EIS – Environmental Impact Statement

Why Prepare EIS’s?

• Managers need current information
• New technology must be evaluated
• The public demands that analysis be done
• Laws, lawsuits and court proceedings will drive the system if we don’t

Legal Purposes

• Action ensuring device (the law was designed to insure analysis is done)
• Full and fair disclosure is required of Significant environmental impacts to inform the decisionmaker & the public

Legal Requirements

Reasonable alternatives must be evaluated to avoid or minimize adverse impacts OR to enhance the quality of the environment.

Interdisciplinary Team Full Time

• Team Leader
• Editorial Assistant
• Hydrologist
• Plant Pathologist
• Program Assistant
• Public Affairs Person
• Silviculturist

Interdisciplinary Team Part Time

• Ecologist
• Economist
• Forestry Program Manager
• Landscape Architect
• Pest Management Specialist
• Pesticide Specialist
• Sociologist
• Soil Scientist
• Wildlife Biologist
• Writer-Editor

Development of Alternatives

• Range of methods
• Range of intensities
• Range of alternatives

Possible Vegetation Management Methods

• Mechanical methods
• Manual methods
• Herbicidal methods
• Prescribed fire
• Biological methods

The EIS evaluates

• Tools used within these methods

The EIS Does NOT Evaluate

• Silvicultural systems (clearcutting, shelterwood, etc.)
• Engineering activities (road building, mining, etc.)

Activities Evaluated

• Site preparation
• Stand management (Release, Thinning, etc.)
• Wildlife opening maintenance
• Corridor (ROW) maintenance
• Fuels treatment

V. M. EISs – Two Basic Books In Three Volumes

• Volume I – Body of the EIS
• Volume II – Science appendices
• Volume III – [Chapter VI of Volume I] Public comment letters and team responses

Volume II

Appendix A

Risk Assessment for the Use of Herbicides In the Southern Region USDA Forest Service

Appendix B

Effects of Prescribed Fire on Soil and Water in Southern National Forests

Appendix C

Effects of Herbicides on Soil Productivity and Water Quality

Appendix D

A Biological Evaluation of The Effects of the Final Preferred Alternative on Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and Sensitive Species

Appendix E

Lists of Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and Sensitive Species of the Coastal Plain/Piedmont

Appendix A – Risk Assessment

Human and Wildlife Health Risks

Section 1 – Introduction

Section 2 – Current Vegetation Management Programs

Herbicide Application Methods Evaluated

• Aerial methods
• Ground mechanical methods
• Ground manual methods

The Risk Assessments Consider the Use of Either Liquid or Granular Formulations

What is Risk?

Section 3 – Human Health Analysis

Herbicides Evaluated

Additives Evaluated

• Light Fuel Oils
• Diesel Oil
• Kerosene
• Mineral Oil
• Limonene
• (Later: Vegetable Oil)

Also Evaluated

• Inert ingredients

Data Sources

• Laboratory testing
• Reports in the scientific literature
• E.P.A. files (F.O.I.A. request)
• Manufacturer’s data

Available Toxicity Data is presented

• Alphabetically
• By chemical name
• Within toxicology categories

Hazard Analysis

• Acute toxicity
• Subchronic toxicity
• Chronic toxicity
• Cancer potency
• Mutagenicity

As we go through the document Glyphosphate will be used as the primary example

Glyphosphate

• Accord
• Rodeo
• Roundup

General Toxicity Data

• CP/P -- FEIS -- P.3-21
• AM -- DEIS -- P.3-21
• O/O -- DEIS -- P.3-21

Glyphosate Toxicity

• Oral LD50 of 4,320 mg/kg
• Systemic NOEL = 1,000 mg/kg/day
• Reproductive NOEL = 10 mg/kg/day

Glyphosate Toxicity

• Monsanto has submitted a study establishing 5,600 mg/kg - EPA has not accepted it
• 1 yr. chronic feeding study - liver cell damage at the HDT (4,500 mg/kg)
• Brief discussion of NNG a derivative / contaminant of glyphosate

Elimination Rates

• CP/P -- FEIS -- P.3-28
• AM -- DEIS -- P.3-28
• O/O -- DEIS -- P.3-28

Glyphosate Elimination

• 2 studies reported -- both 5 day elimination tests:
• 92% eliminated by rabbit in 5 days
• 94% eliminated by rat in 5 days

