Vegetation treatment on BLM lands in thirteen western states : Colorado : record of decision PDF
Preview Vegetation treatment on BLM lands in thirteen western states : Colorado : record of decision
United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Colorado July 1991 Record of Decision BLM Vegetation Treatment on Lands in Thirteen Western States SB 613 .W4 C646 1991 The BureauofLand Managementis responsibleforthebalanced managementofthepubliclandsand resourcesandtheirvariousvaluessothattheyareconsidered inacombinationthatwill bestservethe needsoftheAmericanpeople. Managementisbasedupontheprinciplesofmultipleuseandsustained yield;acombinationofusesthattakeintoaccountthelongtermneedsoffuturegenerationsforrenewable andnonrenewableresources. Theseresourcesincluderecreation, range,timber,minerals,watershed, fish andwildlife, wildernessand natural, scenic, scientificandcultural values. BLM-WY-ES-91-030-4320 #MWhtf ID ^1 TAKE United States Department ofthe Interior MODEIN AMERICA BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT COLORADO STATE OFFICE 2850 VOUNGFIELD STREET LAKEWOOD, COLORADO 80215-7076 July 23, 1991 Dear Interested Party, Enclosed foryour information is my approval ofthe Record ofDecision for the vegetation treatment on BLM lands in Colorado. The enclosed document summarizes the decision's provisions governing the Bureau's integrated management treatment program forundesirable plants and noxious weeds on public lands in Colorado. The decision isderived from the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), titled "Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in 13 Western States." The selected alternative (alternative 1 in the EIS) best reflects public involvement received during scoping and on the draft and final EISs. Release ofthis decision to interested groups and individuals will serve as public notice ofthe decision. Thank you foryourcooperation. We look forward to any furthercomment you may have that will assist us in managing the public lands. Sincerely Yours, State Director, Colorado BLM UBRARV ^V $£•653, BIDG, 50 DENVER FEDERAL CENNTTFEnR P. 0, BOX 25047 OWvm. CO 30225^0047 TAKE United States Department ofthe Interior PfiJKIN AMERICA BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT COLORADO STATE OFFICE 2850 YOUNGFIELD STREET LAKEWOOD, COLORADO 80215-7076 Decision I approve the Record ofDecision for the Final EIS addressing the Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in 13 Western States (BLM. May 1991) and its appropriate application to the BLM administered public lands in Colorado. The public is advised that an integrated approach forthe treatment ofvegetation will be implemented in the State ofColorado. BLM projects that an estimated average of 15,950acres would be treated annually in the State ofColorado using manual, mechanical, biological, prescribed burning, and chemical treatment methods. Implementation ofthis program is dependent on the level offunding received annually and the allocations determined by program priority. Priorto project implementation, site specific environmental analyses will be conducted to evaluate treatment project impacts on the resources ofthe local area. <3*trW, July 23, 1991 H. Robert Moore State Director, Colorado TAKE PRHKW United States Department of the Interior AMERICA BUREAU OFLAND MANAGEMENT WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240 INREPLYREFERTO: BLM I approve and concur in the selection ofthe Prefered Alternative ofthe vegetation treatment on lands in 13 western states defined in the attached Record ofDecision and analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, titled Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in Thirteen Western States (U.S. Department ofthe Interior, Bureau ofLand Management, May 1991). — X-7-9/ i^tvn>^ v> Date Director I concurin the above decision for vegetation treatment on BLM lands in 13 western states defined in the attached Record ofDecision. #-y/- f/ Date Assistant Secretary Land & Minerals Management TABLE OF CONTENTS RECORD OF DECISION 1 VEGETATION TREATMENT ON BLM LANDS IN THIRTEEN WESTERN STATES 1 CHAPTER -INTRODUCTION 1 1 CHAPTER 2 - THE DECISION AND ITS SPECIFIC PROVISIONS 1 Priority 1 2 Priority 2 2 Priority 3 2 Integrated Pest Management (IPM) 2 Prevention 2 Herbicides Approved for Use 3 Herbicides Rejected 3 Selection Criteria for Treatment Methods 3 Priority 1 4 Priority 2 4 Priority 3 4 Program Size and Scope 4 Level of Treatment 4 Ongoing Search for Alternatives 4 Additional Environmental Analyses 6 CHAPTER 3 - ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 6 Alternative 1: Proposed Action 6 Alternative 2: No Aerial Application of Herbicides 6 Alternative 3: No Use of Herbicides 6 Alternative 4: No Use of Prescribed Burning 7 Alternative 5: No Action (Continue Current Management) 7 CHAPTER 4 - DECISION RATIONALE 7 Statutory Considerations 7 Perspective on Methods 7 CHAPTER 5 - PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION FEATURES 8 Standard Operating Procedures 8 Safety 8 Reseeding 8 Prescribed Fire 8 Biological Control 8 Pre-Treatment Surveys 9 Cost Benefit Analysis 9 Environmental Assessment 9 Archeological - Historic Resources 9 Recreation Sites or Use Areas 9 Threatened or Endangered Species 9 Wildlife 9 Special Management Areas 10 Project Designs Features 10 Minimum Width Buffer Strips 10 Herbicide Application Contract Requirements 10 Soil Protection 10 Monitoring and Evaluation 10 Process for New Information 11 Interrelationships 11 1 CONTENTS Other Federal Entities 11 State and Local Government 11 Relationship to Existing Management Plans 1 Tiering by Incorporation 12 Herbicides Proposed for Use 12 Public Participation 12 CHAPTER 6 - SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF DECISION 12 Introduction 12 Resources 12 Vegetation 12 Air Resources 13 Soils 13 Aquatic Resources 13 Fish and Wildlife 14 Cultural Resources 14 Recreation and Visual Resources 14 Livestock 14 Wild Horses and Burros 14 Special Status Species 14 Wilderness and Special Areas 14 Human Health and Safety 15 Manual 15 Mechanical 15 Biological 15 Prescribed Burning 15 Herbicides 15 Synergistic Effects 16 Hyper-Sensitive Individuals 16 Inert Ingredients 16 Herbicide Carriers 16 Social and Economic Resources 16 Quality of Information (Data Gaps) 17 CHAPTER 7 - ISSUES 17 TABLES Table 1 - Estimated Average Annual Acres Treated 5 RECORD OF DECISION VEGETATION TREATMENT ON BLM LANDS IN THIRTEEN WESTERN STATES CHAPTER INTRODUCTION 1 - A Final Environmental ImpactStatement(FEIS) entitledVegetationTreatmentfor13Western States was released to the public June 14, 1991 This documentconsidered and evaluated the impacts of . thedescribedvegetationtreatmentprogramfromamixofalternativemethodsofvegetationtreatment including burning, biological, mechanical, manual, and chemical treatments. