procedures and 

other measures listed in Appendix A, by the herbicide application rates listed on Table 2-5 (Herbicide 

Information), and by the other policy constraints described in the Integrated Invasive Plant Management

section.

As described in the Oregon FEIS to which this EA tiers, the wider range of herbicides from which to choose 

will increase the effectiveness of the average treatment to an estimated 80 percent (USDI 2010a:136). 

Although some level of retreatment will still be necessary, use of the additional herbicides will substantially 

 

5 Approximately 95 percent of species treated with prescribed fire will be invasive annual or perennial grasses. Scotch broom and annual 

species like yellow starthistle could also be treated in meadows when intermixed with these invasive grasses.
5 

 

improve the likelihood that invasive plant species will be controlled with fewer retreatments (USDI 

2010a:135-136). Treatments described under this alternative are effective on almost all of the invasive plant

species known to be present on the District, including those with potential to be new invaders. The sitespecific analysis of effectiveness can be found in Chapter 3 of the EA (EA:82). 

Alternative 3 is the same as the Proposed Action (approximately 1,000 acres of invasive plants treated 

annually with herbicides, manual and mechanical methods, and targeted grazing), except that it also includes 

the use of the herbicides hexazinone, rimsulfuron, and fluroxypyr and allows herbicides other than 

glyphosate to be used in western snowy plover habitat restoration areas. In addition, there would be limited 

and controlled use of fluazifop-P-butyl (which does not have a Risk Assessment created or adopted by the 

BLM), on research and demonstration plots up to 5 acres in size, with a maximum of 15 acres per Field 

Office.6

 

Hexazinone, rimsulfuron, and fluazifop-P-butyl would be used to treat invasive grasses: hexazinone would

be used primarily to treat false brome (a perennial grass) along rights-of-way in forests; rimsulfuron would

be used in rotation with imazapic to treat annual grasses, and fluazifop-P-butyl would be used in limited 

situations to treat perennial grasses like pampas grass, jubata grass, and sweet vernal grass. Fluroxypyr 

would be used on miscellaneous annual herbaceous invasive plants and on invasive plants in the geranium 

family. Hexazinone and rimsulfuron would be used approximately one percent of the time when herbicides 

are used, and fluazifop-P-butyl and fluroxypyr would be rarely used (approximately 30 acres and 3.7 acres 

over the next 20 years, respectively).

In the western snowy plover habitat restoration areas in the North Spit and New River ACECs, the BLM 

would use imazapyr, glyphosate, or imazapyr mixed with glyphosate to treat European beachgrass. While 

this could occur on all 172 acres in one year, the BLM would treat an average of 100 acres a year. The use of 

these more effective herbicides on European beachgrass would reduce the treatments done by heavy 

equipment. After five years, BLM anticipates this treatment would result in greater than 75 percent reduction 

in the use of bulldozers or tractors with discs or plows (from annually to approximately once every two 

years). While treatments in western snowy plover habitat primarily target European beachgrass, 

approximately 25 net acres of other invasive plant species in this area (such as Scotch broom, field 

bindweed, sea-rocket, false dandelions, wild radish, annual grasses, and sheep sorrel) would be treated with 

manual or mechanical methods or herbicides7

. All treatments in western snowy plover habitat restoration 

areas would follow guidelines established during future NEPA coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers to protect the North Spit foredune, and project design criteria identified during future consultation 

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Similar to the Proposed Action and as described in the Oregon FEIS to which this EA tiers, the wider range 

of herbicides from which to choose would increase the effectiveness of the average treatment to an estimated 

80 percent (USDI 2010a:136). Although some level of retreatment would still take place, the additional 

herbicides would substantially improve the likelihood that invasive plants would be controlled with fewer 

retreatments (USDI 2010a:135-136). Treatments described under this alternative are effective on almost all 

of the types of invasive plant species known to be present on the District, including those with potential to be 

new invaders. The site-specific analysis of this can be found in Chapter 3 (EA:83). 

 

6 Not an annual limit. This 15-acre limit could only be exceeded by BLM’s issuance or adoption of ecological and human health Risk 

Assessments, conducted or adopted by the BLM, with results evaluated through programmatic NEPA analysis at the national or state level. 7 Treatments on invasive plants other than European beachgrass could be done with the herbicides available under Alternative 3 (not just 

imazapyr and glyphosate). See Table 2-10, Treatment Key, for more information on potential treatment methods (EA:59-69). 
6 

The Decision

Based on the analyses documented in the Integrated Invasive Plant Management for the Coos Bay District 

Environmental Assessment (DOI-BLM-ORWA-C000-2017-0003-EA), the Finding of No Significant Impact, 

and associated project record, it is my decision to implement the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) as 

described in the EA, including all applicable project design features and monitoring. The Coos Bay District

currently controls noxious weeds using a range of methods including manual (hand-pulling), mechanical 

(mowing, string trimmers, discing), biological control agents, targeted grazing, competitive seeding and 

planting, prescribed fire, and herbicides (primarily glyphosate, but also limited amounts of 2,4-D, dicamba, 

and picloram). My decision expands the current program by increasing the kinds of plants controlled from 

noxious weeds to all invasive plants and by increasing the herbicides that may be used to 2,4-D, 

aminopyralid, chlorsulfuron, clopyralid, dicamba, diflufenzopyr + dicamba, glyphosate, imazapic, imazapyr, 

metsulfuron methyl, picloram, sulfometuron methyl, and triclopyr. Non-herbicide methods of control will

include manual methods such as hand-pulling; placement of weed barrier mats; use of targeted grazing; 

biological control agents; propane torch spot treatments; seeding and planting; and mechanical methods such 

as using chainsaws and string trimmers. Under this Decision, direct control treatments will be conducted by 

licensed BLM personnel, contractors, cooperators, permittees, lessees, or grant holders.