Mutagenicity Data Summary

• CP/P -- FEIS -- P.3-29
• AM -- DEIS -- P.3-29
• O/O -- DEIS -- P.3-29

Glyphosate Mutagenicity Summary (Tabular)

13 assays listed - all are negative for mutagenic effects

Glyphosate Mutagenicity Data (Full Text)

• CP/P -- FEIS -- P.3-33
• AM -- DEIS -- P.3-33
• O/O -- DEIS -- P.3-33

Glyphosate Mutagenicity (Text)

There is no evidence to indicate it is mutagenic

Mutagenicity/Carcinogenicity (Tabular Summary)

• CP/P -- FEIS -- P.3-35
• AM -- DEIS -- P.3-35
• O/O -- DEIS -- P.3-35

Glyphosate Mutagenicity/Carcinogenicity (Tabular Summary)

• 0/13 assays were positive

Oncogenicity Data (Full Text)

• CP/P -- FEIS -- P.3-39/40
• AM -- DEIS -- P.3-39/40
• O/O -- DEIS -- P.3-39/40

Glyphosate Oncogenicity Data (Full Text)

• No cancer causation up to (HDT) 31 mg/kg/day
• FAO & WHO - no evidence that it is carcinogenic
• EPA S.A.P - Class D oncogen - but there is a problem study where test & controls developed tumors

Experiment vs. Reality (Cancer Potency Curves)

• CP/P -- FEIS -- P.3-43
• AM -- DEIS -- P.3-43
• O/O -- DEIS -- P.3-43

Cancer Potency Curve and Uncertainty

Cancer Potency

• CP/P -- FEIS -- P.3-44
• AM -- DEIS -- P.3-44
• O/O -- DEIS -- P.3-44

Glyphosate Cancer Potency

• Uncertainty exists due to one study in which both test and control mice developed tumors
• For the sake of conservative analysis a cancer potency analysis was done
• Cancer potency is 0.000026 / mg/kg/day

Inert Ingredient (%) Summary (Label Information)

• CP/P -- FEIS -- P.3-46
• AM -- DEIS -- P.3-46
• O/O -- DEIS -- P.3-46

Glyphosate Inert Ingredient Information (Label Data)

• Roundup -- 59% inert ingredients (85% of it = water)
• Rodeo -- 46.5% inert (100% water)
• Accord -- 59% inert (100% water)

Inert Ingredient Toxicity Summary

• CP/P -- FEIS -- P.3-49
• AM -- DEIS -- P.3-49
• O/O -- DEIS -- P.3-49

Toxicity of the Inert Ingredients in Glyphosate

• Polyethoxylated tallow amine is the inert in Roundup
• It is more toxic (1200 vs. 4620 mg/kg) than glyphosate
• No other significant toxicological concern

Data Gaps

• Incomplete or Unavailable Data
• All of this disclosure is not enough to satisfy N.E.P.A
• So far… Registration data only
• Registration data requirements are found in F.I.F.R.A
• Need to know pattern of use so as to evaluate the potential effects of a product on animals and their biological and physical environment
• Only a limited number of studies exist so… Mathematical Modeling is used to project effects

Section 4

• Human Exposure Analysis

Routes of Human Exposure

• Dermal
• Oral
• Inhalation

Applications Evaluated

• Aerial (Liquid or granular formulations)
• Mechanical (Liquid or granular formulations)
• Manual (Liquid or granular formulations [Liquid formulations considered were: Directed foliar; Basal bark or stem; Soil spot; and, Cut surface treatments])
• Brown-and-Burn Treatments

Exposure Results from

• Rate of application
• Time spent applying
• Cleanliness of method
• Protective equipment used

Rate Scenarios Evaluated

• Typical
• Maximum
• Accident

Exposure Analysis is based on data Submitted by the Forest Pesticide Coordinators (It was not speculative or made up in the Regional Office)

Acres Treated / Year
(Regional Typical & [Maximum] Values)

• CP/P -- FEIS -- P.4-5
• AM -- DEIS -- P.4-5
• O/O -- DEIS -- P.4-5

Glyphosate
Patterns of Use

• For this and subsequent tables note that “typical” values precede bracketed “maximum” values
• Values are presented only for labeled uses at the time of analysis

Acres / Treatment
(Regional Typical & [Maximum] Values)

• CP/P -- FEIS -- P.4-7
• AM -- DEIS -- P.4-7
• O/O -- DEIS -- P.4-7

Hours Worked / Person Day
(Regional Typical & [Maximum] Values)

