APPENDIX C

ALASKA NATIONAL INTEREST LANDS 

CONSERVATION ACT (ANILCA) § 810 

ANALYSIS OF SUBSISTENCE IMPACTS

ANILCA § 810 ANALYSIS OF SUBSISTENCE IMPACTS

APPENDIX C

ALASKA NATIONAL INTEREST LANDS 

CONSERVATION ACT (ANILCA) § 810 

ANALYSIS OF SUBSISTENCE IMPACTS

Introduction

On December 21, 2012, the United States Department 

of the Interior (USDOI) Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) issued a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register 

to prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement (PEIS) to evaluate the viability of using 

aminopyralid, fluroxypyr, and rimsulfuron herbicides 

as part of BLM vegetation management programs in 17 

western states, including Alaska. A total of 18 

herbicides were approved for use on public lands under 

the 2007 Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on 

Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western 

States Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

(2007 PEIS; USDOI BLM 2007a). If approved for use 

under the current project, the three new herbicides will 

join the list of EIS-approved herbicides currently in use 

on BLM lands, bringing the total to 21.

The Notice of Intent for the PEIS identified the 

locations and times of public scoping meetings, and 

stated that comments on the proposal would be 

accepted until February 19, 2013. Information gathered 

at the public meetings and during the comment period 

led to the development of the Vegetation Treatments 

Using Aminopyralid, Fluroxypyr, and Rimsulfuron on 

Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western 

States PEIS. This document assesses on a national 

level the BLM’s proposed use of aminopyralid, 

fluroxypyr, and rimsulfuron. Together with the 2007

PEIS, it addresses the BLM’s herbicide treatment 

programs on the 17 western states, including Alaska. 

Because of the programmatic nature of herbicide use 

by the BLM, the PEIS addresses a wide range of 

impacts that are inclusive of the extensive and diverse 

land area under analysis. Should herbicide use be 

proposed locally, then site-specific impacts of all 

vegetation treatments would be addressed and analyzed 

in additional National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) documents prepared by local BLM offices and 

tiered to the PEIS documents.

BLM-administered lands (public lands) are federally 

owned lands and interests in lands (such as federally 

owned mineral estate) that are administered by the 

Secretary of the Interior through the BLM. In Alaska, 

public lands also include lands selected, but not yet 

conveyed, to the State of Alaska or Native 

Corporations and villages.

Chapters 3 (Affected Environment) and 4 

(Environmental Consequences) of the PEIS provide 

detailed descriptions of the affected environment and 

the potential effects of the various alternatives on 

subsistence resources, with information in the 2007

PEIS referenced where appropriate. This appendix uses 

the detailed information presented in the PEIS to 

evaluate the potential impacts to subsistence pursuant 

to Section 810(a) of the Alaska National Interest Land 

Conservation Act (ANILCA).

Subsistence Evaluation 

Factors

Section 810(a) of ANILCA requires that an evaluation 

of subsistence uses and needs be completed for any 

federal determination to “withdraw, reserve, lease, or 

otherwise permit the use, occupancy or disposition of 

public lands.” As such, an evaluation of potential 

impacts to subsistence under ANILCA § 810(a) must 

be completed for the PEIS. This evaluation must 

include findings on three specific issues:

• The effect of use, occupancy, or disposition on 

subsistence uses and needs;

• The availability of other lands for the purpose 

sought to be achieved; and

• Other alternatives that would reduce or 

eliminate the use, occupancy, or disposition of 

public lands needed for subsistence purposes 

(16 United States Code § 3120).

BLM Vegetation Treatments Three New Herbicides C-1 January 2016

Final Programmatic EIS
ANILCA § 810 ANALYSIS OF SUBSISTENCE IMPACTS

A finding that the proposed action may significantly 

restrict subsistence uses imposes additional 

requirements, including provisions for notices to the 

State of Alaska and appropriate regional and local 

subsistence committees, a hearing in the vicinity of the 

area involved, and the making of the following 

determinations, as required by Section 810(a)(3):

• Such a significant restriction of subsistence 

uses is necessary, and consistent with sound 

management principles for the utilization of 

the public lands;

• The proposed activity will involve the minimal 

amount of public lands necessary to 

accomplish the purposes of use, occupancy, or 

other disposition; and

• Reasonable steps will be taken to minimize 

adverse effects upon subsistence uses and 

resources resulting from such actions.

To determine if a significant restriction of subsistence 

uses and needs may result from any one of the 

alternatives discussed in the PEIS, including their 

cumulative effects, the following three factors in 

particular are considered:

• Reductions in the availability of subsistence 

resources caused by a decline in the population 

or amount of harvestable resources; 

• Reductions in the availability of resources 

used for subsistence purposes caused by 

alteration of their normal locations and 

distribution patterns; and 

• Limitations on access to subsistence resources, 

including limitations resulting from increased 

competition for the resources.

Evaluation of Alternatives 

and Findings

The alternatives presented below are associated with a 

decision about whether to allow the BLM to use the 

herbicides aminopyralid, fluroxypyr, and rimsulfuron 

on public lands in the western U.S. and Alaska. All of 

the alternatives involve herbicide treatments on the 

same number of total acres, with differences in how 

much of each herbicide would be used annually. No 

specific projects are proposed under any of the 

alternatives. When a project is proposed, the BLM will 

be required to initiate a site-specific NEPA analysis of 

the proposed actions. For lands covered under the 

ANILCA, the BLM would also conduct an additional 

ANILCA § 810 Analysis of Subsistence Impacts. 