The Monitoring section in Chapter 2 (EA:36) identified existing implementation and effectiveness 

monitoring for the invasive plant program that will not change as a result of my selection of the Proposed 

Action. When the BLM uses herbicides, monitoring is required by BLM policy and the EPA. Pesticide Use 

Proposals (completed prior to herbicide application) and Pesticide Application Reports (filled out within 24 

hours of an application) include anticipated and actual information about application site, target species, 

herbicide (product and active ingredient) and application rate, adjuvants, and effects to non-target species 

and susceptible areas. Similar records are kept for non-herbicide treatments. Effectiveness monitoring 

involves revisiting treated sites to assess how the infestation and associated plant community have changed 

over time, including factors such as the size and density of the invasive plant infestation; the amount of 

colonization by other nonnative plants; the amount of damage or mortality in non-target plants; the growth, 

vigor, and density of native vegetation; and the need for follow-up treatments. Data are recorded in NISIMS. 

Targeted grazing will be monitored to control the timing and intensity of the grazing, and will include

actions such as removing the animals from the site before the site becomes subject to erosion and 

compaction. The Oregon Department of Agriculture’s Noxious Weed Control Program, in coordination with 

the BLM, monitors populations of traditional biological control agents. The only biological control agents 

that will be used are those that have been tested to ensure they are host-specific.

As part of my decision, I am also adopting additional monitoring requirements for the Proposed Action to 

protect Special Status plant species. For treatment methods that are new8 to the Coos Bay District, for the 

first three years, the BLM will closely monitor the response of Special Status plants to invasive plant 

treatments. The BLM will conduct monitoring yearly and will measure Special Status plant numbers, plant 

size, and whether plants are reproductive or not. No more than five percent of a Special Status plant 

population will be included within a treatment area until effects to Special Status plants can be determined. If 

adverse effects occur (e.g., impacts or loss of a few individual Special Status plants), the BLM will weigh the 

consequences of these effects against the long-term impacts of invasive plants, including continued spread, 

that will be expected in the absence of treatments. The BLM will accept short-term adverse effects in Special 

Status plant communities if treatments were expected to benefit habitat conditions and ecosystem function in 

the long term. (Mitigation Measures adopted at the National level in 2007 and 2016 provide treatment 

 

8 Including weed barrier mats, propane torch treatments, and the use of herbicides other than 2,4-D, dicamba, glyphosate, and picloram.

 
7 

buffers from Special Status Plants; however, a Project Design Feature adopted with the Proposed Action 

allows for the loss of a few individuals if treatments are expected to provide long-term benefits to the 

species.) By monitoring community-level treatment effects and subsequently refining treatment prescriptions 

, adverse effects will further decline. BLM will use information gained from this adaptive management 

approach to refine its treatment prescriptions and Treatment Key (Table 2-10), thereby increasing the success 

of its treatments and overall weed control program (EA:92). 

A Finding of No Significant Impact was completed for this project and I determined this project does not 

constitute a major Federal action that will have a significant impact on the human environment. The action 

will not have adverse effects beyond those already analyzed in the EISs to which the attached EA is tiered. 

As described in the Finding of No Significant Impact, the potential for harm from herbicides was analyzed in 

detail in Risk Assessments. Where the Risk Assessments identified a potential for an adverse effect, BLM 

adopted Protection Measures to eliminate the potential for significant adverse effects. In addition to Standard 

Operating Procedures based on guidance in BLM manuals and handbooks, regulations, and standard BLM 

and industry practices, these Protection Measures include Project Design Features that the BLM adopted 

through its analysis of the Proposed Action in this EA; Mitigation Measures adopted by the BLM at the 

National level with the 2007 and 2016 PEISs and at the Oregon level with the 2010 FEIS; and Conservation 

Measures and Project Design Criteria that resulted from consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

and National Marine Fisheries Service on species that are listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA. 

Rationale for the Decision

The Proposed Action Compared to the No Action Alternative

The selected alternative better meets the Need for a more effective invasive plant control program because:

• The combination of tools available under the Proposed Action will be effective on a greater number 

of species (compared to the tools BLM is currently authorized to use), including most of the invasive 

plant species known or suspected to occur on the District, as well as potential new invaders (EA:82). 

• The combination of tools available under the Proposed Action will reduce potential risks to 

applicators, the public and tribes, and surrounding resources (EA:121-128, 152-153, 85-161). 

• The additional herbicides available under the Proposed Action are effective at lower application rates, 

are better suited for controlling a greater number of species of invasive plants, decrease the potential 

for herbicide resistance (EA:59, 45-46), and can be used to make non-herbicide methods more 

practical and more effective (EA:9). 