• CP/P -- FEIS -- P.4-9
• AM -- DEIS -- P.4-9
• O/O -- DEIS -- P.4-9

Days / Year / Worker
(Regional Typical & [Maximum] Values)

• CP/P -- FEIS -- P.4-11
• AM -- DEIS -- P.4-11
• O/O -- DEIS -- P.4-11

Worker Exposure (Hours per Year)(Regional Typical & [Maximum] Values)

• This number was found to have little value in projecting risk due to the rapid and almost total excretion of internalized herbicide
• There appeared to be no accumulation of chemical which would affect the toxicity of a subsequent dose of the same or another pesticide

Pounds a.i. Applied / Acre
(Regional Typical & [Maximum] Values)

• CP/P -- FEIS -- P.4-13
• AM -- DEIS -- P.4-13
• O/O -- DEIS -- P.4-13

Estimated Exposure Due to Drift

• CP/P -- FEIS -- P.4-21
• AM -- DEIS -- P.4-21
• O/O -- DEIS -- P.4-21

Drift Curves

• Evaluation of large droplet systems used for herbicide application
• Aerial - virtually no deposition more than 100 meters off-line

Drift Curves
Ground Fig 4-2

• Upper line = row crop application - high pressure - small droplet size - significant drift potential
• Lower line = forestry application - low pressure- large droplet size - insignificant drift potential

Estimated Leaching Potential

• CP/P -- FEIS -- P.4-27
• AM -- FEIS -- P.4-27
• O/O -- FEIS -- P.4-27

Glyphosate Leaching Potential

• Adsorption coefficient and retardation factor are each second highest on the list
• Glyphosate binds tightly to available organic matter and soil movement is not significant

Estimated Subsurface Dispersion of Pesticides

• CP/P -- FEIS -- P.4-41
• AM -- FEIS -- P.4-41
• O/O -- FEIS -- P.4-41

Hexazinone is used for Example

• Glyphosate was not analyzed due to its immobility in soil
• Hexazinone modeling shows no subsurface movement
• Some question here for hexazinone

Estimated Runoff

• CP/P -- FEIS -- P.4-55
• AM -- FEIS -- P.4-55
• O/O -- FEIS -- P.4-55

Runoff Potential (Hexazinone)

• Several soils analyzed (broad range of silt, sand and loam)
• Different slopes considered
• Significant variation found in potential movement in runoff

Estimated Exposure to Glyphosate

• CP/P -- FEIS -- P.4-75
• AM -- DEIS -- P.4-75
• O/O -- DEIS -- P.4-75

Exposure to Glyphosate (Typical Scenario)

• Public exposure potential is extremely low, ranging from 0.00001 to 0.00090 mg/kg/day
• Estimated worker exposure ranges from 0.00008 to 0.05144 mg/kg/day

Exposure to Glyphosate (Maximum Scenario)

• Public exposure potential is still extremely low, ranging from .00003 to .04659 mg/kg/day
• Estimated worker exposure ranges from .00261 to .98919 mg/kg/day

Exposure to Glyphosate (Accident Scenario)

• Spills into water pose limited threat of exposure estimated to be between 0.0023 and 0.0276 mg/kg/day
• Accidental spray of persons is higher risk - exposure is estimated to be 0.1668 mg/kg/day
• Spill onto worker is serious - exposure can range to 180 mg/kg/day

Exposure Is Not Dose

• Exposure is simply contact with or proximity to a pesticide
• Dose requires internalization of the pesticide
• Internalization is… penetration through skin, stomach / intestines or lungs into the body proper or the blood stream

Section 5

• Human Health Risk Analysis

Measures of Risk

• NOEL
• NOAEL
• ADI
• TLV
• MOS

MOS = NOEL / Dose

For Forest Service Projects MOS Must Be Greater Than 100

• 10 = Inter-species protection factor
• 10 = Intra-species protection factor
• 10 X 10 = 100

Estimated MOSs for Glyphosate Use

• CP/P -- FEIS -- P. 5-19
• AM -- DEIS -- P. 5-19
• O/O -- DEIS -- P. 5-19

Summary of Projected MOSs for Glyphosate Use

Public MOSs in both systemic and reproductive typical scenarios all exceed 10,000. In the maximum scenarios six do not exceed 10,000 - and of those only 2 (sys. & repro. berry pickers) don’t exceed 1,000. All exceed the minimum 100 standard.

