CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

5.1 CONSULTATION

During preparation of the draft EIS, BLM consulted informally with several federal and state agencies (Forest Service, California Dept. Water Resources, etc.).

There was no formal consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service or Marine Fisheries Service as required by Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, as the direction to establish standards and guidelines was previously analyzed in the Range Reform '94 EIS. Implementation actions would be evaluated to determine if they may affect federally listed threatened or endangered (T&E) species, species proposed for listing, or designated or proposed T&E critical habitats. Before implementing actions that may affect listed or proposed species, the BLM will consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service or the national Marine Fisheries Service as required by Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.

There has also been no formal consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game or the Nevada Division of Wildlife about state listed plant or animal species. Implementation actions would be evaluated to determine if they may affect state listed threatened or endangered (T&E) species, species proposed for listing, or designated or proposed T&E critical habitats. Before implementing actions that may affect listed or proposed species, the BLM will consult with the States.

Before authorizing surface disturbance undertakings at the local level, BLM will identify cultural properties eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and consider the effects of the proposed undertakings through the consultation process in Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.


5.2 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

The EIS public participation process consists of several phases. We worked with the Resource Advisory Councils (RACs), and we had public scoping to help identify issues and gather information. The draft EIS is subject to further public review and comment during the public comment period. Following the public comment period, a final EIS will be developed. This final EIS will consider any additional comments received during the review period.

Including public involvement throughout the process ensures that the process is open and considers information from all interested parties, including other federal agencies, state and local government, the scientific community, professional organizations, a variety of public land users, conservation organizations, and citizens at large.

5.2.1 Resource Advisory Councils

As BLM was directed to develop the standards and guidelines in consultation with the Resource Advisory Councils (RACs), we first worked to establish the RACs from members of the public as directed in the regulations in 43 CFR 1784. See Map 2 for the area covered by each RAC. Following development of the RACs, BLM resource specialists provided training on basic ecological processes. The RACs then worked with their constituents and with BLM staff to develop standards and guidelines for the areas they represent. Following public scoping, the RACs incorporated some of that public comment into revisions. These standards and guidelines are alternative 1 in this draft EIS.

Some RAC members also worked with BLM staff to prepare the state-wide standards in alternative 2.


5.2.2 Scoping

A Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register on March 25, 1996, announcing the intent to prepare an environmental impact statement for the development of rangeland standards and guidelines in California and northwestern Nevada. This notice also asked for comments concerning the scope of the EIS and Plan Amendments. We received only 2 letters, one merely requesting that they be placed on the mailing list.

BLM held three open workshops. Members of the public, members of the RACs, and some personnel from other agencies attended. Following the meeting on June 25, 1996, BLM sent out a state-wide news release and mailed over 1000 letters to potentially interested parties informing them of the EIS process and stating that we would accept public comments at any time. We then received 4 letters requesting that we open another public scoping period.

Due to this newly expressed interest, we opened a second formal scoping period for 30 days during August (although we continued to accept letters well into September). We again sent out a state-wide news release, and mailed out new letters to the previous recipients. From this we received approximately 2 dozen comment letters. These letters are on file in the California BLM State Office.

Based upon scoping comments that we needed to have an alternative that addressed a rapid recovery or rapid improvement concept, we approached three groups (California Native Plant Society, Natural Resources Defence Council, and Range Watch) for their input. The Native Plant Society (CNPS) provided us with a complete alternative. We have used some of their concepts and information to prepare the rapid improvement alternative (Alternative 4) in this draft.

5.2.3 Distribution of the Draft EIS

The impacts of the alternatives are analyzed in the draft EIS, which has been released for public review and comment during a 90-day comment period. Copies of the draft EIS have been sent to federal agencies, state and local governments, livestock operators and companies, environmental organizations, and many people concerned about the development of standards and guidelines for rangeland health. A copy of the draft EIS has been sent to each person who has requested it.

BLM will also be meeting with interest groups, county supervisors, permittees and others as needed to answer questions.




5.2.4 Additional Actions

The final EIS will incorporate comments and changes resulting from the public comment period. No sooner than 30 days after publication of the final EIS, the California State Director for BLM will issue a record of decision selecting standards and guidelines for California and northwestern Nevada. These standards and guidelines will then be sent to the Secretary of the Interior for final approval.