During this process, the BLM will invite public 

participation and collaborate with Alaska Natives and 

Alaska Native Corporations to identify and protect 

culturally significant plants used for food, baskets, 

fiber, medicine and ceremonial purposes. For this 

document, the evaluation and findings required by 

ANILCA § 810 are similar for all four alternatives 

considered in the PEIS, primarily because of the 

programmatic nature of the proposed herbicide use, 

and because there is little difference in location or 

amount of total herbicide use among the alternatives. 

The BLM has found that none of the alternatives in the 

PEIS result in a finding of “may significantly restrict 

subsistence uses and needs.”

A subsistence evaluation and finding under ANILCA § 

810 must also include a cumulative impacts analysis.

The discussion below begins with evaluations and 

findings for each of the four alternatives discussed in 

the PEIS. Finally, the cumulative case, as discussed in 

Chapter 4 (Environmental Consequences) of the PEIS, 

is evaluated. This approach helps the reader to separate 

the subsistence restrictions that would potentially be 

caused by activities proposed under the alternatives 

from those that would potentially be caused by past, 

present, and future activities that could occur, or have 

already occurred, under the vegetation management 

program. 

ANILCA § 810(a) Evaluations and 

Findings for All Alternatives and the 

Cumulative Case

The following evaluations are based on information 

relating to the environmental and subsistence 

consequences of alternatives A through D and the 

cumulative impacts analysis as presented in Chapter 4 

(Environmental Consequences) of the PEIS. The 

evaluations and findings focus on potential impacts to 

subsistence resources themselves, as well as access to 

resources, and economic and cultural issues that relate 

to subsistence use. 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Three New Herbicides C-2 January 2016

Final Programmatic EIS
ANILCA § 810 ANALYSIS OF SUBSISTENCE IMPACTS

Evaluation and Findings for Alternative A -

Continue Present Herbicide Use (No Action 

Alternative)

Under this alternative, the BLM would continue 

current vegetation management activities in Alaska 

with the 18 herbicides approved for use in the Record 

of Decision (ROD) for the 2007 PEIS (currently 

approved herbicides). This alternative represents the 

Preferred Alternative of the 2007 PEIS. 

Approximately 932,000 acres would be treated with 

herbicides annually across 17 western states. It is 

estimated that no more than 1,000 acres of public lands 

in Alaska would be treated with herbicides in any year. 

Since the release of the 2007 PEIS, 0 acres in Alaska 

have been treated using herbicides, although some 

herbicide use has been proposed in association with 

future projects to limit the spread of invasive species 

from disturbed sites into more pristine areas. 

Only herbicides that are registered for use in Alaska 

would be applied in the state. At present, 15 of the 18 

currently approved herbicide active ingredients are 

registered for use in Alaska, although the list includes 

only certain formulations of the registered active 

ingredients. This list is available from the Alaska 

Department of Environmental Quality. 

All herbicide treatments would be guided by standard 

operating procedures (SOPs) that serve to protect 

habitat and resources from potential impacts. The SOPs 

that pertain to herbicide application are found in 

Chapter 2 of the 2007 PEIS (USDOI BLM 

2007a:Table 2-8). Additional mitigation measures that 

were developed to protect various resources can be 

found in the ROD for the 2007 PEIS (USDOI BLM 

2007b:Table 2). There is concern in Alaska about the 

use of herbicides in sensitive environments, including 

tundra and boreal forests, but herbicide use may be 

appropriate where impacts to soil and other resources 

are negligible, and where other treatment methods do 

not provide adequate vegetation control (Hebert 2001).

Evaluation of the Effect of Use, Occupancy, or 

Disposition on Subsistence Uses and Needs

In Alaska, use of herbicides would have both beneficial 

and adverse effects. Herbicides would be used to

eliminate or reduce the extent of infestations of 

invasive vegetation, which could help restore 

ecosystem function to the benefit of subsistence 

resources. The Dalton Management Area Integrated 

Invasive Plant Strategic Plan Environmental 

Assessment (USDOI BLM 2013), which incorporates a 

draft of the strategic plan (USDOI BLM 2009), 

proposes use of herbicides to control invasive plants 

along the Dalton Highway and adjacent BLMadministered lands along trails and spur roads, and at 

other heavy use areas (e.g., gravel pits, rest stops, mine 

sites, and airstrips). The intent of the herbicide 

treatments is to stop the spread of invasive plants from 

disturbed sites into the more pristine areas. Prevention 

of weed spread into these areas would be expected to 

help protect subsistence resources from the ecological 

changes caused by invasive plant species. For example 

nitrogen fixing weeds (white sweetclover, alfalfa,

birdsfoot trefoil and bird vetch) have the risk of 

altering ecosystem processes and wildlife habitat by 

introducing nitrogen into naturally nitrogen-poor areas. 

The first herbicide treatments under this plan are 

scheduled to occur in Fiscal Year 2016.

Herbicide treatments are expected to have short-term 

adverse and long-term beneficial effects. Undesirable 

impacts from herbicide use could include: 1) overspray 

onto non-target species that would result in injury or 

death of plants; 2) accidental spills that could kill nontarget plants and run into wetlands or streams; 3) 

herbicide drift from the application site that could 

damage plants; and 4) toxicity to organisms, including 

people, from excessive contact or ingestion. The BLM 

has developed SOPs to minimize the adverse effects of 

herbicide treatments. Part of the NEPA process for 

vegetation treatments is consultation with Native 

groups and the public to determine the location of 

important subsistence resources that might be affected 

by herbicide treatments, in order to minimize or 

eliminate the undesirable impacts of the treatments. 

