California Trout
Sierra Nevada Office
P.O. Box 97
Camp Nelson, CA 93208

August 20, 1997

California Trout, Inc. would like to take this opportunity to thank the Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management for the great effort they have undertaken to adopt Standards and Guidelines for the health of the Rangelands under their jurisdiction. We would also like to thank the participation of all of the individuals who helped in preparing the RAC recommendations used in this document.

One major overriding concern that we have with this document is that it seems to be an exercise in which measurable, quantifiable results will never occur. We realize that the direction that was given to the State offices of the ELM centered around setting Standards and Guidelines for the State, but these will have little if any effect if they are not made measurable, and repeatable, and lead to changes in grazing management for the health of the rangelands. There are only a few places in the document that speak to time frames for implementation, where it is suppose to take 15 years to implement Alternative 1 and 5 years to implement Alternative 4. We would like to know when effectiveness monitoring will occur to determine if management changes are necessary to reach the desired outcome. We would like to know how soon the different Standards and Guidelines will take effect. We understand that it is the intent of the BLM to incorporate the new Standards and Guidelines as soon as the decision is made, and we compliment you on this strategy. Although, there are still problems with how soon the inventories of the allotments will be completed, so that there is little miss-understanding about what is generalized comments in the DEIS, and what is based upon actual data.

By reviewing the Alternatives in this DEIS, California Trout would like to recommend that the ELM use Alternative 4 for its preferred alternative. If you read your summary of Alternative 4, on page 2-31 it states: "Alternative 4, in contrast to the other alternatives, would ensure that any identified problems are corrected as fast as possible rather than taking a gradual, incremental, approach toward improved management. Alternative 4 is designed to promote sharp improvement in trend toward rangeland health within one to three years on favorable sites (e.g. riparian areas or wetlands). Appropriate action could include exclusion of livestock; changes in allowable forage utilization, the season of use, the timing or duration of that use; a combination of these or other actions; or any other management action that would accomplish the goal of properly functioning and healthy rangelands. Depending upon the site's potential, many sites may fully recover within this time period others may require a longer time period."

"As a first step under this alternative, an assessment of every allotment would be undertaken to determine where the standards are not being met. If current livestock grazing practices are resulting in rangeland and riparian areas not meeting one or more of the standards, BLM will adjust livestock grazing before the next grazing season. Monitoring of all allotments would be continued annually, and BLM would make continued adjustments annually if necessary to ensure that trends are sharply upward, and that management is resulting in the most rapid progress possible toward rangeland health." This quote seems to be a good definition of what rangeland management is suppose to be. In fact a lot of the direction seems to come directly from existing regulations and laws already on the books. Why is there any other alternative provided in this document? With all of the existing laws and regulations already on the books (Appendix 3) it seems that if the agency obeyed the law, we would not have the problems that exist today.

For the BLM to gain back its integrity with the general public and with the permittees, there is a need for this document to measure quantifiably, existing condition, movement toward the Desired Future Condition, and health of all of the resources present in the BLM managed Rangelands. We need to understand when things are going to happen, and if effectiveness monitoring shows that changes need to be made when they will occur. This document should also include an enforcement section 50 that everyone knows from the start what actions the agency will take if terms and conditions of the permits are not met.

Without using strict, quantifiable language in writing these standards and guidelines there will be little if any agreement on when a standards or guideline is or is not being met. The wording throughout this document gives little scientific credibility by using words like; appropriate levels, is sufficient, is evident, is diverse and appropriate. What do these terms mean? Perhaps, the agency could define what they mean, or give actual figures to use for comparisons. For instance when you are taking about age-class and structure of woody/riparian vegetation, instead of saying that it will be diverse and appropriate for the site, it might be better to say that ____% will be in late seral stage, _____% will be in mid seral stage, and ____% will be new recruitment. Without these further definitions of the terms included in this document it will not only never be understood, it will lead to miss- understanding amongst your concerned parties.

For ease of review the following comments will follow the format of the DEIS.