• The Proposed Action will enable the BLM and its partners to use the same or similar integrated 

treatment approaches on the Coos Bay District that have proven effective on other lands, thereby 

meeting treatment objectives more quickly (EA:82). 

• The selection of the most cost-effective, lowest risk invasive plant treatment methods will protect 

local area timber production, crops, livestock, and recreation resource values, while also reducing the 

level of risk of invasive plant infestations negatively affecting these resources (EA:154-155).

Further, the analysis indicates the selected alternative better meets the five Purposes itemized in Chapter 1, 

as described below:

- Control invasive plants to protect native ecosystems and the flora and fauna that depend on them.

 
8 

 

As described in Native Vegetation Issue 1, invasive plants can outcompete and impact Special Status plants 

and special plant communities. Treatment of invasive plants under the Proposed Action will improve habitat 

conditions and provide long-term benefits to unique plant communities and Special Status plant populations. 

Treating invasive plants with more selective herbicides will reduce competition with Special Status plants 

with less adverse effects on non-target species (EA:95-97). Individual Special Status plants could be injured 

or killed by invasive plant treatments, but adverse effects to populations from treatments will be negligible to 

minor because implementation of Protection Measures (Appendix A) will reduce effects to below levels that 

could adversely affect populations or population trends. Annual Treatment Plan reviews will provide 

additional opportunities to develop site-specific treatment prescriptions and prescribe Protection Measures 

that will further reduce adverse effects to Special Status plants (EA:99). 

Invasive plants also affect fauna. Fish and Aquatic Organisms Issue 1 explains that improvements to fish 

habitat and Riparian Reserves from treatments will only be achieved in dispersed areas across the District in 

any given year (EA:103-105). Most treatment areas will be small and benefits accrued by these treatments 

will only be measurable at local levels. In the long term (one year to decades, depending on the riparian area 

and length of time required for native vegetation to become re-established), treating invasive plants in 

riparian areas will have a net beneficial effect to Riparian Reserves as treatments will allow the 

establishment of native vegetation in previously infested areas. (EA:104-105). As discussed in Wildlife Issue 

1, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) reports that a substantial portion of species 

now considered extinct were driven to extinction by invasive species and generally ranks invasive species as 

one of the top ten threats to currently threatened species (EA:111). The IUCN also notes that native bird 

diversity corresponds with native plant diversity, invasive plants can crowd out amphibians, and many 

invasive plants are unpalatable for grazing animals (EA:111). Invasive plant infestations damage native plant 

communities and wildlife habitat and inhibit ecosystem functions associated with those communities 

(EA:111). The Proposed Action is more effective than the No Action Alternative in treating invasive plants 

because the appropriate treatment methods are available: the EA describes that effectiveness of invasive 

plant treatments would increase to 80 percent under the Proposed Action (EA:82), thus reducing effects from 

invasive plants to native ecosystems. 

- Cooperatively control invasive plants so they do not infest or re-infest adjacent non-BLM-administered 

lands. 

As described in Socioeconomics Issue 1, the BLM’s ability to more closely match existing treatments on 

adjacent public and private lands will be more effective under the Proposed Action than under the No Action 

Alternative. This allows the BLM to cooperatively control invasive plants so they do not infest or re-infest 

adjacent lands. The Proposed Action will allow the BLM to be a more effective partner with groups such as 

the Cooperative Weed Management Areas that work with landowners to identify and treat invasive plants on 

both private and public lands (EA:154). 

For example, as detailed in Invasive Plants Issue 1, an important benefit of the more effective integrated 

invasive plant management under the Proposed Action will be the opportunity to better collaborate with 

partners on an all-lands strategy to reduce the impacts of invasive plants in coastal Douglas, Coos, and Curry 

Counties (EA:82). Currently (under the No Action Alternative), adjacent landowners have opted not to treat

certain areas in cooperation with the BLM because of the limited treatment options BLM is authorized to 

use. However, several major timberland operators have expressed interest in cooperating with BLM for

treatments where applicators do not have to change herbicides or application rates at property boundaries, as 

will happen under the Proposed Action (Jeanne Standley, Coos Bay Weed Coordinator, 2018 personal 

communication) (EA:82). 
9 

 

The 2010 Oregon FEIS to which this EA tiers suggests the use of herbicides on lands adjacent to lands 

managed by the BLM could conceivably decrease as BLM and cooperative invasive plant treatments become 

more effective, reducing the number of private land invasive plant infestations originating from BLMmanaged lands (EA:74).

- Provide a range of direct control methods that allow individual treatments in varying conditions to have 

more effective control of invasive plants.

Under the Proposed Action, the BLM will use additional treatment methods (including additional herbicides) 

and treat invasive plant species that are not listed as noxious weeds. This will result in a more effective 

integrated management program compared to the No Action Alternative, where (except as described below 

for Canada thistle) treatment effectiveness is expected to be 60 percent. Invasive plants will continue to 

spread at an estimated 10 percent per year, but the BLM estimates that herbicide treatments will be effective 

on 80 percent of treated acres (USDI 2010a:136), requiring fewer retreatments to meet management 

objectives compared to the No Action Alternative. The improvement in herbicide efficacy will allow the 

BLM to focus non-herbicide treatments where they are most practical and effective, either as stand-alone 

treatments or in combination with herbicide treatments (EA:82). The combination of tools available under 

the Proposed Action will be effective on most of the invasive plant species known or suspected to occur on 

the District, as well as potential new invaders (EA:82). As a consequence, treatment objectives, such as 

reducing infestations to below damage levels for Special Status species and special communities (as 

described in Native Vegetation Issue 1), will be met more frequently and on more acres compared to the No 

Action Alternative.