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is required to manage public lands and their resources by the Federal Land Policyand ManagementActof 1976 (43 U.S.C.1700etseq.). This lawestablished policy for BLM administration of public lands under its jurisdiction. The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 (43 U.S.C. 315etseq.) introduced Federal protection and managementofpublic lands by regulating grazing on public lands. The Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (43 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) required BLMtomanage, maintain, and improvethepubliclandssuitableforlivestockgrazingsothat they become as productive asfeasible. Two Federal laws direct weed control on Federal lands: the Federal Noxious Weed Actof 1974 (7 U.S.C. 2801-2813), as amended by Sec. 15, Managementof Undesirable Plants on Federal Lands, 1990, and the Carlson-Foley Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-583). Inaccordancewiththe National Environmental PolicyAct(NEPA), the FEIS identified impactsonthe natural and human environment associated with the alternatives, providing a wide range of managementoptionsforreviewandconsideration. Thealternativesconsidered inthe FEIS address known public concerns and issues. Comments, documents, and suggestions received concerning the FEIS were considered in preparing the Record of Decision presented here. CHAPTER 2 - THE DECISION AND ITS SPECIFIC PROVISIONS ThedecisionistoimplementanintegratedvegetationtreatmentprogramforBLMadministeredpublic lands. This decision focuses on vegetation treatment methods that include manual, mechanical, biological, prescribed burning and chemical. We shall establish and follow the following vegetation management priorities during the course of meeting our legal mandates in Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1700 et seq.); the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934(43 U.S.C. 315 et seq.); the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (43 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.); the Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 (7 U.S.C. 2801-2813), as amended by Sec. 15, Management of Undesirable Plants on Federal Lands, 1990; andthe Carlson-FoleyActof 1968 (P.L. 90-583). State and county laws commonly place responsibility for noxious weed control on Federal land with the Federal Government. BLM willcooperatewiththeindividual States' noxiousweed managementacts to the extent funding is available. RECORD OF DECISION This decision is within the scope ofthe alternatives discussed in the FEIS. For reference purposes, thedecision is labelled alternative 1. Alternative 1 maintainsflexibilityto useall availablevegetation managementtools. Thetechniquesproposedforuseinan integrated managementprogram include preventiveactionstoavoidorminimizeenvironmentalharm resultingfromimplementation, biological control (includes insects, pathogens, and domestic animals), prescribed burning, mechanical practices, manual practices, and chemical control. Vegetation management priorities are as follows: Priority 1 Take actions to prevent or minimize the need for vegetation control when and where feasible considering the management objectives forthe site. Priority 2 Use effective nonchemical methods of vegetation control when and where feasible. Priority 3 Useherbicidesafterconsideringtheeffectivenessofallpotentialmethodsorincombinationwithother methodsofcontrol. Chemicalscouldbeusedwherethebenefitswouldmeetorexceedthoseofother control methods. The application of chemicals shall meet or exceed BLM and label requirements. The decision serves two objectives: 1) Protecting human health through measures designed to minimize risks to the general public, BLM employees and contract workers, and 2) Meeting legal mandates for multiple use and sustained yield of public lands and services. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) For clarity, this decision expands the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) definition in the FEIS glossary to reflect the generic definition, "IPM is a systems approach to reduce pest damage (unwantedvegetation)totolerablelevelsthroughavarietyoftechniques, including natural predators and parasites, genetically resistant hosts, environmental modifications and when necessary and appropriate, chemical pesticides (herbicides)". IPM strategies generally rely on a combination of methods as defense mechanisms against pests. Prevention Theterm "prevention"meansactivities (inspection, regulation, sanitation, education)thatwill reduce the possibility of the introduction of unwanted vegetation into an area that could interfere with the objectives for managing that area or adjacent lands. Prevention is in contrast to treatment, which refers to activities for controlling or eradicating infestations of competing or unwanted vegetation. Prevention should not be confused with early treatment, which refers to activities for controlling or eradicatingexisting,smallinfestationsofcompetingorunwantedvegetationbeforetheyinterferewith theagency'sobjectivesformanagingthatareaoradjacentlands. TheBLMwillevaluatepreventative strategies for use preferentially where practical and effective.
The list of books you might like