CHAPTER 1

1.6 Public Scoping, Issues

The major issues listed on page 6 of the DEIS speak of some of the concerns that we have already pointed out and we feel that the BLM has done little if anything to answer them. A lot of these concerns #2,8, and 11 all speak to the point of making terms quantifiable, presenting time frames for completion, and using only documented scientific research. When does the agency plan on doing this?

CHAPTER 2

2.4 IMPLEMENTATION

Page 2-2 states that "The authorized officer shall take appropriate action as soon as practicable but no later than the next ~grazing year upon determining that grazing practices or levels of grazing use on public lands are significant factors in failing to achieve the standards and conform to the guidelines....(emphasis added), (43 CFR 4180.2 ) This to us seems like it is a muSt for you to finish your analysis of the condition and trend of all of the allotments under your jurisdiction. It also seems that if this rule is to be enforced that Alternative 4 is the only alternative that will bring you into compliance. On page 4.3, of the ElS it says that currently only 16% of your allotments are not meeting one or more of the fundamentals for rangeland health, yet 38% of the allotments in the study area have not been analyzed as of yet We have problems with some of the other figures presented in this document as to the actual health of the rangelands when figures using the Proper Functioning Condition assessment point to over 69% of the Lotic and Lentic habitats are either not functioning or functioning at risk. How can the BLM determine then that only 16% of its allotments are not meeting the fundamentals of rangeland health? This goes completely against the fundamentals which state that watersheds are properly functioning, or water quality standards are being met, and habitats of aquatic protected species are in order. Finish your analysis before you make any more assumptions as to the health of the rangelands under your jurisdiction. Failure to do this will only lead to misunderstanding between the agency and the interested publics.

On page 2-6 of the DEIS it states; "Successful application of these standards and guidelines will depend on BLM's capacity to monitor rangeland conditions and implement management practices." BINGO!! Now when does the BLM intend on doing this?

As we discussed earlier, the public needs to know the definition of some of the terms used in this document. When you talk about appropriate amounts of something what is that appropriate amount? How much ground cover is appropriate? Is it 80,90,or 100%? What constitutes ground cover? What are the water quality constraints listed in the individual Basin Plans, and where do they comply. Are the "Beneficial Uses," listed in the Basin Plans actually used as standards for enforcement? For example if the beneficial use is listed as cold water fisheries, then does the BLM protect them through measurement of temperature, turbidity, contamination, streamside vegetation, and streambank stability? Does the BLM plan on asking the Regional Water Quality board to certify permits re-issuance by acquiring a 401 certification through the Clean Water Act?

BAKERSFIELD STANDARDS FOR RANGELAND HEALTH

Page 2-6,7. Again we mention that the use of terms that can not be measured except with "Professional Judgment," will serve little benefit to this process. "Precipitation is able to enter the soil surface at appropriate rates:. . . soil fertility is maintained at appropriate levels. . . litter/residual dry matter is evident, in sufficient, . . . A diversity of plant species, with a variety of root depths, is present and plants are vigorous during the growing season." Please include definitions and quantifiable measurement criteria for these statements in the Final EIS.

Riparian: Standards. The only two vegetation attributes that make any sense are where vegetation cover is greater than 80%, and that point bars are vegetated. The rest are again not quantifiable. Does the agency plan on doing the water quality monitoring listed under the standard of Water Quality to ensure compliance with the Clean Water Act? Does this also mean that a minimum riparian zone will be established where little if any management will occur? When do the Clean Water Act regulations apply? If the beneficial use of the waters listed in the Basin Plans are not being protected you are in violation. Most of the watersheds under your jurisdiction are defined as recreational contact sport waters, do you plan on doing nutrient load testing, rnacroinverterbrate, or fish sampling to determine if you are protecting these waters.