Treatment effectiveness of Canada thistle will increase from 10 percent to approximately 80 percent. Canada 

thistle can be effectively controlled with aminopyralid or clopyralid, both of which will be available under 

this alternative (EA:79). 

- Prevent control treatments from having unacceptable adverse effects to applicators and the public, to 

desirable flora and fauna, and to soil, air, and water.

The District has a variety of protection measures to prevent potential adverse effects to desirable flora and 

fauna, soil, air, and water, and to applicators and the public. The BLM has a long history of integrated 

invasive plant management, and over the history of the program has created many Standard Operating 

Procedures to more safely and effectively treat invasive plants using a variety of treatment methods. This EA 

tiers to the 2010 Oregon FEIS and the 2007 and 2016 National PEISs, which each adopted many Mitigation 

Measures to reduce adverse effects. BLM has consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National 

Marine Fisheries Service at both the national and local levels, and Project Design Criteria and Conservation 

Measures resulting from these consultations provide protections for federally listed species (EA:78). 

Consequently, the BLM expects minimal adverse effects from any treatment method described in the EA

(EA:47, 78-161). However, where adverse effects to applicators and the public, to desirable flora and fauna, 

and to soil, air, and water were identified, BLM incorporated Project Design Features into the Proposed 

Action to minimize these adverse effects (EA:56). 

Ecological and human health Risk Assessments conducted by the BLM and U.S. Forest Service examined 

available research and identified risks pertinent to herbicide use in wildland areas. This Risk Assessment 

examination far exceeds that required for EPA registration; in addition to EPA’s toxicology data, the Risk 

Assessments consider data collected from published scientific literature (EA:46-47, 243-257). Further, any 

product formulations (brands) and adjuvants the BLM Coos Bay District plans to use must be on the national 

BLM-approved list (EA:41) to ensure only analyzed materials are included. These Risk Assessments for all 
10 

 

the herbicides analyzed in this EA indicate a zero or low risk to human health – both for applicators and the 

public – at typical and maximum application rates (EA:121-123, 126). Where scenarios indicated some risk, 

BLM adopted Mitigation Measures (EA:47). The herbicides included in the Proposed Action have some of 

the lowest (or no) demonstrable toxicity to wildlife of EPA-registered herbicides, do not bioaccumulate, and 

are quickly degraded in wildland settings (EA:109). However, Risk Assessments indicate that there is some 

risk to some fauna in certain scenarios, and those risk ratings led to BLM’s adoption of Mitigation Measures 

in the 2010 Oregon FEIS, the 2007 and 2016 National PEISs and/or Project Design Features adopted for the 

Proposed Action in this EA (EA:47, 54-56), which reduces, minimizes, or eliminates the potential for this 

risk occurring (EA:47). 

Herbicides are – by design – harmful to vegetation. The herbicides added by the Proposed Action are more 

selective than those available under the No Action Alternative. Glyphosate and 2,4-D will be largely 

replaced by herbicides (e.g., aminopyralid, imazapic) that will have fewer impacts to non-target plants. 

Where there may be risk to desirable flora, Protection Measures (such as Standard Operating Procedures, 

Mitigation Measures, etc.) reduce that risk (EA:47). The Proposed Action also includes an adaptive 

management approach that will aid BLM in selecting the treatment method (herbicide and non-herbicide) 

that is most effective and minimizes adverse effects (EA:35-36). 

For treatment methods that are new to the Coos Bay District, for the first three years, the BLM will closely 

monitor the response of Special Status plants to invasive plant treatments. BLM expects that information 

gained from this monitoring will provide additional information to consider as part of Table 2-10, Treatment 

Key, which will inform future treatments, helping to refine prescriptions for greater success. This will also 

inform decisions made by following the Bureau Sensitive Species Treatment Conditions flowchart (Figure 3-

2) when working in potential habitat for Bureau Sensitive plants. Use of this flowchart will allow the BLM to 

determine when Conservation Measures should not be followed because their implementation will result in 

greater harm. For example, the flowchart will help identify whether treatment buffers or other control 

measures will be needed with the use of imazapyr in pink sand verbena habitat under Alternative 3 (EA:86-

87, 98).