Worker MOSs in both systemic and reproductive typical scenarios all exceed the minimum standard of 100 (lowest is 194.4 - backpack applicator repro.) In the maximum scenarios several MOSs do not achieve the minimum 100. Spills onto workers and accidental spray of persons all pose unacceptable risk.

Lifetime Cancer Risk

• CP/P -- FEIS -- P. 5-40
• AM -- DEIS -- P. 5-40
• O/O -- DEIS -- P. 5-40
• Risks smaller than 1 x 10^-6 are acceptable under the EPA standard adopted
• All of the glyphosate risks meet this criterion

Cancer Risk from Brown-and-Burn Operations (Estimated)

• CP/P -- FEIS -- P. 5-42
• AM -- DEIS -- P. 5-42
• O/O -- DEIS -- P. 5-42

Cancer Risk from Brown-and-Burn Operations

• Analysis assumed all applied herbicide was present at time of burning
• Risks range between 2 x 10^-8 and 8 x 10^-15
• Even so, cancer risk from B&B is negligible

Some conclusions about human health risk from herbicide use

Highest Risk is to Workers Involved in

• Mixing / loading pesticides (mixer / loaders)
• Backpack spray operations

More Human Health Conclusions

• Diesel oil and kerosene are barely acceptable based on published data (further review indicates that they are unacceptable)
• Cancer risk to workers & the public is low
• Only 1 synergism disclosed
• No bioaccumulation seen

Human Health Effects from Brown-and-Burn Treatments

• Assumes a wildfire occurs immediately after application
• Finds only an extremely low risk beyond that resulting from the fuels
• Cancer risk posed by herbicides is negligible

Human Health Risk Posed to the Public

• Negligible at typical application rates
• Including the risk to berrypickers (highest public risk scenario)

Break!!!

Section 6

• Wildlife and Aquatic Species Hazard Analysis
• Data from the same sources as human health data plus Wildlife data bases
• Data includes a mix of species representing a variety of habitats and feeding niches
• There are significant data gaps especially in chronic and subchronic toxicity data

Available Toxicity Data

• Presented alphabetically
• By chemical name
• Within topics of discussion

Toxicity Data (acute, subchronic and chronic)

• CP/P -- FEIS -- P. 6-8/9
• AM -- DEIS -- P. 6-8/9
• O/O -- DEIS -- P. 6-8/9

Wildlife Toxicity Data

• Numbers the same as for human health - 4,320 mg/kg..
• A few additional data points available for deer and other test animals

Glyphosate Toxicity Data (by formulation – relevant to wildlife)

• CP/P -- FEIS -- P. 6-24/25
• AM -- DEIS -- P. 6-24/25
• O/O -- DEIS -- P. 6-24/25

Glyphosate Toxicity Data (by formulation – tabular form)

• CP/P -- FEIS -- P. 6-26/28
• AM -- DEIS -- P. 6-26/28
• O/O -- DEIS -- P. 6-26/28

Toxicity to Aquatic Organisms

• Significant difference between Roundup versus Accord and Rodeo
• Surfactant in Roundup poses significant inhalation risk to fish

Section 7

• Wildlife and Aquatic Species Exposure Analysis
• Representative Species are Used in the Analysis

Animal Exposures

• Direct spray (dermal)
• Preening (ingestion)
• Foodstuffs (ingestion)
• Breathing (inhalation) (relevant for fish)

Other Exposure Considerations

• Body size
• Food consumed (amount)
• Respiration rate
• Feeding range of the species (both size of range and variety of foodstuffs in the range)

Section 8

• Wildlife and Aquatic Species Risk Analysis

EPA Standards
Non-T&E Species

• Terrestrial species
  Dose must be < 1/5 LD₅₀
• Aquatic species
  Dose must be < 1/10 LC₅₀

EPA Standards
T&E Species

• Terrestrial species
  Dose must be < 1/10 LD₅₀
• Aquatic species
  Dose must be < 1/20 LC₅₀

1/5 LD₅₀ Criterion Table

• CP/P -- FEIS -- P. 8-11
• AM -- DEIS -- P. 8-11
• O/O -- DEIS -- P. 8-11

Application of the 1/5 Rule

• No animal species is at risk when the EPA 1/5 LD₅₀ standard is applied to modeled potential glyphosate doses
• This is true of both the realistic and the extreme scenarios