A major contention on our part is the downstream effects of your management actions. If you allow use of the riparian zone for grazing, the non-point effects will have a detrimental effect on the watershed. This may occur as increased sedimentation to the watershed, which will cause serious effects to the aquatic organisms in the Stream, and will change the biological attributes of the watershed. To be in compliance with the Clean Water Act, you have to insure the integrity of the nations waters chemically, physically, and biologically. There is no information given in this document to determine the downstream effects of your actions on the watersheds.

SUSANVILLE RAC GUIDELINES FOR LIVESTOCK GRAZING

We commend the Susanville RAC for Guideline #1 This guideline if enforced in one in which the condition of the riparian zone will be measurable at the end of the grazing season. There is contention amongst the parties as to the value of leaving stubble heights in the riparian zone. The California Cattlemen's Association asks you to review the article in Rangelands, Volume 18, Number 4, where the authors state that lower stubble heights trap more sediment. This same article states that longer stubble heights lay over and help in armoring the streambank, thus protecting the watershed not only by trapping sediment, but by preventing collapse of the streambank. This same conclusion is drawn in two other articles that should be reviewed. Managing Grazing of Riparian Areas in the Intermountain Region, Clary and Webster, General Technical Report INT-263, May 1989, and Grazing and Riparian Management in Southwestern Montana, Lewis H. Myers, ELM, Dillion Montana.

Guideline 2, has problems because it uses the goal of achieving Potential Natural Community (PNC) for the riparian zones- This will be hard to implement if the agency does not know what the PNC looks like. Has the agency done an inventory of the different ecosystems present on their lands? This is also going to be difficult to enforce, because the definition of a PNC indicates the way a stable community will look without the influence of man. However, this guideline identifies a desired seral stage in the presence of livestock. The two do not go together. You will not be able to meet PNC without removing all influences of man, livestock included.

Guideline 6, calls for the same requirements that we request, measurable terms and conditions. When or where are these going to be presented? If they are to be presented in the site specific analysis, then the agency needs to give minimum standards that will apply throughout the district, until that occurs.

Guideline 8, in all of our research on aquatic systems, and their continued health, there is no strategy present today that will provide for habitat requirements for fish and wildlife, except exclusion of livestock.

Guideline 13, The recent work by Dr. Nancy Ermin of University of California at Davis, (SNEP) points out that these same springs, seeps and bogs may be the only population of rare macroinverterbrates. Does the agency plan on doing inventories of these Sites before allowing the destruction of rare species that may be present? There could also be a severe impact on fish and wildlife from development of these sites. The agency needs to take a harder look at these areas to determine if the fish and wildlife will be placed in jeopardy resulting from such actions.

Guideline 14, our evaluation of this guideline indicate the use of utilization levels that are too high to enable recovery or maintenance of rangeland health. We believe that using a cross section of the scientific literature that between 30-40% utilization should be the recommended levels. The only references we have seen that use higher rates of utilization are from traditional range science sources like the University of California COOP Extension Service. What the agency needs to incorporate in rangeland analysis is an interdisciplinary review to ensure that all of the resources receive a fair assessment. Fish need different safeguards then do livestock to sustain the resource.

We feel that the Susanville RAC was the only group to recognize the problem of timing. We feel that all of the Districts should have the same requirement of imposing a Set of guidelines that operate while the site specific guidelines are developed. Although we feel that guideline 14 is to lenient, it does although require some sort of protection until further NEPA analysis can occur on a site-specific level.

ALTERNATIVE 2: STATE-WIDE CONSISTENCY

The standard for all riparian areas regardless of RAC area should be in an upward trend if they are functioning at risk or nonfunctional. This should be a standard that is applied in all of the alternatives. In TR 1737.9 1993 and TR 1737-111994 publications regarding Proper functioning condition, the BLM was given the chief goal of seeing that 75% or more of its watersheds would be in a PFC by 1997. If you are going to take this direction to heart, the only solution seems to be adopting alternative 4.