BLM does not expect treatment methods to have an adverse effect to soil, air, or water. The nature of the 

disturbance associated with invasive plant treatments will have little potential to cause measurable soil 

compaction or erosion due to the low intensity and limited scale of treatments. Seventy-one percent of 

invasive plant infestations on the Coos Bay District are on sites less than 0.5 acres. Under the No Action 

Alternative, all herbicide treatments would be done as spot treatments with a hand-directed sprayer and 

under the action alternatives, 95 percent of herbicide treatments would be similar spot treatments. None of 

these treatments are expected to create large unvegetated areas prone to compaction or erosion. Standard 

Operating Procedures and Mitigation Measures adopted at the state and national level minimize the potential 

for effects (EA:78). The potential for adverse effects to desirable flora and fauna, soil, air, and water, and to 

applicators and the public will be further minimized as a result of incorporating Project Design Features

(EA:183-184). The Oregon FEIS describes that herbicides probably affect few soil organisms directly (USDI 

2010a:178). While there are varying amounts of information available for each herbicide, three 

(chlorsulfuron, picloram, and metsulfuron methyl) may reduce the presence of soil biota for a period of up to 

three weeks, and the remaining have no or slight adverse effect (USDI 2010a:182-185, USDI 2007a:4-16, 

USDI 2016a:4-11 to 4-13). When adverse effects were noted (diflufenzopyr, imazapic, or imazapyr), it was 

at application rates many times higher than those used by the BLM (USDI 2010a:178). While adverse effects 

from treatment methods are expected to be minimal under all alternatives, the Proposed Action better meets 

this purpose than the No Action Alternative because applicators have additional treatment methods available 

a to select the most appropriate one for a wider range of site conditions, thus further reducing the potential 

for adverse effects to desirable flora and fauna, soil, air, and water, and to applicators and the public (EA:71).
11 

- Improve treatment effectiveness, so resource and economic losses from invasive plants are reduced.

A 2014 report described the direct negative economic impacts associated with noxious weeds in the state of 

Oregon, the additional costs associated if noxious weeds expand to new areas, and the positive return on 

investment associated with control (EA:154-155). That study estimated annual losses of $83.5 million to the 

State's economy from 25 noxious weed species. If left uncontrolled, potential annual losses could reach $1.8 

billion in personal income and 40,800 jobs (EA:155). A similar analysis (in 2017) found that in Washington 

State, invasive species created losses of $239.5 million on crops, $120 million in the livestock industry, $125 

million in the timber industry, and $20 million in recreation. Scotch broom was found to be one of the most 

costly plant species (Community Attributes Inc. 2017). While neither of these studies is specific to the Coos 

Bay District, they demonstrate that invasive species can have an economic effect on valued resources, lands, 

and opportunities (EA:155). The Proposed Action is more effective than the No Action Alternative in 

treating invasive plants because the appropriate treatment methods are available: the EA describes that 

effectiveness of invasive plant treatments would increase to 80 percent under the Proposed Action (EA:81-

82), thus reducing the resource and economic impacts from invasive plants. 

The Proposed Action Compared to Alternative 3

While Alternative 3 provides the same or better level of effectiveness of invasive plant control compared to 

the Proposed Action, I have decided not to select it at this time. Alternative 3 is similar to the Proposed 

Action, but also includes the use of the herbicides hexazinone, rimsulfuron, and fluroxypyr and limited 

amounts of fluazifop-p-butyl and allows herbicides other than glyphosate to be used in western snowy plover 

habitat restoration areas. Alternative 3 would best meet the goals of treating invasive plants to maintain 

western snowy plover habitat. The expanded use of imazapyr and glyphosate would allow for a 75 percent 

reduction of heavy equipment use to control European beach grass and other invasive plants. Total 

implementation costs for invasive plant treatments in western snowy plover habitat would decrease by 65 

percent compared to the No Action and Proposed Action. In addition, Alternative 3 would include treatments

of invasive perennial grasses, which are currently spreading along roadsides. However, in the short term, the 

Proposed Action is easier to implement; selection of Alternative 3 requires consultation with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service under the ESA. Should the District successfully 

complete consultation on Alternative 3, I will consider issuing a new decision to implement Alternative 3 at 

that time.

Consistency with Other Plans and Laws

As described in the EA in Chapter 1, several laws require the BLM to control invasive plants, and this 

decision is consistent with, and helps facilitate, the objectives of those laws (EA:18). Further, as required by 

the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), my decision conforms to the Northwestern and 

Coastal Oregon Resource Management Plan and specifically to its direction to prevent, detect and rapidly 

control new invasive species infestations (EA:19) 

My decision to authorize the use of additional herbicides on invasive plants is consistent with the Record of 

Decision for the Oregon FEIS, the subsequent modification of the 1984 and 1987 court orders that previously 

restricted herbicide use, and the Records of Decision for the 2007 and 2016 PEISs (EA:9, 10, 14). 

My decision is consistent with the requirements of the ESA. As is discussed in the section entitled 

Endangered Species Act Consultation below, the effects to listed species were determined through formal 

and informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service

(EA:16-17). 

 
12 

My decision is consistent with the National Historic Preservation Act. Cultural surveys are required prior to 

conducting ground-disturbing actions that may potentially affect historic and prehistoric resources. My 

decision adopts Project Design Features including a process for consulting with affected tribes and providing 

them with Annual Treatment Plans (EA:15, 152-153). 

Implementation of the Decision

Prior to beginning control treatments in the spring, the BLM will determine potential treatments and develop 

a District-wide Annual Treatment Plan as well as a decision on that Annual Treatment Plan. These Annual 

Treatment Plans and decisions will be subject to an interdisciplinary team9 review and preparation of a 

Determination of NEPA Adequacy to ensure there is no new information or changed circumstances that will

change this Decision (that results from this EA) or substantially alters the analysis in this EA. If there is 

relevant new information or changed circumstances, the Annual Treatment Plan will be revised to comply 

with this Decision or the appropriate level of NEPA analysis will be completed. Determinations of NEPA 

Adequacy and decisions will be posted on BLM’s ePlanning website. The Annual Treatment Plans will 

ensure that treatments conform to design and mitigation standards in the relevant NEPA documents10, and 

that the required Pesticide Use Proposals, Biological Control Agent Release Proposals, and other 

authorizations, obligations, and commitments11 are completed prior to implementation. Table 2-9 of the EA 

presents BLM’s invasive plant control activities planned for the calendar year (EA:53-55) and my decision 

will allow implementation of this year’s Annual Treatment Plan.