Accident Scenarios

• CP/P -- FEIS -- P. 8-32/33
• AM -- DEIS -- P. 8-32/33
• O/O -- DEIS -- P. 8-33

Accident Scenarios

• Rodeo and Accord do not pose risk to aquatic organisms
• Roundup, however poses significant risk (surfactant)

Some Conclusions Concerning Wildlife from the Risk Assessment

• Typical application rates result in doses of less than 1/5 LD₅₀ to wildlife
• Primary Concern for non-T&E Species Secondary Effects resulting from habitat alteration
• Aquatic Species
• Are often at risk from accidents
• T&E Species
• Some risk under the EPA standards

Completing Appendix A

• Glossary
• References cited
• Subject index

Volume 1

Body of the E.I.S.

First Pages

• Table of Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables

Check the Indexes

• Front – Table of Contents
• Back – Subject Index

Chapter I

• Scope & Issues

Chapter III

• Affected Environment

Chapter IV

• Environmental Consequences

Summarizes

• Expected effects on a variety of environmental elements

Including

• Human health and safety
• Vegetation
• Wildlife
• T&E Species
• Soil
• Water quality
• Air quality
• Visual quality
• Cultural resources, and
• Socioeconomic conditions

Human Health and Safety
Chapter IV

• Reviews risk assessment methodology
• Documents incomplete or unavailable data
• Presents a readable summary of the risk assessment
• Projects MOS data

Public Risk Typical Scenario

• CP/P -- FEIS -- P. IV-15
• AM -- FEIS -- P. IV-16
• O/O -- FEIS -- P. IV-15

Public Risk Maximum Scenario

• CP/P -- FEIS -- P. IV-16
• AM -- FEIS -- P. IV-17
• O/O -- FEIS -- P. IV-16

Worker Risk Typical Scenario

• CP/P -- FEIS -- P. IV-17
• AM -- FEIS -- P. IV-18
• O/O -- FEIS -- P. IV-17

Worker Risk Maximum Scenario

• CP/P -- FEIS -- P. IV-18
• AM -- FEIS -- P. IV-19
• O/O -- FEIS -- P. IV-18

Human Risk Accident Scenario

• CP/P -- FEIS -- P. IV-19
• AM -- FEIS -- P. IV-20
• O/O -- FEIS -- P. IV-19

Lifetime Cancer Risk

• CP/P -- FEIS -- P. IV-21
• AM -- FEIS -- P. IV-23
• O/O -- FEIS -- P. IV-21

Summary of Accidents (Region 8’s CA-1 Record; 3 yrs)

• CP/P -- FEIS -- P. IV-26-30
• AM -- FEIS -- P. IV-27-31
• O/O -- FEIS -- P. IV-26-29

Vegetation Section
Chapter IV

• Presents a generalized summary of herbicidal effects on plants (target and non-target)

Wildlife Section
Chapter IV

• Summarizes the assessment of tools
• Summarizes incomplete and unavailable wildlife data
• Summarizes wildlife risk assessment data
• Discusses toxicity information – relating it to the EPA’s standards
• Indicates that data beyond that used in the human health analysis is limited

Terrestrial Accident Risk (5 gal spill in a farm pond)

• CP/P -- FEIS -- P. IV-63
• AM -- FEIS -- P. IV-107
• O/O -- FEIS -- P. IV-102

Aquatic Accident Risk (100 gal. spill into a reservoir)

• CP/P -- FEIS -- P. IV-65
• AM -- FEIS -- P. IV-108
• O/O -- FEIS -- P. IV-103

Wildlife / Herbicide Toxicity Conclusions

• 2,4-D, 2,4-DP or triclopyr can cause negative effects on some species
• An accidental spill of herbicide can cause risk to most species
• Diesel oil and kerosene pose a risk to nesting birds
• All P.E.T.S. plants are at some risk from herbicide use

Discusses

• Habitat effects - food, water, cover and their arrangement as a function of method, intensity and frequency of pesticide application

Habitat Alteration Comments

• Change affects different species in different ways
• Mitigating measures will generally be necessary
• Selective application methods pose less risk than broadcast ones

Perform Site-specific Analysis

• Set your objectives before analysis (include the desired future condition as the target of the analysis)
• Review specific tools, methods and chemicals available for the task
• Consider habitat alteration and other secondary effects
• Develop and document mitigations

Site Preparation Habitat Effects

• Reduces forage (selective treatment causes less reduction)
• Can benefit cavity nesters