CHAPTER 3

3.4.2 WETLAND-RIPARIAN VEGETATION

As you indicated on page 3-41, all of the wetland-riparian areas on BLM lands have experienced overgrazing in the past. You also state that you have not finished the inventories of your allotments as of yet. Your goal seems to be wrapped up in the statement made on this page; "Improved management of wetland-riparian vegetation is one of the goals of the healthy rangelands initiative." My understanding is that if you do get 75% of your watersheds in PFC by this year you will have to act quickly. We believe that the quote from Kattelmann and Embury (1996), is right on the mark. Before you can reach your goal of 75% in PFC we believe you will need to finish your inventory work. When this job is completed, the next requirement is to protect that condition or strive to reach it as soon as possible. The only way we can see this happening is to implement Alternative 4.

CURRENT CONDITIONS

On page 3-44 you state that in 1996 a query of the involved Resource Areas was conducted regarding the problems dealing with non-source pollution and that they seem to be general in nature. What does that mean? Does that mean that you are in compliance with the Clean Water Act or not? You continue this contention on the next page where you say, "Until recently the emphasis of most water quality studies has been on point sources of pollution, and there is, therefore, not yet a complete assessment of non-point source problems, particularly those related to livestock grazing on public lands." With the recent lawsuit in Oregon regarding the USFS and non-point source pollution and livestock grazing, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the USFS needed to acquire a 401 certification for all grazing permits from the State Regional Water Quality Board. This certification was to review the use of Best Management Practices (BMP's) and if through their effectiveness monitoring they could show changes in management where the BMP's failed to protect the site. A similar lawsuit is under way dealing with the Dept. of Interior here in California. Is it the contention of the BLM to have Regional Water Quality examine all of the grazing permit analysis records in order to issue a 401 permit to the permittees? We also wonder bow you can be in compliance with the Clean Water Act, when to date you do not have BMP's that satisfy the EPA?

We could find no guidelines relating to what the BLM will do if the permittees fail to meet their conditions of their permits. What is the agency going to do if permittees fail to meet the soil standards, the utilization standards, or in some way exceed the set standards? Here is where we believe that the agency needs to set enforcement standards to ensure that S&G's are being met, and what will happen to the permittee if they are not. We feel that there needs to be flexibility here, where if a permittee is trying to comply the administrator can give them a break. If on the other hand, there is no indication of a desire to comply the administrator can lower the boom. This should be a tiered response, i.e. if in the first year utilization is exceeded there is a 25% reduction in numbers, or season of use. If this continues for another year possibly a 50% reduction is necessary, and if it goes on from their possible loss of permit is required. The rangelands will not get better unless everyone knows that you mean business and that failure to comply with the S&G's means the possible loss of their permit and privilege to use the public lands.

3.5.4 RIPARIAN, WETLAND, AND AQUATIC COMMUNITIES

FISHERIES

With the BLM in California and Northwestern Nevada containing 3500 miles of streams and 62,000 acres of lakes and ponds, the agency needs to be very sensitive to the aquatic resources under its control. It is stated that "the condition of BLM aquatic habitats has not been rigorously inventoried or classified, but has been evaluated through the process of proper functioning condition assessments." This is very interesting, because the PFC analysis does not lend itself to assessment of the aquatic ecosystem. The PFC analysis was developed to look at the watershed and how that watershed could handle increased winter flows, and still remain in its channel. In all of the work we have done using this assessment it give little if any credibility to the statement that aquatic ecosystems are analyzed sufficiently using this analysis. Most scientists agree that the PFC analysis is not quantifiable not repeatable, and does nothing to assess aquatic health. If this PFC analysis were doing an assessment of aquatic health then it would ask questions regarding the temperature of the water, the chemical composition of the water, percentage of overhanging banks, width/depth ratios of the watershed, composition of the substrate, size of the bed material, oxygen content of the water, amount of large woody debris present, health of the riparian zone, amount of sediment trapping occurring due to riparian vegetation, percentage of overland flows into the stream, etc. The list goes on and on and there is no way that BLM can assess the quality of their aquatic habitats using only the PFC analysis. You already point out that over 69% of your Riparian Wetland areas and watershed are in a Functioning at Risk category. If these areas are functioning at risk with an assessment that only looks at the watershed health issue, you can not determine that aquatic habitats are healthy.