Public Involvement and Consultation

Scoping (2011 and 2017) 

The BLM sent a scoping letter to interested members of the public in June 2011, and six scoping responses 

were received. Scoping was reopened from April 10, 2017 through May 10, 2017 due to the lag in time since 

initiation of scoping and changes to the Proposed Action. Letters were sent to approximately 60 individuals, 

agencies, and organizations and posted on the BLM’s ePlanning website. No comment letters were received 

in 2017 (EA:15). 

Comments received in 2011 focused on the effects of invasive plants (including effects to native species and 

wildlife, as well as socioeconomic effects), the effects of herbicides, or suggested reducing or eliminating 

herbicide use and changing land management practices. Concerns about herbicides were related to human 

health and the unintended effects of herbicides on native vegetation, neighboring private land uses, soil, 

water, air, and wildlife.

These letters, along with other pertinent information, were used to help develop the Purposes and Issues. 

Internal BLM scoping and the Purposes examined in the Oregon FEIS also contributed to the Purposes and

Issues (EA:11-14). 

 

9 The interdisciplinary teams will include botanists, wildlife and fisheries biologists, archaeologists, and other natural resource specialists with 

expertise in potentially affected resources.

10 For example, Project Design Features adopted by this EA, Standard Operating Procedures, Mitigation Measures, and Conservation Measures 

(for Special Status species). These are all included in Appendix A (EA:183-226). 11 Such as required Special Status species, archaeological, and paleontological surveys, as well as State Historic Preservation Office consultation.

 
13 

EA and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) Public Review (July 2018) 

The completed EA and unsigned FONSI were made available for a 30-day public comment period (July - 

August 2018) on BLM’s ePlanning site, and email or hard copy mail notices were forwarded to persons on 

the Coos Bay District mailing list who had previously indicated an interest in such analyses, who were 

known to be interested, and persons who contributed scoping comments for this EA (EA:15). 

During the comment period, two comment letters were received. Neither letter opposed the treatment of 

invasive plants or the use of herbicides, though caution and avoidance of culturally significant native plants 

were encouraged. Comment letters resulted in edits or clarifications being presented in the EA, including 

adding reference to an existing agreement with the Coquille Indian Tribe regarding management of culturally 

significant plants.

After reviewing the comments on the EA, I decided to revise the EA. The changes provided clarification but 

are minor in scope and do not require additional public review as they do not change the project design, 

effects analysis, or conclusions in the FONSI. The EA, along with the FONSI and this Decision Record, will 

be posted on BLM’s ePlanning website at https://tinyurl.com/m895erq by October 29, 2018. 

Endangered Species Act Consultation

The Coos Bay District has seven federally listed species that are known to occur on the District that have the 

potential to be affected by invasive plant management, including one plant species (western lily), three birds 

(marbled murrelet, western snowy plover, and northern spotted owl) and three anadromous fish species 

(Coho Salmon, Green Sturgeon, and Pacific Eulachon)12. On numerous occasions, BLM has engaged in 

formal and informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries 

Service regarding herbicides and other invasive plant treatments on the Coos Bay District. These 

consultations have resulted the agencies identifying Conservation Measures and Project Design Criteria to 

protect listed species from invasive plant treatments (EA:16-17). Table 1-2, Endangered Species Act 

Consultation in the EA catalogues the biological opinions and letters of concurrence issued by the Services 

that address invasive plant management and / or herbicide treatments (EA:16-17). 

Consultation with Potentially Affected Tribes

The BLM initiated Tribal consultation in 2009 with letters to the Coquille Indian Tribe and the Confederated 

Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians. Additional letters were sent in June 2011 to the same 

groups. The letters described the proposed EA, announced that scoping would begin, and invited the Tribes 

to enter into government-to-government consultation. Following a delay in the preparation of this EA, the 

District contacted these Tribes again in May 2017 and described the purpose and need and the alternatives 

and invited the Tribes to enter into government-to-government consultation and be involved with the 

process. The BLM contacted the following Tribes: Coquille Indian Tribe; Confederated Tribes of Coos, 

Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians; Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde; Confederated Tribes of Siletz; 

Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians; and, Tolowa Dee-ni' Nation Tribes in March 2018. 

Conversations occurred in person or via telephone, or resulted in voice messages inviting discussion 

regarding the project and EA review. Tribes who expressed an interest in the project are the Coquille Indian 

Tribe; Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians; Confederated Tribes of Grand 

Ronde; and Tolowa Dee-ni' Nation. Discussions focused on developing Tribal consultation strategies that 

 

12 More information about the effects to these species can be found in Native Vegetation Issue 1 (for the western lily, EA:87-99), Fish and 

Aquatic Organisms Issue 1 (for listed fish, EA:103-105), and Wildlife Issues 1 and 3 (for the western snowy plover, northern spotted owl, and 

marbled murrelet, EA:105-111, 112-120).