5.3 LIST OF PREPARERS

The following people, agencies and organizations participated with, and/or provided input to, BLM in developing the standards and guidelines in the various alternatives.

5.3.1 Bakersfield RAC

Tobin, Ed Off-road vehicle use
Center, Bill Commercial recreation
Arita, Steven Energy / minerals
Twisselman, Carl Federal grazing

Anderson, Linda Historical / archeological
Timmer, Kerri Resource conservation
Scott Hennessy National / regional environmental
Cypher, Ellen National / regional environmental

Maze, Bill Elected officials
Saulque, Joseph Native American interests
Alpers, Tim Public at large
Pachucki, Walt Public at large

5.3.2 Ukiah RAC

Cooksley, James Energy / minerals
Furman, Duane Federal grazing
Lassiter, Patric Off-road vehicle use
Engstrom, Thomas Commercial timber

Evans, Steve National / regional environmental
Henson, Ryan National / regional environmental
Katelman, Tracy National / regional environmental
Reginato, John Dispersed recreation

Bundy, Burton Public at large
Bungarz, Denton Elected officials
Sargent, Richard Native American interests
Weaver, Dan Public at large


5.3.3 Susanville RAC

Hansen, Jack Federal grazing
McGarva, Ken Federal grazing
Coops, Don Federal grazing
Kerns, Steven Federal grazing
Parshley, Jeff Mining interests

Beaman, Kay Historical interests
Berrier, George Wild Horse and Burro interests
Garrod, Tim National / regional environmental
Heniz, Dan National / regional environmental
Morphis, Huel Dispersed recreation

Bixby, William Local / state government
Dick, Gordon Public at large
Forrest, Erin Native American interests
Huffman, Nancy Elected officials
Jansen, Henricus Academia

5.3.4 Public Interest Groups, Agencies

California Cattlemen's Association
California Native Plant Society
California State Water Resources Control Board
Natural Resources Defense Council
U.S. Forest Service

5.3.5 BLM Preparers

The following BLM staff contributed by working with the RACs, providing resource information, doing analytical work, and writing the EIS.

Anthony-Wheeler, Jennifer Natural Resource Specialist, Arcata R.A.
Bardwell, Pardee Range Conservationist, Clear Lake R.A.
Borchard, Steve Soil Scientist, Redding R.A.
Bosworth, John Environmental Coordinator, Eagle Lake R.A.
Brink, Paul Wilderness Coordinator, California State Office

Cooney, Frank Outdoor Recreation Planner, Surprise R.A.
Cotterill, Bruce Range Conservationist, Hollister R.A.
Cranston, Peggy Wildlife Biologist, Folsom R.A.
Decker, James Riparian Coordinator, California State Office
Delaney, Leroy Area Manager, Ridgecrest R.A.

Devalois, Tara Range Conservationist
Dodge, Douglas Supervisory Resource Management Specialist, Bishop R.A.
Doran, Karen Natural Resource Specialist (Range), Caliente R.A.
Farschon, Roger Wildlife Biologist, Surprise R.A.
Fontana, Jeff Public Affairs Specialist, NorCal Support Team
Gish, Mark Range Conservationist, Bishop R.A.
Hansen, Linda Area Manager, Eagle Lake R.A.
Halford, Anne Botanist, Bishop R.A.
Knox, Ann Coop. Educ. Trainee, Botany, California State Office

Lorentzen, Ed T&E Species Coordinator, California State Office
Mauck, Ralph Range Conservationist, Eagle Lake R.A.
Mercer, Larry Public Affairs Specialist, Bakersfield District Office
Mills, John (Jack) Environmental Coordinator, California State Office
Molter, Joseph Natural Resource Specialist, Redding R.A.

Morrison, James Rangeland Management Specialist, California State Office
Saslaw, Lawrence Wildlife Biologist, Bakersfield District Office
Stokke, Susie Area Manager, Surprise R.A.
Visser, Kenneth M. Lead Range Conservationist, Eagle Lake R.A.
Wagner, Joseph A. Range Conservationist, Alturas R.A.

Willoughby, John State Botanist, California State Office
Wingate, George Watershed Management Specialist, Eagle Lake R.A.

Maps were prepared by the California State Office, GIS Staff, Donna Smith, coordinating.

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