3.11 ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

"Changes in the BLM grazing program have the potential to economically affect livestock operators, local governments and communities, as well as the expenditures of the BLM rangeland management program." What is left out of this statement is that non- consumptive use of these same lands can have as big an influence on the local economy. A recent study by the University of California at Berkeley States that recreational fishing is worth approximately $12 billion dollars annually to the state, and employs over 150,000 people. Would you please include a section in the final ElS showing the impacts to other sections of the economy if non-consumptive uses or alternate uses take precedence over existing Status quo use.

We would like to compliment the agency for the rest of the data that is presented in this section. We believe that you gave a fairly accurate accounting of the value of the rangeland under your jurisdiction.

CHAPTER 4

4.2.1 GRAZING MANAGEMENT

As we discussed earlier we have a problem with the agency using figures that they cannot substantiate. It is stated that only 16% of your allotments are currently not meeting one or more of the fundamentals for rangeland health, which consists of 82 allotments from the 705 you administer. On the other hand, the next page states that 38% of these same allotments are not included in the analysis. How can you state that only 16% of the allotments do not meet the fundamentals for rangeland health when you have only done an inventory of a little over half of them? Again, this does not correlate with the percentages of watersheds in the Functioning At Risk category.

"In all alternatives there would be a need to implement or install range improvement projects to facilitate the enhancement of vegetative conditions either through vegetative treatment practices and weed control or to place facilities on the rangelands to support the grazing management of livestock. Many of the areas known to be in need of these projects are within Wilderness Study Areas or designated Wilderness Areas." Just wait a minute here, your direction stated in the previous chapter states; "1964 Wilderness Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. . . These acts generally direct ELM to manage wilderness areas so their natural condition is preserved and the human influences in the area are substantially unnoticeable." I know that the Forest Service has just reversed a decision regarding the building of stock tanks and facilities in the Aldo Leopold Wilderness in New Mexico regarding this same issue. It seems that the Department of Agriculture feels that even though grazing might have occurred in a Wilderness Area prior to the Act, it still does not agree that the grazing of livestock is a historical use. Therefore, the other provisions of the Act take precedence, and their major view is that the natural condition be preserved and human influences are substantially unnoticed.

4.2.2.1 SOILS

". . . the Susanville RAC Area has at least three grazing allotments that resource managers suspect will not meet the soil condition standards regardless of which alternative is implemented." What does this mean for future management? Does it mean that since these areas are already degraded, we should allow them to become nuclear zones? Or does it mean that the Agency will take action to close the allotments until the time occurs that they might recover? It seems that your direction in this matter is clear, rest the allotments and hope that time will recover the sites.

4.2.2.2 VEGETATION

ANNUAL GRASSLANDS

"Episodic recruitment of oaks and shrubs will be allowed to occur. . during critical period of establishment." What is the critical period of establishment? If we are having a problem of recruitment regarding Blue Oaks in the foothills of the San Joaquin Valley, we need to know what is going to happen with the competition of grasses for available water, and the problem with soil compaction?

4.2.3.1 RIPARIAN-WETLANDS AND STREAM CHANNELS OVERVIEW

Please explain bow the PFC analysis can also be used to estimate change in health status? Is this because if a watershed is in PFC vs. non-functioning you can use professional judgment to say yes it is in a healthier status? This same point was raised concerning the habitat for aquatic species. The PFC analysis does not do anything more then predict the health of the actual physical watershed, nothing more and nothing less.

4.2.3.3 RIPARIAN HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

"An assumption is made for this analysis, that numerical drinking water objectives would not normally apply to water bodies influenced by livestock grazing activities." We completely disagree with this assumption. Water travels downstream and all activities are going to have a cumulative effect on the downstream water quality. Having the responsibility to maintain the California and Nevada water quality standards, you should read the Water Basin Plans and comply with the standards set in them.

