Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105

August 27, 1997

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the project entitled Rangeland Health Standards and Guidelines for California and Northwestern Nevada. Our review is pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Council on Environmental Quality (CEO) regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500 1508), and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act.

In 1993, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) initiated an effort, known as "Rangeland Reform 94," to better enhance the environmental health of public rangelands. As a result of the "Rangeland Reform 94," effort, the Secretary of the Interior issued a final rule for Grazing Administration, on February 22,1995, that became effective August 21,1995. Section 4180.2 of this rule requires the BLM State Directors to develop state or regional standards and guidelines (S&Gs) for grazing administration in consultation with BLM Resource Advisory Councils (RACs), other agencies, and the public. This EIS evaluates the S&Gs developed for grazing administration on public lands managed by the California State Office of BLM, exclusive of the California Desert District, and to incorporate these S&Gs into existing land use plans. The proposed standards and guidelines are designed to provide a framework in which BLM and its stakeholders can cooperate to achieve a balance of sustainable development and multiple use, and help progress toward maintaining or attaining healthy, properly functioning rangelands.

The EIS describes and evaluates four alternatives:

Alternative 1, Proposed Action - Standards and Guidelines proposed by the Bakersfield, Ukiah, and Susanville Resource Advisory Councils. Each RAC developed and recommended S&Gs for the specific BLM Resource Areas under their jurisdiction. Implementation would take place over 15 years.

Alternative 2 - State-Wide Consistency/Consolidated Standards and Guidelines. Standards to be applied state-wide are proposed for soils, riparian and wetland areas, species habitat, and water quality. The guidelines and preambles identified by each RAC under Alternative 1 remain the same with a few exceptions. Implementation would take place over 15 years.

Alternative 3 - No Action (Fall-back Standards and Guidelines from the Regulations published on February 22, 1995). After February 12,1997. the S&Gs identified in the regulations became effective until the State or regional S&Gs are developed and implemented. If there is no action, these S&Gs would remain in effect.

Alternative 4 - Rapid Improvement/Rapid Recovery Standards and Guidelines. This alternative would ensure that any identified problems are corrected as fast as possible rather than taking a gradual, incremental, approach. Implementation would be more aggressive with a goal of implementation within 5 years. The goal is to promote sharp improvement in trend toward rangeland health within one to three years in favorable sites. This alternative would require a significant increase in BLM staff and funds.

Alternative 1-3 were developed with the assumption that BLM resources would remain the same.

We applaud BLM's commitment and determination to move towards ecosystem management and the rapid implementation of S&Gs to maintain and achieve healthy. properly functioning rangelands. We are greatly encouraged by the increased attention on specific rangeland health criteria such as the degree of soil stability and watershed function; integrity of ecosystem processes, cycles and flows; water quality; and habitat. We note that more than 69% of stream habitat (wetland/ riparian/ aquatic) in the Eis area is in a functional-at-risk or nonfunctional condition due to degradation (Chapter 3, Pg. 52). It is obvious that declining riparian and rangeland conditions mandate tangible change. We strongly support the requirement for corrective action prior to the next grazing season (43 CFR 4180.2(c)). All areas identified to be severely degraded or nonfunctional should be addressed immediately. We also applaud the strong commitment to a collaborative, community-based management approach. We urge BLM to use every opportunity and tool; such as fee incentives, restricted use of sensitive sites, and use of ecosystem based approaches; to encourage sound environmental and ecosystem stewardship.

We note that the DEIS focuses on the approval and evaluation of the S&Gs with minimal description or evaluation of implementation or monitoring requirements and target time frames. Successful achievement of sustainable development, multiple use, and healthy, properly functioning rangelands; depends upon strong linkages between S&Gs, implementation, and monitoring and the simultaneous application of each. Adaptive management will also be a critical component of any successful rangeland management approach. given the absence of inventory data and the evolving science of ecosystem management. We strongly recommend the FEIS provide an expanded and more detailed description of implementation, monitoring. and adaptive management measures and tools. Proposed target time frames for these components of the program should be identified. Monitoring should include implementation, effectiveness. and trend monitoring.