The BLM would work closely with subsistence users to 

minimize impacts to subsistence resources in 

particular, and would follow guidance under Human 

Health and Safety in Chapter 4 of the 2007 PEIS in 

areas that may be visited by people after treatments.

If necessary for the protection of subsistence plants and 

wildlife forage, the BLM would: 1) use drift reduction 

agents with herbicides, as appropriate, to reduce the 

drift hazard to non-target species; 2) refer to the 

herbicide label when planning revegetation to ensure 

that desirable vegetation would not subsequently be 

injured by the herbicide; and 3) consider site 

characteristics, environmental conditions, and 

application equipment in order to minimize damage to 

non-target vegetation. To protect fish and wildlife, the 

BLM would: 1) use buffer zones based on label and 

risk assessment guidance; 2) minimize treatments near 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Three New Herbicides C-3 January 2016

Final Programmatic EIS
ANILCA § 810 ANALYSIS OF SUBSISTENCE IMPACTS

fish-bearing water bodies during periods when fish are 

in life stages most sensitive to the herbicide(s) used; 3) 

use appropriate application equipment/methods near 

water bodies if the potential for off-site drift exists; 4) 

use herbicides that are the least toxic to fish; 5) treat 

only the portion of the aquatic system necessary to 

achieve acceptable vegetation management; 6) select 

the appropriate application method(s) to minimize the 

potential for injury to desirable vegetation and aquatic 

organisms; 7) follow water use restrictions presented 

on the herbicide label; 8) minimize treatments during 

nesting and other critical periods for birds and other 

wildlife; and 9) use herbicides of low toxicity to 

wildlife.

To protect water resources, the BLM would: 1) 

consider climate, soil type, slope, and vegetation type 

when determining contamination risk; 2) conduct 

mixing and loading operations in an area where an 

accidental spill would not contaminate an aquatic 

body; 3) refrain from rinsing spray tanks in or near 

water bodies; 4) refrain from broadcasting pellets 

where there is danger of contaminating water supplies; 

5) minimize treating areas with high risk for 

groundwater contamination; 6) maintain herbicide-free 

buffers between treatment areas and water bodies; and 

7) use the appropriate herbicide-free buffer zone for 

herbicides not labeled for aquatic use based on risk 

assessment guidance, with minimum widths of 100 feet 

for aerial, 25 feet for vehicle, and 10 feet for hand 

spray applications.

Evaluation of the Availability of Other Lands 

for the Purpose Sought to be Achieved

The purpose sought to be achieved under the No 

Action Alternative is to continue to manage public 

lands to prevent the spread and establishment of 

invasive non-native plants and to reduce hazards 

caused by excessive fuel loads. The lands that would 

be selected for weed control or fuels reduction 

treatments include areas on public lands in Alaska 

where invasive plants occur and areas with an 

abundance of fire fuels that increase the likelihood of 

catastrophic fire. The objective of treatments is to 

restore land health. In the future, areas of proposed 

treatment would be prioritized and analyzed under an 

appropriate NEPA document. Given that the BLM 

would propose future treatments on public lands only, 

other lands would not be available for the purpose. 

Lands administered by other federal agencies in Alaska 

are directed by their own planning documents. Stateand Native Corporation-administered lands cannot be 

considered in a BLM plan, and under BLM policy 

other public lands outside of Alaska are not considered 

under ANILCA.

Evaluation of Other Alternatives that Would 

Reduce or Eliminate the Use, Occupancy, or 

Disposition of Public Lands Needed for 

Subsistence Purposes

Other alternatives pertaining to use of herbicides on 

public lands needed for subsistence include the action 

alternatives, which are presented and analyzed in 

Chapters 2 and 4 of the main body of the PEIS. These 

alternatives were developed based on the alternatives 

in the 2007 PEIS, and address many of the concerns 

raised during scoping for the 2007 PEIS and for this 

PEIS, including risks associated with aerial spraying 

and use of acetolactate synthase (ALS) inhibiting 

active ingredients. These alternatives represent a range 

of options for feasibly attaining or approximating the 

BLM’s objectives for herbicide use, as expressed in its 

programs, policies, and land use plans.

Findings

The No Action Alternative would not significantly 

restrict subsistence use in Alaska. Although no 

herbicide treatments under the vegetation management 

program have occurred in Alaska to date, some 

herbicide use is proposed for the future. For all future 

projects, individual, site-specific NEPA analysis is 

required prior to implementing the project. In this way, 

the BLM would be able to define with local input what 

SOPs and mitigation measures would be required to 

prevent damage to subsistence plants and animals. 

When projects are proposed, local communities would 

be given the opportunity to participate in the planning 

process and assist with the design of proposed 

treatments. The No Action Alternative also includes all 

of the SOPs and mitigation measures from the 2007

PEIS that have been developed to minimize impacts to 

resources and human health. Over the long term, 

actions to reduce the spread of invasive plants and 

reduce wildfire risk would likely benefit subsistence 

resources.

BLM Vegetation Treatments Three New Herbicides C-4 January 2016

Final Programmatic EIS
ANILCA § 810 ANALYSIS OF SUBSISTENCE IMPACTS

Evaluation and Finding for Alternative B - Allow 

for Use of Three New Herbicides in 17 Western 

States (Preferred Alternative)

Alternative B, the Preferred Alternative, would allow 

the BLM to use aminopyralid, fluroxypyr, and 

rimsulfuron, in addition to the 18 currently approved 

active ingredients, in its herbicide treatment programs. 