4.2.4 WILDLIFE

WETLAND/RIPARIAN HABITATS

Rosgen and others like Plans, Ohmart, Menke, Cleary, Webster, Myers, and Molecheck all agree with the first statement in this paragraph. In fact the Behnke and Zarn state that degradation of Streambanks by livestock is one of the principle factors contributing to the decline of native trout in the west. We would like to see how Dave Rosgen can validate the second quote that you use in this paragraph.

4.2.2.4 FISHERIES

Platts (1990) states that "consideration of streamside zones in the development of grazing strategies provides the best opportunity for the development of compatible grazing strategies." Platts also says in his paper given to the forty-third North American Wildlife Conference that "McGowan (1976) doubted, as I do, that present grazing strategies are capable of solving the problems in the aquatic environment caused by grazing." He goes on to say in Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and their Habitats by William R. Meehan Editor, American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19, 1991, that "Before progress can be made in improving the management of riparian areas, however, riparian environments must first be accepted as discrete management units and receive specialized, site-specific considerations." When the BLM recognizes that the riparian zones that they manage are important for all the resources they administer, then perhaps grazing management will be curtailed in areas where past/ongoing problems occur.

4.2.8 WILDERNESS

". . . building additional livestock developments such as water structures and fences increases the number of man-made facilities in the wilderness or WSA. These developments would require the occasional use of motorized or mechanized equipment for maintenance. Both the developments and use of equipment reduce the naturalness of the area and the opportunities for solitude away from human intrusions." Please re-read comments on Wilderness in Chapter 3 comments.

4.3.1 GRAZING MANAGEMENT

The BLM has concluded that rapid recovery of the ecosystems they administer would require approximately $800 thousand dollars over 5 years statewide in program costs. BLM has also concluded that about 10 jobs and $ I million dollars would be the cost to the ranching community to implement rapid recovery as opposed to the proposed alternative. What will the local economy gain if rapid recovery occurs? This is in respect to all of the other values that the rangeland resource influence Platts states that "proper management of livestock will increase resource values and, in turn, economic benefits to all users. A short-term loss of forage for livestock may occur when overused and degraded riparian communities are put under proper management, but increased forage production should ultimately be a result of improved resource management." Perhaps the Agency could use the money to be used for fencing an additional 248 miles of rangeland. This is one area the public does not like, it is the responsibility of the permittee to heard cattle and sheep out of areas where they are causing problems, not the responsibility of the tax payer to pay for additional fencinêintenance of that fence. We believe that better management is the cure, and fences should only be used as a last resort, and only on a small scale.

As a final comment we would like to quote a statement made by William R. Meehan in the book he edited called Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. "The basic premise for any fisheries or fish habitat management program should be protecting the habitat from any management effects that would degrade it is preferable to mitigating the effects or rehabilitating the habitat after resource damage has occurred. Habitat protection is generally less costly in the long run than habitat restoration, and is usually effective in maintaining the quality and productivity of the habitat; rehabilitation of damaged habitat may not necessarily restore it fully to its original condition."

CONCLUSIONS

Again, California Trout wants to thank the members of the RAC committees and the BLM of California for doing a lot of good work in developing this document. We do have a lot of concerns that were presented in these comments. We hope that the Agency takes many of them to heart and makes revisions in the Final ElS.

Clarify the language used and give definitions of what they mean. Use quantitative figures whenever possible to remove vagueness. Provide time frames for implementation. Do not use figures that you can nOt validate. Do a complete economic analysis using figures for all of the affected resource values included in the Rangeland analysis.

We would like to recommend that the Agency adopt Alternative 4 as the preferred alternative. We believe that the American public the owners of the Public Lands want the land to recover the fastest way possible, and that the small inconvenience to the public lands grazing community is a small price to pay.

Sincerely,

Brett Matzke
Sierra Nevada Manager
California Trout, Inc.

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