EPA is also very concerned with the water quality implications of the proposed action (Alternative 1, RACs S&Gs) and other alternatives, and the lack of a cumulative impact analysis. Because of these and the above concerns, we have classified this DEIS as category EC-2, Environmental Concerns Insufficient Information (see attached "Summary of the EPA Rating System"). We believe changes to the proposed action or selection of an alternative which uniformly and more aggressively addresses all rangeland health criteria throughout the project area are necessary to adequately protect the environment. Our detailed comments are enclosed.

We understand that the DEIS is programmatic, addressing environmental consequences that are correspondingly broad in scope. It is therefore critical that subsequent actions be adequately addressed in tiered NEPA documents. We urge BLM to explicitly commit to tiered NEPA evaluations in their Record of Decision. Clear guidance on the level of NEPA analysis for specific types of tiered actions would be useful.

Given the geographical extent and significant implications of the proposed management framework, it is critical that Federal, State, and local agencies and the public be given ample opportunity to evaluate and discuss the final decision as stated in the Final EIS (FEIS). Therefore, we strongly recommend that the BLM issue the FEIS for a minimum of 30 days prior to issuing a signed Record of Decision (ROD).

We appreciate the opportunity to review the DEIS. Please send us two copies of the Final EIS at the same time it is officially filed with HQ EPA

Sincerely,

David Farrel, Chief
Federal Activities Office

Enclosure:
Detailed Comments
EPA Rating Summary
EO on Environmental Justice [Available for review at the California State Office, 2135 Butano Drive, Sacramento, CA 95825 - Attn: Jim Morrison]

Comments

Water Quality

EPA questions the ability of the proposed alternatives to ensure that water quality complies with State water quality standards as required by Section 4180.1 of the Grazing Administration Regulations. The DEIS clearly states that specific standards for water quality under Alternative 1 RAC's S&Gs are contrary to the State's requirements and therefore cannot be implemented by BLM. For instance, the Ukiah RAC standard for water quality provides for an exception to meeting state standards for off-stream artificial impoundments (Chapter 4, pg. 27). The Susanville RAC standard for water quality is also very general and does not specifically address water quality standards.

We are also extremely concerned that Alternative 2 State-Wide Consistency does not specifically address meeting State water quality standards (Chapter 4, pg. 27). Instead, this alternative relies upon working with the State of California and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards to revisit the Basin Plans and make new determinations of the beneficial uses and new water quality standards. As clearly described in the DEIS, there is a pressing need to address the high percentage of stream habitat in functional-at-risk and nonfunctional condition. Revisiting the Basin Plans and redetermining beneficial uses and water quality standards, may represent an unacceptable delay to critically needed remedies to water quality impaired habitats.

We strongly urge BLM to ensure that the selected alternative specifically addresses State water quality standards consistently throughout the region. One option is to adopt the water quality standard and guidelines proposed for Alternative 4. Further work with the State of California and Regional Water Quality Control Boards on their Basin Plans, beneficial uses, and water quality standards can take place simultaneously with immediate implementation of specific S&Gs and management actions to address critical water quality problems.

To minimize adverse impacts due to oversight and to capture all opportunities to improve water quality, both standards and guidelines should specifically provide for grazing management actions that enhance water quality. Specific examples of management practices should be listed. We recommend adoption and/or utilization of the National Resources and Conservation Services' Field Office Technical Guides and the California and Nevada Best Management Practices for water quality as outlined in Appendices 8 and 9.

Alternatives

Given the critical need for immediate action to improve rangeland health, EPA believes the selected alternative should ensure consistent and aggressive management actions throughout the project area. while we support an aggressive management approach to identified problems, we recognize the significant limitations and constraints regarding staffing and funding. Thus, we strongly recommend BLM consider an alternative which combines critical components of Alternative 1, 2, and 4. For example, the selected alternative should provide state-wide consistency, integrate the commendable work and recommendations of the RACs (e.g. preambles and selected S&Gs such as utilization guidelines), and incorporate some of the more specific and aggressive S&Gs of Alternative 4; especially for water quality, riparian, and wetland habitats.

Monitoring

Monitoring and evaluation of habitat trends is a critical component of a successful rangeland management system. To ensure consistent and clear direction for on-the-ground implementation and monitoring. EPA strongly recommends guidance be provided to the field on how to adequately integrate and link the historical Allotment Priority Categorization system (I,M,C,U designations), the new S&Gs, and the rangeland health requirements.