Under this alternative, as under the other alternatives, 

the estimated maximum acreage of herbicide 

treatments on public lands in 17 western states is 

932,000 acres annually. Within Alaska, it is estimated 

that no more than 1,000 acres of public lands would be 

treated with herbicides in any given year. Only 

herbicides that are registered for use in Alaska would 

be applied in the state. Formulations of aminopyralid, 

fluroxypyr, and rimsulfuron are registered in Alaska, 

so all three could be used in the state.

All herbicide treatments would be guided by SOPs that 

serve to protect habitat and resources from potential 

impacts, as well as mitigation measures developed for 

the currently approved herbicides, which can be found 

in the 2007 PEIS and the associated ROD. 

Additionally, all of the mitigation developed for use of 

the three new herbicides would be followed, as 

applicable. This mitigation is presented in Table 2-5 of 

the PEIS.

Evaluation of the Effect of Use, Occupancy, or 

Disposition on Subsistence Uses and Needs

Potential effects to subsistence resources under the 

Preferred Alternative would be similar to those under 

the No Action Alternative. There would be no 

difference between the alternatives as far as the goals 

of herbicide treatments or the land areas affected, 

although the mix of herbicides used could be different. 

Use of herbicides would have both beneficial and 

adverse effects, with a potential long-term benefit of 

reducing or eliminating target infestations of invasive 

plant species.

Plants, fish, and wildlife used for subsistence could be 

adversely affected by herbicide treatments. It is 

assumed that non-target plants could be impacted by 

treatments utilizing any of the active ingredients, 

although the species impacted and level of effect would 

vary by active ingredient used. Herbicide treatments 

could temporarily displace wildlife, and could result in 

toxicological impacts to fish and wildlife. 

Toxicological risks would vary based on the active 

ingredients used. All three of the new active 

ingredients are of lower risk to fish and wildlife than 

nearly all of the other active ingredients currently 

approved for use. Additionally, use of the currently 

approved herbicides with the greatest risk to fish and 

wildlife would decrease under this alternative, relative

to the No Action Alternative. Therefore, toxicological 

risks to fish and wildlife could also be lower under this 

alternative, depending on which herbicides were 

selected for use in Alaska in the future.

Evaluation of the Availability of Other Lands 

for the Purpose Sought to be Achieved

Just like under the No Action Alternative, the lands 

that would be selected for weed control or fuels 

reduction treatments include areas on public lands in 

Alaska where invasive plants occur and areas with an 

abundance of fire fuels that increase the likelihood of 

catastrophic fire. Future treatments would occur on 

public lands only; other lands would not be available 

for this purpose and could not be considered by the 

BLM.

Evaluation of Other Alternatives that Would 

Reduce or Eliminate the Use, Occupancy, or 

Disposition of Public Lands Needed for 

Subsistence Purposes

Other alternatives that would define the types of 

vegetation management actions allowed on public 

lands needed for subsistence include the other action 

alternatives, and No Action Alternative, which are 

presented and analyzed in Chapters 2 and 4 of the main 

body of the PEIS. These alternatives represent a range 

of options for feasibly attaining or approximating the 

BLM’s objectives for herbicide use, as expressed in its 

programs, policies, and land use plans.

Findings

The Preferred Alternative would not significantly 

restrict subsistence use in Alaska. Although no 

herbicide treatments under the vegetation management 

program have occurred in Alaska to date, some 

herbicide use is proposed for the future. For all future 

projects, individual, site-specific NEPA analysis is 

required prior to implementing the project. In this way, 

the BLM would be able to define with local input what 

SOPs and mitigation measures would be required to 

prevent damage to subsistence plants and animals. 

When projects are proposed, local communities would 

be given the opportunity to participate in the planning 

process and assist with the design of proposed 

treatments. The Preferred Alternative includes all of

BLM Vegetation Treatments Three New Herbicides C-5 January 2016

Final Programmatic EIS
ANILCA § 810 ANALYSIS OF SUBSISTENCE IMPACTS

the SOPs and mitigation measures from the 2007 PEIS 

that have been developed to minimize impacts to 

resources and human health. It also includes additional 

mitigation measures for aminopyralid, fluroxypyr, and 

rimsulfuron from the current PEIS to minimize impacts 

to resources and human health associated with these 

active ingredients. Over the long term, actions to 

reduce the spread of invasive plants and reduce 

wildfire risk would likely benefit subsistence 

resources.

Evaluation and Findings for Alternative C – No 

Aerial Application of New Herbicides

Alternative C, the No Aerial Application of New 

Herbicides Alternative, would allow the BLM to use 

aminopyralid, fluroxypyr, and rimsulfuron, in addition 

to the 18 currently approved active ingredients, in its 

herbicide treatment programs. However, only ground 

applications of the new herbicides would be permitted; 

aerial applications of aminopyralid, fluroxypyr, and 

rimsulfuron would be prohibited. Under this 

alternative, as under the other alternatives, the total 

acreage of herbicide treatments on public lands in 17 

western states would not exceed 932,000 acres 

annually. Within Alaska, it is estimated that no more 

than 1,000 acres of public lands would be treated with 

herbicides in any given year.

Evaluation of the Effect of Use, Occupancy, or 

Disposition on Subsistence Uses and Needs

Potential effects to subsistence resources under 

Alternative C would be similar to those under the other 

alternatives. There would be no difference among the 

alternatives as far as the goals of herbicide treatments 

or the land areas affected, although the mix of 

herbicides used could be different. And while 

aminopyralid, fluroxypyr, and rimsulfuron would only 

be applied using ground methods, other active 

ingredients could be applied aerially. Use of herbicides 

would have both beneficial and adverse effects, with a 

potential long-term benefit of reducing or eliminating 

target infestations of invasive plant species.