 
14 

will allow adequate time for notification prior to invasive plant treatments. Under the agreed-upon 

consultation process, BLM will introduce to the Tribes locations proposed for integrated invasive plant 

management and work toward determining Tribal areas of concern, which will be refined as needed. The 

BLM also sent the EA to these Tribes for a 6-week review period beginning June 18, 2018. Additional 

consultation with the federally recognized Tribes will be conducted if Tribes desire, which could include 

face-to-face meetings with the Tribes. Tribal consultation will include an emphasis on identifying traditional 

gathering areas, species of culturally significant plants, and the effects of herbicide use on plant populations 

of interest to the Tribes (EA:15).

Consultation with the Tribes resulted in comments being submitted during the comment period on the EA by 

the Coquille Indian Tribe. A sentence was added to the EA referencing an existing agreement with the 

Coquille Indian Tribe regarding management of culturally significant plants as a result of that comment 

letter. In addition, the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians met with BLM staff 

to discuss their potential concerns about effects to cultural resources associated with herbicide use. The 

meeting included a field trip to a North Spit site, where invasive plants and their potential treatments were 

discussed.

State Historic Preservation Office

As part of BLM’s requirements under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and its 

implementing regulations found at 36 CFR 800 (as amended), BLM will consult with the State Historic 

Preservation Office (SHPO) on the District’s Annual Treatment Plans prior to implementing any treatments 

that have the potential to adversely affect cultural resources (EA:16).

The BLM will follow the 2015 State Protocol between it and the Oregon SHPO regarding the manner in

which the BLM will meet its responsibilities under the National Historic Preservation Act and the National 

Programmatic Agreement among the BLM, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the National 

Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers (Oregon SHPO and USDI 2015). As part of the annual 

treatment plan review (see Chapter 2), a BLM cultural resource specialist will review each proposed 

treatment to determine whether fieldwork is required to identify cultural resources, and if additional 

protection measures will be needed (EA:16).

Appeal Procedures

This decision may be appealed to the Interior Board of Land Appeals, Office of the Secretary, in accordance 

with the regulations contained in 43 CFR, Part 4 and Form 1842-1. If an appeal is filed, your notice must be 

filed in the Coos Bay District Office, 1300 Airport Lane, North Bend, Oregon, 97459 within 30 days of 

receipt. The BLM does not consent to filing or service of a notice of appeal or any other appeal-related 

documents by electronic means, including but not limited to electronic mail or facsimile. The appellant has 

the burden of showing that the decision appealed is in error.

Among other requirements, the text of a statement of reasons may not exceed 30 pages, excluding exhibits, 

declarations, or other attachments. The appeal must be double-spaced except for the case caption, argument 

headings, long quotations, and footnotes, which may be single-spaced, and the appeal have margins of at 

least 1 inch. See 43 CFR §4.401 for more information on formatting requirements.

 
15 

Filing an appeal does not by itself stay the effectiveness of a final BLM decision. If you wish to file a petition 

for a stay of the effectiveness of this decision, pursuant to 43 CFR 4.21, the petition for stay must accompany 

your notice of appeal. If you request a stay, you have the burden of proof to demonstrate that a stay should be 

granted.

A petition for stay is required to show sufficient justification based on the standards listed below.

Standards for Obtaining a Stay

Except as otherwise provided by law or other pertinent regulation, a petition for a stay of a decision pending 

appeal shall show sufficient justification based on the following standards:

1. The relative harm to the parties if the stay is granted or denied.

2. The likelihood of the appellant’s success on the merits. 

3. The likelihood of immediate and irreparable harm if the stay is not granted.

4. Whether or not the public interest favors granting the stay.

Copies of the notice of appeal and petition for a stay must also be served with the Department of the Interior 

Solicitor (U.S. Department of Interior, Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of the Interior, Pacific 

Northwest Region, 601 SW 2nd Ave. Suite 1950, Portland OR 97204-3172)(see 43 CFR 4.413) at the same 

time the original documents are filed with this office. 

Any person that receives a copy of a petition for a stay and/or an appeal and wishes to respond, see 43 CFR 

4.21(b) for procedures to follow.

/s/ Kathy Westenskow-Davis October 29, 2018

______________________________ ______________ 

Kathy Westenskow-Davis Date

District Manager, Coos Bay District

 
Regional Solicitor, PNW Region, Attn: Brian Perron

U.S. Department of the Interior

601 SW 2nd Ave. Suite 1950, Portland, OR 97204

Form 1842-1 UNITED STATES 

(September 2006) DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

INFORMATION ON TAKING APPEALS TO THE INTERIOR BOARD OF LAND APPEALS 

DO NOT APPEAL UNLESS 

1. This decision is adverse to you,

AND 

2. You believe it is incorrect

IF YOU APPEAL, THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURES MUST BE FOLLOWED 

A person who wishes to appeal to the Interior Board of Land Appeals must file in the office of the officer who

made the decision (not the Interior Board of Land Appeals) a notice that he wishes to appeal. A person served 1.NOTICE OF 

APPEAL...... with the decision being appealed must transmit the Notice ofAppeal in time for it to be filed in the office where .......... it is required to be filed within 30 days after the date of service. If a decision is published in the FEDERAL

REGISTER, a person not served with the decision must transmit a Notice ofAppeal in time for it to be filed 

within 30 days after the date of publication (43 CFR 4.411 and 4.413).