Cumulative Impacts

The National Environmental Policy Act specifically states that the EIS should include discussions of the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects which are caused by the action [40 CFR Section 1502.16]. Cumulative impact is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present. and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions [40 CFR Section 1508.7]. We note that the DEIS has failed to fully evaluate cumulative impacts. It is our understanding that BLM is aware of this oversight and will include such an evaluation in the FEIS. To ensure an adequate cumulative impact evaluation, we recommend BLM take a big picture, regional, and landscape approach which considers probable cumulative impacts and ecosystem trends of public (e.g., US Forest Service) and private rangeland management systems, recreation, mining. and other land management activities (e.g., residential development, fish and wildlife restoration efforts, Comprehensive Resource Management Plans, Biodiversity Council actions, PACFISH, NW Forest Plan). It is understood that such an approach is necessarily broad and will not be able to provide a specific quantitative cumulative impact analysis.

Environmental Justice

In keeping with Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (EO 12898), the FEIS should describe the measures taken by BLM to: 1) fully analyze the environmental effects of the proposed Federal action on minority communities, e.g. Indian Tribes, and low-income populations, and 2) present opportunities for affected communities to provide input into the NEPA process. The intent and requirements of EO 12898 are clearly illustrated in the President's February 11, 1994 Memorandum for the Heads of all Departments and Agencies, attached.

General

1. The Table of Contents identifies Alternative 2 as the No Action alternative and Alternative 3 as the State-Wide Consistency alternative. Chapter 2 which describes the alternatives in detail, describes Alternative 2 as the State-Wide Consistency alternative and Alternative 3 as No Action. The FEIS should correct this inconsistency.

2. We recommend a glossary of acronyms be added to the FEIS.

Summary of Ratings Definitions and Follow-up Action

Environmental Impact of Action

LO-Lack of Objection

The EPA review has not identified any potential environmental impacts requiring substantive changes to the proposal. The review may have disclosed opportunities for application of mitigation measures that could be accomplished with no more than minor changes to the proposal.

EC-Environmental Concerns

The EPA review has identified environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to fully protect the environment. Corrective measures may require changes to the preferred alternative or application of mitigation measures that can reduce the environmental impact. EPA would like to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts.

EO-Environmental Objections

The EPA review has identified significant environmental impacts that must be avoided in order to provide adequate protection for the environment. Corrective measures may require substantial changes to the preferred alternative or consideration of some other project alternative (including the no action alternative or a new alternative). EPA intends to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts.

EU-Environmentally Unsatisfactory

The EPA review has identified adverse environmental impacts that are of sufficient magnitude that they are unsatisfactory from the standpoint of environmental quality, public health or welfare. EPA intends to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts. If the potential unsatisfactory impacts are not corrected at the final EIS stage, this proposal will be recommend for referral to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).

Adequacy of the Impact Statement

Category 1-Adequate

EPA believes the draft EIS adequately sets forth the environmental impact(s) of the preferred alternative and those of the alternatives reasonably available to the project or action. No further analysis or data collection is necessary, but the reviewer may suggest the addition of clarifying language or information.

Category 2-Insufficient Information

The draft EIS does not contain sufficient information for EPA to fully assess environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to fully protect the environment or the EPA reviewer has identified new reasonably available alternatives that are within the spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, which could reduce the environmental impacts of the action. The identified additional information, data, analyses, or discussion should be included in the final EIS.

Category 3-Inadequate

EPA does not believe that the draft EIS adequately assesses potentially significant environmental impacts of the action, or the EPA reviewer has identified new, reasonably available alternatives that are outside of the spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, which should be analyzed in order to reduce the potentially significant environmental impacts. EPA believes that the identified additional information, data, analyses, or discussions are of such a magnitude that they should have full public review at a draft stage. EPA does not believe that the draft EIS is adequate for the purposes of the NEPA and/or Section 309 review, and thus should be formally revised and made available for public comment in a supplemental or revised draft EIS. On the basis of the potential significant impacts involved, this proposal could be a candidate for referral to the CEQ.

*From: EPA Manual 1640. "Policy and Procedures for the Review of Federal Actions Impacting the Environment."

[Home][News][Information][Recreation][What We Do][BLM Facts][Directory]