Similar to the other alternatives, non-target plants, fish, 

and wildlife used for subsistence could be adversely 

affected by herbicide treatments. Wildlife could be 

temporarily displaced from treatments sites, and fish 

and wildlife could be subject to toxicological risks 

associated with exposure to herbicides. Impacts to fish

and wildlife would vary depending on the type of fish 

or wildlife exposed to the treatment, the type of 

exposure, and the active ingredient(s) used. 

Aminopyralid, fluroxypyr, and rimsulfuron have a 

lower toxicological risk to fish and wildlife than many 

of the currently approved herbicides, so this alternative 

would allow the BLM more opportunities than at 

present to select active ingredients that do not harm 

fish and wildlife, depending on the treatment needs. 

Evaluation of the Availability of Other Lands 

for the Purpose Sought to be Achieved

Just like under the other alternatives, the lands that 

would be selected for weed control or fuels reduction 

treatments include areas on public lands in Alaska 

where invasive plants occur and areas with an 

abundance of fire fuels that increase the likelihood of 

catastrophic fire. Future treatments would occur on 

public lands only; other lands would not be available 

for this purpose and could not be considered by the 

BLM.

Evaluation of Other Alternatives that Would 

Reduce or Eliminate the Use, Occupancy, or 

Disposition of Public Lands Needed for 

Subsistence Purposes

Other alternatives that would define the types of 

vegetation management actions allowed on public 

lands needed for subsistence include the other action 

alternatives and the No Action Alternative, which are 

presented and analyzed in Chapters 2 and 4 of the main 

body of the PEIS. These alternatives represent a range 

of options for feasibly attaining or approximating the 

BLM’s objectives for herbicide use, as expressed in its 

programs, policies, and land use plans.

Findings

Alternative C would not significantly restrict 

subsistence use in Alaska. Although no herbicide 

treatments under the vegetation management program 

have occurred in Alaska to date, some herbicide use is 

proposed for the future. For all future projects, 

individual, site-specific NEPA analysis is required 

prior to implementing the project. In this way, the 

BLM would be able to define with local input what 

SOPs and mitigation measures would be required to 

prevent damage to subsistence plants and animals. 

When projects are proposed, local communities would 

be given the opportunity to participate in the planning 

process and assist with the design of proposed 

treatments. Alternative C includes all of the SOPs and 

mitigation measures from the 2007 PEIS that have 

been developed to minimize impacts to resources and 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Three New Herbicides C-6 January 2016

Final Programmatic EIS
ANILCA § 810 ANALYSIS OF SUBSISTENCE IMPACTS

human health. It also includes additional mitigation 

measures for aminopyralid, fluroxypyr, and 

rimsulfuron from the current PEIS (Table 2-5) to 

minimize impacts to resources and human health 

associated with these active ingredients. Over the long 

term, actions to reduce the spread of invasive species 

and reduce wildfire risk would likely benefit 

subsistence resources.

Evaluation and Findings for Alternative D – No Use 

of NewAcetolactate Synthase-inhibiting Active 

Ingredients (No Rimsulfuron)

Alternative D, the No Use of New Acetolactate 

Synthase-inhibiting Herbicides alternative, would 

allow the BLM to use aminopyralid and fluroxypyr, in 

addition to the 18 currently approved active 

ingredients, in its herbicide treatment programs. 

Rimsulfuron, however, would not be added to the list 

of approved active ingredients. Under this alternative, 

as under the other alternatives, the total acreage of 

herbicide treatments on public lands in 17 western 

states would not exceed 932,000 acres annually. 

Within Alaska, it is estimated that no more than 1,000 

acres of public lands would be treated with herbicides 

in any given year.

Evaluation of the Effect of Use, Occupancy, or 

Disposition on Subsistence Uses and Needs

Under Alternative D, potential effects to subsistence 

resources would be similar to those under the other 

alternatives. There would be no difference among the 

alternatives as far as the goals of herbicide treatments 

or the land areas affected, although the mix of 

herbicides used could be different. Use of herbicides 

would have both beneficial and adverse effects, with a 

potential long-term benefit of reducing or eliminating 

target infestations of invasive plant species.

Similar to the other alternatives, non-target plants, fish,

and wildlife used for subsistence could be adversely 

affected by herbicide treatments. Wildlife could be 

temporarily displaced from treatment sites, and fish 

and wildlife could be subject to toxicological risks 

associated with exposure to herbicides. Impacts to fish 

and wildlife would vary depending on the type of fish 

or wildlife exposed to the treatment, the type of 

exposure, and the active ingredient(s) used. 

Aminopyralid and fluroxypyr have a lower 

toxicological risk to fish and wildlife than many of the 

currently approved herbicides, so this alternative would 

allow the BLM more opportunities than at present to 

select active ingredients that do not harm fish and 

wildlife, depending on the treatment needs. However, 

the number of new lower risk herbicides available 

would be less than under the other action alternatives. 

Evaluation of the Availability of Other Lands 

for the Purpose Sought to be Achieved

Just like under the other alternatives, the lands that 

would be selected for weed control or fuels reduction 

treatments include areas on public lands in Alaska 

where invasive non-native plants occur and areas with 

an abundance of fire fuels that increase the likelihood 

of catastrophic fire. Future treatments would occur on 

public lands only; other lands would not be available 

for this purpose and could not be considered by the 

BLM.