2.WHERE TO FILE

NOTICE OF APPEAL................ 

Regional Solicitor, PNW Region, Attn: Brian Perron

WITH COPY TO 

SOLICITOR... U.S. Department of the Interior

601 SW 2nd Ave. Suite 1950, Portland, OR 97204

3.STATEMENT OF REASONS Within 30 days after filing the Notice ofAppeal, Appeal, file a completecomplete statementstatementstatement of the reasons reasons why you are appealing.appealing.ppealing. 

This must be filed with the United States Departmentepartmentepartment of the Interior, Interior,Interior, Office of Hearings HearingsHearings and Appeals,Appeals,Appeals, InteriorInterior Interior

Board of Land Appeals, 801 N. Quincy Street, Street, MS 300-QC, 300-QC, Arlington,Arlington,Arlington, Virginia VirginiaVirginia 22203. If you fully stated 

your reasons reasons for appealing appealing when filing the Notice ofAppeal, no additionaldditionaldditional statementstatement statement is necessary necessarynecessary

(43 CFR 4.412 and 4.413). 

WITH COPY TO 

SOLICITOR............................... 

4.ADVERSE PARTIES................. Within 15 days after each document is filed, each adverse party named in the decision and the Regional 

Solicitor or Field Solicitor having jurisdiction over the State in which the appeal arose must be served with a copy of: (a) the Notice ofAppeal, (b) the Statement of Reasons, and (c) any other documents filed 

(43 CFR 4.413). 

S.PROOF OF SERVICE............... Within 15 days after any document is served on an adverse party, file proof of that service with the United States 

Department of the Interior, Office of Hearings and Appeals, Interior Board of Land Appeals, 801 N. Quincy 

Street, MS 300-QC, Arlington, Virginia 22203. This may consist of a certified or registered mail "Return Receipt 

Card" signed by the adverse party (43 CFR 4.401(c)). 

6.REQUEST FOR STAY............. Except where program-specific regulations place this decision in full force and effect or provide for an automatic stay, the decision becomes effective upon the expiration of the time allowed for filing an appeal 

unless a petition for a stay is timely filed together with a Notice ofAppeal (43 CFR 4.21). If you wish to file a petition for a stay of the effectiveness of this decision during the time that your appeal is being reviewed by 

the Interior Board of Land Appeals, the petition for a stay must accompany your Notice of Appeal (43 CFR 4.21 

or 43 CFR 2801.10 or 43 CFR 2881.10). A petition for a stay is required to show sufficient justification 

based on the standards listed below. Copies of the Notice ofAppeal and Petition for a Stay must also be submitted 

to each party named in this decision and to the Interior Board of Land Appeals and to the appropriate Office of the 

Solicitor (43 CFR 4.413) at the same time the original documents are filed with this office. If you request a stay, you have the burden of proof to demonstrate that a stay should be granted. 

Standards for Obtaining a Stay. Except as otherwise provided by law or other pertinent regulations, a petition for a stay of a decision pending appeal shall show sufficient justification based on the following 

standards: (1) the relative harm to the parties if the stay is granted or denied, (2) the likelihood of the appellant's success on the merits, (3) the likelihood of immediate and irreparable harm if the stay is not granted, and (4) 

whether the public interest favors granting the stay. 

Unless these procedures are followed, your appeal will be subject to dismissal (43 CFR 4.402). Be certain that all communications are 

identified by serial number of the case being appealed. 

NOTE: A document is not filed until it is actually received in the proper office (43 CFR 4.40l(a)). See 43 CFR Part 4, Subpart B for general rules 

relating to procedures and practice involving appeals. 

(Continued on page 2) 
43 CFR SUBPART 1821--GENERAL INFORMATION 

Sec. 1821.10 Where are BLM offices located? (a) In addition to the Headquarters Office in Washington, D.C. and seven national level support 

and service centers, BLM operates 12 State Offices each having several subsidiary offices called Field Offices. The addresses ofthe State Offices 

can be found in the most recent edition of43 CFR 1821.10. The State Office geographical areas ofjurisdiction are as follows: 

STATE OFFICES AND AREAS OF JURISDICTION: 

Alaska State Office ---------- Alaska 

Arizona State Office --------- Arizona 

California State Office ------- California 

Colorado State Office -------- Colorado 

Eastern States Office --------- Arkansas, Iowa, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri 

and, all States east of the Mississippi River 

Idaho State Office ----Idaho 

Montana State Office --------- Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota 

Nevada State Office ---Nevada 

New Mexico State Office ---- New Mexico, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas 

Oregon State Office ---Oregon and Washington 

Utah State Office---- Utah 

Wyoming State Office-------- Wyoming and Nebraska 

(b) A list ofthe names, addresses, and geographical areas ofjurisdiction of all Field Offices ofthe Bureau ofLand Management can be obtained at 

the above addresses or any office ofthe Bureau ofLand Management, including the Washington Office, Bureau of Land Management, 1849 C Street, 

NW, Washington, DC 20240. 

(Form 1842-1, September 2006)