• What is a programmatic NEPA document?

  • Before a federal agency implements policies, programs, plans, or projects, NEPA requires that they be documented and that their potential impacts be analyzed. While many NEPA documents focus on site-specific projects, federal agencies can also prepare programmatic NEPA documents to assess potential impacts from policies, programs, and plans. Such programmatic documents are inherently broader in scope, as they typically could affect a larger geographic area, compared with site-specific projects. In accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality guidelines, programmatic NEPA reviews should result in more transparent decision-making and should expedite decisions on the proposed action. An advantage of using programmatic NEPA reviews for repetitive agency activities is that they provide a broad view of environmental impacts. These can be used as a starting point for analyzing direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts. Subsequent NEPA compliance would be able to tier to this analysis and focus on narrower, site- or proposal-specific issues. This prevents repeating information that has already been considered at the programmatic level.

• Q: Why doesn’t the PEIS show exact treatment locations?

  • This PEIS is inherently broader in scope than a site-specific analysis. The analysis is based on the vegetation states described in Appendix F, which are representative of vegetation throughout the analysis area. Text will also be added to Appendix A describing that datasets presented in the PEIS may be incomplete and that actual treatment locations and methods would be based on verified site-specific conditions. Any adverse impacts will be addressed through project siting, design features, and project objectives.

• Q: Why does it seem like your maps are missing information?

  • The potential treatment areas and emphasis areas are used for analysis and comparison purposes only; actual treatment locations would be based on site-specific conditions.

• Q: Why does the BLM require the use of native plant material for seeding?

  • The FRRR Draft PEIS addressed the appropriate use of plant material in Section 2.2.7, Native Plant Material Policy. The policy in BLM Handbook H-1740-2, Integrated Vegetation Management Handbook, requires native plant material to be used except under limited circumstances. The determination of plant material use would occur at the site-specific level with this policy as guidance. Additionally, while each alternative is guided by the native plant material policy (Section 2.2.7 of the FRRR Draft PEIS), Alternatives B and C supplement this policy with specific requirements for native plant material use (Section 2.4 of the FRRR Draft PEIS). The effects of the policy and requirements for native plant material use are adequately analyzed in Section 4.2 of the FRRR Draft PEIS.

• Q: How were the Analysis Exclusion Areas chosen and why aren’t treatments allowed in these areas?

  • The FRRR Draft PEIS identified Analysis Exclusion Areas in Section 2.2.1; these were identified based on the greater potential for adverse effects in these areas. However, Section 2.2.1 of the FRRR Draft EIS does state that the analysis exclusion areas are not prohibited under the action alternatives and site-specific analysis would be required should Field Offices decide to implement treatments in these areas.

• Q: Will there be any changes to permitted grazing?

  • As stated in Section 2.2.4 of the FRRR Draft PEIS, any changes to permitted grazing would be in accordance with applicable laws. The BLM may work with permittees through voluntary agreements or coordination within the authorized permitted use to temporarily modify grazing to increase the success of vegetation restoration projects.

• Q: How can BLM ensure that projects will be successful?

  • Monitoring, maintenance, and adaptive management will be conducted at the local level as described in Section 2.2.8 of the FRRR Draft PEIS. That section describes the guidance documents and reference material for monitoring and maintenance of fuel breaks. Adaptive management would be applied to projects that are not meeting objectives.

• Q: How will the BLM fund these projects?

  • As a programmatic level NEPA effort, none of the alternatives authorize site-specific activities on public lands. The agency's selection of an alternative does not authorize funding to any specific project or activity nor does it directly tie into the agency's budgets as appropriated annually through the Federal budget process. Instead, funding needs and allocation for planning, implementation, monitoring, and maintenance will follow the budget process outlined in the annual budget requests. Funding mechanisms between cooperators will not be impacted by this PEIS.

    As a consequence, the BLM's costs and differences in program costs across alternatives have not been quantified. The methods that could be used are presented in Section 2.3 of the FRRR Draft PEIS and application of the methods will be determined at the site-specific level. Table 4-8 in Section 4.12.1 of the FRRR Draft PEIS presents the estimated costs for treatment activities in 2017 dollars.

• Q: How will the BLM prevent the spread of invasive and noxious weeds during restoration treatments?

  • The BLM would manage invasive annual plants and noxious weeds in accordance with local weed program monitoring protocol, along with any additional RMP guidance, through manual, mechanical, targeted grazing, prescribed fire, and chemical methods, where they are not excluded under a given alternative. This, along with implementation of required design features, would minimize the spread of invasive annual plants and noxious weeds in the treatment areas (see Section 2.2.8 of the FRRR Draft PEIS). Pages D-3 and D-4 Appendix D of the FRRR Draft EIS provide design features for managing invasive plants and noxious weeds, such as power washing all vehicles and equipment prior to entering project areas or when moving between sites with known populations of invasive and noxious weed species.

• Q: How will projects be implemented?

  • When the FRRR PEIS is complete and a ROD is signed, the selected alternative with the associated analysis will be available for individual offices to use in developing restoration or fuels reduction projects. An interdisciplinary team would review the selected alternative and, using local data, would develop a project that adheres to the guidance of the PEIS. Then the team would evaluate whether the impacts from the project fall within those analyzed in the FRRR Draft PEIS using a Determination of NEPA Adequacy (DNA) in accordance with BLM National Environmental Policy Handbook (H-1790-1). If the vegetative and habitat conditions and the impacts for their proposed project are in line with those analyzed in the FRRR PEIS then the office could sign a decision based on this PEIS and their DNA and implement the project. See ES.8 in the FRRR Draft PEIS for more information.

Still have questions?

BLM is interested in helping clarify your understanding of the proposed action. If you still have questions, please submit them to BLM_PEIS_Questions@blm.gov and BLM will work to provide responses in a timely manner. If you have a comment on the FRRR Draft PEIS, you should submit a comment here.

For more information on the FRRR Draft PEIS please contact Ammon Wilhelm, 208-373-4000.

If you have questions about the FRRR Draft PEIS or wish to be added or removed from the mailing list, please contact BLM at BLM_PEIS_Questions@blm.gov.