Evaluation of Other Alternatives that Would 

Reduce or Eliminate the Use, Occupancy, or 

Disposition of Public Lands Needed for 

Subsistence Purposes

Other alternatives that would define the types of 

vegetation management actions allowed on public 

lands needed for subsistence include the other action 

alternatives and the No Action Alternative, which are 

presented and analyzed in Chapters 2 and 4 of the main 

body of this PEIS. These alternatives represent a range 

of options for feasibly attaining or approximating the 

BLM’s objectives for herbicide use, as expressed in its 

programs, policies, and land use plans.

Findings

Alternative D would not significantly restrict 

subsistence use in Alaska. Although no herbicide 

treatments under the vegetation management program 

have occurred in Alaska to date, some herbicide use is 

proposed for the future. For all future projects, 

individual, site-specific NEPA analyses is required 

prior to implementing the project. In this way, the 

BLM would be able to define, with local input, what 

SOPs and mitigation measures would be required to 

prevent damage to subsistence plants and animals. 

When projects are proposed, local communities would 

be given the opportunity to participate in the planning 

process and assist with the design of proposed 

treatments. Alternative D includes all of the SOPs and 

mitigation measures from the 2007 PEIS that have 

been developed to minimize impacts to resources and 

human health. It also includes additional mitigation 

measures for aminopyralid and fluroxypyr from the 

current PEIS (Table 2-5) to minimize impacts to 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Three New Herbicides C-7 January 2016

Final Programmatic EIS
ANILCA § 810 ANALYSIS OF SUBSISTENCE IMPACTS

resources and human health associated with these 

active ingredients. Over the long term, actions to 

reduce the spread of invasive plant species and reduce 

wildfire risk would likely benefit subsistence 

resources.

Evaluation and Findings for the Cumulative Case

The Cumulative Case, as presented within the 

Cumulative Effects Analysis in Chapter 4 of the PEIS, 

is a discussion of impacts that could affect the 

management decisions contained within Alternatives A 

through D. The cumulative effects analysis in the PEIS 

is based on the analysis in the 2007 PEIS, which was 

completed for the BLM’s vegetation management

program, and which includes herbicide treatments as 

well as other treatment methods. Since the three new 

herbicides would be added to an existing program, with 

no change in program goals or in acres or areas treated, 

much of the 2007 analysis is inclusive of their use. 

The analysis of cumulative impacts is a four-step 

process that follows guidance provided in Considering 

Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental 

Policy Act (Council on Environmental Quality [CEQ] 

1997): 

• Specify the class of actions of which effects 

are to be analyzed.

The PEIS cumulative effects analysis considers large, 

regional scale trends and issues that require integrated 

management across broad landscapes, and regionalscale trends and changes in the social and economic 

needs of people.

Potential cumulative effects include those assessed for 

all land ownerships, including lands administered by 

other federal agencies and non-federal lands, 

particularly effects on air quality and terrestrial and 

aquatic species. The analysis and disclosure of 

cumulative effects alerts decision-makers and the 

public to the context within which effects are 

occurring, and to the environmental implications of the 

interactions of known and likely management 

activities. During subsequent analyses for site-specific 

activities, local cumulative effects should be important 

considerations in the design of site-specific alternatives 

and mitigation measures.

• Designate the appropriate time and space 

domain in which the relevant actions occur.

The analysis period covered by the cumulative effects 

analysis primarily begins in the 1930s with the passage

of the Taylor Grazing Act, and continues through 2057. 

For purposes of this analysis, the spatial domain for 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities is 

primarily the 17 western states evaluated in the PEIS.

• Determine the magnitude of effects on the 

receptors and whether those effects are 

accumulating.

The set of receptors assessed in the cumulative effects 

analysis are the physical, biological, and human 

systems discussed in Chapter 3 (Affected 

Environment). 

The potential extent of the total cumulative effects 

(e.g., number of animals and habitat affected), and how 

long the effects might last (e.g., population recovery 

time), are estimated to determine the magnitude of 

effects that could accumulate for each resource. Where 

possible, the assessment of effects on a resource is 

based on quantitative analysis (e.g., level of risk to 

humans from use of an herbicide). However, many 

effects are difficult to quantify (e.g., animal behaviors; 

human perceptions) and a qualitative assessment of 

effects is made.

The purpose of the analysis of cumulative effects in the 

PEIS is to determine whether the effects are additive or 

synergistic or have some other relationship. Additive 

(or combined) effects on specific resources often are 

difficult to detect and do not necessarily add up in the 

strict sense of one plus one equals two. It is much more 

likely that an additive or combined effect would be 

greater than one but less than two. A synergistic effect, 

in theory, is a total effect that is greater than the sum of 

the additive effects on a resource. To arrive at a 

synergistic effect in this example (continuing with the 

numeric analogy), the total cumulative effect would 

need to end up greater than two. In the highly variable 

western U.S. environment, where natural variations in 

population levels can exceed the impacts of human 

activity, such an effect would need to be much greater 

than the hypothetical two to be either measurable or 

noteworthy. A countervailing effect occurs when an 

impact has both adverse and beneficial effects. For 

example, herbicide treatments would harm or destroy 

vegetation used by some species of wildlife (adverse

effect), but would improve overall ecosystem health 

that would lead to improved watershed conditions and 

habitat for other wildlife (beneficial effect).