Release Habitat Effects

• Broadcast methods reduce hard mast and suppress soft mast
• Effect varies with the herbicide used
• Selective methods are very good for enhancing the hardwood component
• This is often the critical step in moving towards the desired future condition

Stand Improvement Habitat Effects

• Herbicides can be used to reduce or increase the hardmast component
• They can improve the stand for wildlife
• In some areas they can be used to protect or enhance specific plants such as grapevines

Right-Of-Way Habitat Effects

• Herbicides are a viable alternative to mowing
• Selective treatments can be used to improve deer and bird habitat (create linear wildlife openings)

T&E Species Section of Chapter IV

• General discussion
• Much of it relates back to the wildlife section

T&E Toxicity Effects Discussion

• Level of concern is very restrictive
• It is based on the EPA standard for acute toxic effects (Terrestrial <1/10 LD₅₀ and Aquatic <1/20 LC₅₀)
• Allows only ½ the dose allowed for the general wildlife population
• Typical herbicide application rates are generally acceptable under the EPA standard
• Extreme rates of application commonly exceed the standard

T&E Habitat Effects

• Herbicides are valuable tools for wildlife habitat maintenance or improvement
• Care must be taken to remain within low-risk parameters
• Spills generally present high risk to T&E species

T&E Habitat Project Planning

• In Appendix D
• Use tables D-1, D-3, D-5 and D-6 to assist with planning actions in T&E habitat
• Prepare both a B.E. and an E.A. when T&E’S are present

Soil, Water, and Air Discussion in Chapter IV

• Discloses the potential effect of herbicide application separately and cumulatively

Chapter IV

• Finishes with discussions of the potential effects on:
• Visual quality
• Cultural resources
• Socioeconomics

Chapter II

• Alternatives

Discusses

• The formulation of the alternatives
• The 9 alternatives evaluated
• The 11 herbicides evaluated
• The 3 additives evaluated
• The application tools considered
• The potential patterns of application
• The mitigation measures developed (both general and method specific)

Displays a Comparison

• Of the expected effects of the 9 alternatives

Sources of Mitigation Measures

• F.S. Manual
• F.S. Health and Safety Code
• Forest management plans
• Some new ones developed to counter problems identified in the risk assessment

Mitigation Measures

• A classification of herbicides by effects on health and the environment was developed and is presented

Class A Herbicides

• Pose no risk requiring mitigation beyond that specified in Chapter II (at E.2.c)

Class B Herbicides

• Pose health or environmental risk which can be mitigated with additional measures (beyond those discussed in Chapter II)

Class C Herbicides

• Pose health and environmental risk which can be mitigated with additional measures (beyond those discussed in Chapter II)

Class D Herbicides

• Pose health or environmental risk which can not be reasonably mitigated

Herbicide Classification Developed in the EIS

• CP/P -- FEIS -- P. II-42
• AM -- FEIS -- P. II-45
• O/O -- FEIS – Not presented – all herbicides evaluated are "A"s

Mitigation Measures

• Herbicides may not be used at greater than "Typical Rate" without further analysis

Typical Rates

• CP/P -- FEIS -- P. II-59
• AM -- FEIS -- P. II-62
• O/O -- FEIS -- P. II-55

Weather Mitigations

• Wind speed limits
• Temperature maxima
• Humidity ranges

Weather Parameters

• CP/P -- FEIS -- P. II-60
• AM -- FEIS -- P. II-63
• O/O -- FEIS -- P. II-56

Aerial Mitigation Mitigations

• Buffer size
• Weather parameters
• Personnel requirements

Aerial Mitigations

• CP/P -- FEIS -- P. II-60/64
• AM -- FEIS -- P. II-62-67
• O/O -- Aerial application is not permitted on either Forest

Mitigations (Toxic Effects)

• Minimum protective clothing is required
• Herbicide use is permitted only at the lowest effective rate
• Use the most selective application method which will accomplish the task
• Restrict application near water
• Be careful when handling the formulated products
• To protect the general public and private lands
• To protect target vegetation
• To protect PETS
• Defining response in the case of an accident

Mitigations (Habitat)

• Perform a site specific analysis (Mandatory B.E. and E.A. if T&E species are involved)
• Protect selected habitat groups
• Favor selective treatments
• Protect non-target vegetation
• Minimize drift

