Vegetation treatment on BLM lands in thirteen western states : Utah : record of decision

28 Pages·1991·4.2 MB·English

by  United States. Bureau of Land Management

United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Utah July 1991
Record of Decision
BLM
Vegetation Treatment on Lands
in Thirteen Western States
SB
613
.W4
U823
1991
The BureauofLand Managementisresponsibleforthebalanced managementofthepubliclandsand
resourcesandtheirvariousvaluessothattheyareconsideredinacombinationthatwillbestservethe
needsoftheAmericanpeople. Managementisbasedupontheprinciplesofmultipleuseandsustained
yield;acombinationofusesthattakeintoaccountthelongtermneedsoffuturegenerationsforrenewable
andnonrenewableresources. Theseresourcesincluderecreation, range,timber, minerals,watershed,
fishandwildlife, wildernessand natural, scenic, scientificandculturalvalues.
BLM-WY-ES-91-036-4320
.
# wfoiz
D)m
TAKE
United States Department of the Interior BPREIDgEIgN
™
BUREAU OFLAND MANAGEMENT
Utah State Office
324 South State, Suite 301 INREPLYREFERTO
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111-2303 5#
July 23, 1991
" ^
BLM LIBRARY s
SC-653, BLDG. 50
DENVER FEDERAL C^TER
P. 0. BOX 25047
DENVER, CO 80225-0047
Dear Interested Party:
Enclosed for your information is my approval of the Record of
Decision for the vegetation treatment on Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) lands in Utah. This document summarizes the decision's
provisions governing BLM's integrated management treatment program
for undesirable plants and noxious weeds on public lands in Utah.
The decision is derived from the Final Environmental Impact State-
ment (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 of this decision to interested groups and individuals will
serve as public notice of the decision.
Thank you for your interest. We look forward to any further
comment you may have that will assist us in managing the public
lands
Sincerely,
UVwv
ames M. Parker
tate Director
Enclosure
TAKE
United States Department of the Interior MODEIN
AMERKA
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Utah State Office
324 South State, Suite 301 INREPLYREFERTO:
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111-2303
Decision
BLM
I approve the Record ofDecision forthe Final EIS addressing the Vegetation Treatmenton Lands in
13 Western States (BLM, May 1991) and its appropriateapplication to the BLM administered public lands
in Utah.
The public is advised that an integrated approach forthe treatment ofvegetation will be implemented in the
StateofUtah.
BLM projects that an estimated average of28,450acres would be treated annually in the StateofUtah
using manual, mechanical, biological, prescribed burning, andchemical 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 treatmentproject impacts on the resourcesofthe local area.
July 23, 1991 ames M. Parker
tate Director, Utah
TAKE
PRIDEIN
United States Department of the Interior ajjerka
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
INREPLYREFERTO:
BLM
I approve and concur in the selection ofthe Prefered Alternative ofthe vegetation treatmenton 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).
ff-7'9/
Date Director
I concurin the abovedecision for vegetation treatment on BLM lands in 13 western states defined in the
attached Record ofDecision.
X-rt- 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
I
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 directweed 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 FEISaddress
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 Plantson 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
FederalGovernment. BLMwillcooperatewiththeindividual States' noxiousweed managementacts
to the extent funding is available.
RECORD OF DECISION
This decision iswithin the scope ofthe alternatives discussed in the FEIS. For reference purposes,
thedecision is labelledalternative 1. Alternative 1 maintainsflexibilityto useall availablevegetation
managementtools. Thetechniquesproposedforuseinan integrated managementprogram include
preventiveactionstoavoidorminimizeenvironmentalharmresultingfromimplementation, 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 for the 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)totolerable levelsthroughavarietyoftechniques, 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.