BLM Vegetation Treatments Three New Herbicides C-8 January 2016

Final Programmatic EIS
ANILCA § 810 ANALYSIS OF SUBSISTENCE IMPACTS

Resource analysts have tried to keep the cumulative 

analysis useful, manageable, and concentrated on 

meaningful potential effects. The cumulative analysis 

considers in greatest detail activities that are more 

certain to happen and that are geographically in or near 

public lands, and activities identified during scoping as 

being of greatest concern. The guiding principles from 

existing standards, criteria, and policies that control 

management of the natural resources of concern have 

been used to help focus the analysis. For areas where 

existing standards, criteria, and policies are not 

available, the resource experts used their best judgment 

to focus the analysis.

Evaluation of the Effect of Such Use, 

Occupancy, or Disposition on Subsistence Uses 

and Needs

The PEIS Cumulative Effects Analysis in Chapter 4 

does not include a specific section on subsistence. The 

following information is from the wildlife, fish, and 

vegetation sections, since subsistence resources fall 

into these categories. 

Since a similar number of acres would be treated with 

herbicides under all of the alternatives considered in 

the PEIS, there would be similar effects to subsistence 

resources under all of the alternatives. Differences 

would be limited to the relative amount of use of 

various herbicides. Therefore, cumulative effects 

would be similar under all the alternatives (including 

the No Action Alternative), although the Preferred 

Alternative and the other action alternatives could 

result in an increase in the number of active ingredients 

being released on public lands. 

There would be short-term adverse impacts but longterm benefits to vegetation, fish, and wildlife, including 

resources used for subsistence purposes. Potential 

exposures to herbicides used by the BLM would be 

cumulative to exposures to other pesticides, as well as 

other chemicals that are released to the environment as 

a result of human activities. Mitigation measures and 

SOPs would help minimize impacts to fish, wildlife, 

and native plants. A countervailing effect of long-term 

improvement in ecosystem health as a result of 

successful herbicide treatments would offset short-term 

losses. 

Although aminopyralid, fluroxypyr, and rimsulfuron 

are of low toxicity to fish and wildlife, some of the 

currently approved herbicides may harm these 

resources through certain exposure scenarios. 

Treatments would also alter wildlife habitat and 

behavior. The extent of these disturbances would vary 

by individual treatments. In general, large, aerial 

applications of herbicides would be most likely to 

result in exposures to wildlife in the area. 

Subsistence users would be warned of planned 

sprayings ahead of time, and may need to avoid certain 

areas during and after vegetation treatments. There 

may also be a perception by subsistence users that 

subsistence resources are being tainted by exposure to 

herbicides and other chemicals, particularly in more 

pristine areas. 

Treatments that improve habitat would provide longterm benefits to fish and wildlife. Treatments that 

remove hazardous fuels from public lands and reduce 

the risk of large, intense wildfire would reduce future 

death and injury of wildlife and lead to improved 

habitat. Treatments that control populations of nonnative species on public lands would be expected to 

benefit most fish and wildlife over the long term by 

aiding in the re-establishment of native vegetation and 

restoring habitats to near historical conditions.

Regardless of the alternative chosen, there would be a 

cumulative loss of native vegetation and healthy 

ecosystem function. Over the long term, treatments 

should slow this loss and help to restore native 

vegetation and natural fire regimes and benefit 

ecosystem health, wildlife, and wildlife habitat.

In addition to the programmatic-level analysis provided 

in the PEIS, site-specific analysis would be conducted 

on proposed projects, to include an analysis of 

potential effects on subsistence resources, if applicable. 

Evaluation of the Availability of Other Lands 

for the Purpose Sought to be Achieved

The purpose sought to be achieved under the PEIS is to 

use aminopyralid, fluroxypyr, and rimsulfuron in the 

BLM’s herbicide treatment programs, to increase the 

options available for preventing the spread and 

establishment of invasive plants and reducing hazards 

caused by excessive fuel loads. The lands that would 

be selected for weed control or fuels reduction 

treatments include areas on public lands where 

invasive plants occur and areas with an abundance of 

fire fuels that increase the likelihood of catastrophic 

fire. The objectives of treatments are to restore land 

health. In the future, proposed treatment areas would 

be prioritized and analyzed under an appropriate NEPA 

document. Given that future treatments would occur on 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Three New Herbicides C-9 January 2016

Final Programmatic EIS
ANILCA § 810 ANALYSIS OF SUBSISTENCE IMPACTS

public lands only, other lands would not be available 

for this purpose. Lands administered by other federal 

agencies in Alaska are directed by their own planning 

documents. State- and Native Corporationadministered lands cannot be considered in a BLM 

plan, and under BLM policy other public lands outside 

of Alaska are not considered under ANILCA.

Evaluation of Other Alternatives that Would 

Reduce or Eliminate the Use, Occupancy, or 

Disposition of Public Lands Needed for 

Subsistence Purposes

In addition to the Preferred Alternative to allow use of 

aminopyralid, fluroxypyr, and rimsulfuron in 

vegetation treatment programs, other alternatives 

would include the No Action Alternative to use only 

the currently approved herbicides, and the other action 

alternatives that are presented and analyzed in Chapters 

2 and 4, which place certain restriction on use of the 

new active ingredients. These alternatives were created 

to represent a range of options for feasibly attaining or 

approximating the BLM’s objectives for herbicide use 

on public lands, as expressed in its programs, policies, 

and land use plans. 

Findings

Actions described in the PEIS, when taken into 

consideration with the analysis presented as the 

cumulative case, would not significantly restrict 

subsistence use and needs in Alaska. While herbicide 

treatments are likely to occur in Alaska in the future, 

the estimated treatment area is 1,000 acres or less, 

statewide, per year. Additionally, the new herbicides 

being proposed for use are of lower toxicity to fish and 

wildlife that might be used for subsistence than many 

of the currently approved herbicides. When proposed, 

site-specific projects will continue to require additional 

NEPA analysis, which will include public input and 

consultation with local native communities and entities 

that could be affected. A subsequent ANILCA § 810 

Analysis of Subsistence Impacts will also be required 

for each proposed project. 

Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations, and an accompanying 

Presidential memorandum require each federal agency 

to make the consideration of environmental justice part 

of its mission. The existing demographics (race and 

income) and subsistence consumption of plants and 

animals, and mitigating measures and their effects are 

presented.

Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments

Executive Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, requires 

consultation with tribal governments on “actions that 

have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian 

tribes.” Representatives of the BLM have solicited 

input from local tribal governments and Alaska Native 

Corporations to discuss subsistence issues relating to 

use of aminopyralid, fluroxypyr, and rimsulfuron (see 

Chapter 5, Consultation and Coordination). The BLM 

has also met with local tribal governments to discuss 

use of herbicides in the larger vegetation treatment 

program, and has established a dialogue on 

environmental justice with these communities. 

Executive Order 12898 also calls for an analysis of the 

effects of federal actions on minority populations with 

regard to subsistence. Specifically, environmental 

justice is:

The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of 

all people regardless of race, color, national origin, 

or income with respect to the development, 

implementation, and enforcement of 

environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair 

treatment means that no group of people, including 

racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic group should bear 

a disproportionate share of the adverse

environmental consequences resulting from 

industrial, municipal, and commercial operations 

or the execution of federal, state, local, and tribal 

programs and policies.

Section 4-4 of Executive Order 12898, regarding the 

Subsistence Consumption of Fish and Wildlife, 

requires federal agencies to collect, maintain, and 

analyze information on the consumption patterns of 

populations that principally rely on fish and/or wildlife 

for subsistence, and to communicate to the public any 

risks associated with the consumption patterns. To this

end, the subsistence analyses of all alternatives, located 

in Chapter 4 (Environmental Consequences) of the 

PEIS, have been reviewed and found to comply with 

environmental justice requirements.

Further guidance is found in the CEQ document, 

Environmental Justice – Guidance under the National 

BLM Vegetation Treatments Three New Herbicides C-10 January 2016

Final Programmatic EIS
ANILCA § 810 ANALYSIS OF SUBSISTENCE IMPACTS

Environmental Policy Act, December 1997, and 

USEPA, Region 2, Interim Environmental Justice 

Policy December 2000. Additionally, the USDOI has 

an Environmental Justice Strategic Plan 2012 – 2017

(USDOI 2012).

Government-to-Government Consultation with 

Federally-Recognized Tribes

The BLM formally consults with federally recognized 

tribes before taking actions that will have a substantial, 

direct effect on federally recognized tribes or their 

assets, rights, services, or programs. The BLM initiated 

consultation with Alaska Native groups in the form of 

a letter sent on April 18, 2013, to 519 tribes and Alaska 

Native Corporations throughout the 17 states that could 

be directly affected by vegetation management

activities. The letter requested information on how the 

proposed activities could impact Native American and 

Alaska Native interests, including the use of vegetation 

and wildlife for subsistence, religious, and ceremonial 

purposes. The Alaska BLM District office in Fairbanks 

made the decision not to hold one or more public 

scoping meetings in Alaska based on low attendance at 

the meetings for the earlier PEIS, low past and 

projected future use of herbicides in Alaska, and the 

overlap of the public scoping period with that of an 

Environmental Assessment for a different project 

involving herbicide use (The Dalton Management Area 

Integrated Invasive Plant Strategic Plan). In lieu of a 

public scoping meeting, the BLM Fairbanks District

office offered to host a web-based meeting for anyone 

who wanted to learn more about the project and 

provide comments. As no members of the public 

responded to this offer, no web-based meeting for the 

project was held.

When future vegetation treatment projects are 

proposed, local BLM offices will initiate site-specific 

analysis and NEPA documentation. This process will 

include consultation with Alaska Native groups to 

determine if culturally important areas and plants could 

be impacted by proposed vegetation treatments. 

Proposed treatments of plants that are important for 

maintaining traditional lifeways may need to be 

modified or cancelled in certain areas. On the other 

hand, there may be long-term benefits, such as 

reducing or eliminating invasive plant competitors, 

which would allow proliferation of traditionally used 

plants.

References

Council on Environmental Quality. 1997. 

Considering Cumulative Effects Under the 

National Environmental Policy Act. 

Washington, D.C.

Hebert, M. 2001. Strategic Plan for Noxious and 

Invasive Plants Management in Alaska. 

University of Alaska. Fairbanks, Alaska.

U.S. Department of Interior (USDOI). 2012.

Environmental Justice Strategic Plan 2012 –

2017. Office of Environmental Quality and 

Compliance. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land 

Management (USDOI BLM). 2007a. Final 

Vegetation Treatments on Bureau of Land 

Management Lands in 17 Western States 

Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement. Washington, D.C. Available at: 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/veg_

eis.html.

________. 2007b. Record of Decision for Vegetation 

Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of 

Land Management Lands in 17 Western States 

Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement. Washington, D.C. Available at: 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/veg_

eis.html.

________. 2009. Draft Dalton Management Area 

Integrated Invasive Plant Strategic Plan. 

Central Yukon Field Office. Fairbanks, 

Alaska.

________. 2013. Dalton Management Area Integrated 

Invasive Plant Strategic Plan Environmental 

Assessment. Central Yukon Field Office. 

Fairbanks, Alaska.

BLM Vegetation Treatments Three New Herbicides C-11 January 2016

Final Programmatic EIS