Last Chapters

• List of Preparers
• References
• Glossary
• Subject Index
• Public Comment

Check the Indexes

• Front – Table of Contents
• Back – Subject Index

Where Is It? – A Quick Review

Hazard Analysis

• Human health – Section 3
• Wildlife health – Section 6
• Readable summary - Chapter IV

Exposure Analysis

• Human health – Section 4
• Wildlife health – Section 7
• Readable summary - Chapter IV

Risk Analysis

• Human health – Section 5
• Wildlife health – Section 8
• Readable summary - Chapter IV
• Mitigation measures - Chapter II

Record of Decision

Coastal Plain/Piedmont Final Preferred – Alternative Modified G

Appalachian Mountains Final Preferred – Alternative Modified D

Ozark/Ouachita Mountains Final Preferred – Alternative F

All R.O.D.s permit all of the application methods evaluated to be used with the single exception that the O/O R.O.D. denies permission to use aerial applications.

All R.O.D.s require implementation of all of the mitigation measures required in Chapter II as a minimum standard.

However, forest plans are permitted to include mitigations which are more restrictive than those required by the R.O.D.

Permits the use only of class A herbicides without the Regional Forester’s signature.

And restricts all use of 2,4-D and of tebuthiuron, and the backpack foliar application of 2,4-DP.

Exhibit A in the R.O.D.

• Lists all of the mitigation measures required by the Regional Forester’s decision

Exhibit B+ in the R.O.D.

• Reproduce the forest plan amendments which incorporate the VMFEIS mitigation measures into the plans, Forest by Forest

Summary

• Effect of the vegetation management EISs on the use of herbicides in Region 8
• EIS reviewed only a small number of the herbicides available for use in forestry and right-of-way work

Of the 11 herbicides reviewed, 3 are virtually eliminated from our program.

Herbicides Evaluated

• 2,4-D (one of three herbicides virtually eliminated from program)
• 2,4-DP (one of three herbicides virtually eliminated from program)
• Glyphosate
• Hexazinone
• Imazapyr
• Picloram
• Sulfometuron methyl
• Tebuthiuron (one of three herbicides virtually eliminated from program)
• Triclopyr

In most cases the allowable rate of use is restricted below that allowed by the label

Mitigations are added which further decrease risk to applicators and the public

Taken together this results in a very small, low-risk window for herbicide use

SPB E.I.S

E.I.S. for the suppression of southern pine beetle in the Southern Region

Suppression Strategies

• Cut-and-Leave
• Cut, Pile and Burn
• Cut-and-Remove
• Cut-and-Spray

Note: The difference in the four methods comes after trees are cut

Cut-and-Spray Chemicals

• Dursban (Chlorpyrifos)
• Lindane

At Present

• Only chlorpyrifos is available commercially (as Cyren 4E) and that registration is in serious jeopardy
• Spray Approved for use in general forest areas and RCW colonies (felled trees only)

Gypsy Moth E.I.S

Applicable to Suppression and Eradication Projects

Approved Treatments are either Chemical or Biological

Pheromones

• Attractant or anti-aggregant chemicals which mimic natural behavioral chemicals

Biological Insecticides

• NPV (nuclear polyhedrosis virus)
• Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis)

Chemical Insecticides

• Sevin (Carbaryl))
• Orthene (Acephate)
• Dylox (Trichlorfon)
• Dimlin (Diflubenzuron)

Lest you feel specially picked on..Here are a few other N.E.P.A. products to consider

History Region 8

Region 4

Region 5

Region 6

Region 6 & the B.L.M.

The D.E.A.

New risk assessments are being developed for the pesticides in general F.S. use (and a few not in general use).

New Risk Assessments

• Use RfD rather than MOS
• Have computed HQs (hazard quotients)
• Are better grounded in science
• Are difficult to use in their current form
• Are being adapted in a set of computerized worksheets to aid use

New Risk Assessments at:

• http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/risk.htm

Here’s what has been developed since the EIS

• Borax (fungic; R-6)
• Clopyralid
• 2,4-D
• Dicamba (Vanquish)
• Dyes
• Glyphosate
• Hexazinone
• Imazameth
• Imazapyr
• MCH (ins.)
• Metsulfuron methyl
• Mimic (ins.)
• Picloram
• Sethoxydim
• Sulfometuron methyl
• Tebuthiuron
• TM Biocontrol (ins.)
• Triclopyr
• Verbenone (ins.)

[  Contents  ]