|
John Espil Sheep Co., Inc. August 31, 1997 The John Espil Sheep Co., Inc. is a family-owned corporation permitted cattle and sheep use on the public lands within the Susanville, California District of the Bureau of land Management. We make these comments regarding the DEIS: 1.1 BACKGROUND: 1. The document references the Taylor Grazing Act. Besides the referenced direction cited in the document, the TGA also provided that the Grazing Service (BLM) would safeguard the preference of the permittees upon the public lands. We expect that any standards and guidelines implemented under the regulations, now or in the future, will do so. 1.7 ASSUMPTIONS: 2. Assumption #3 uses the phrase "as the lands are determined available for livestock grazing use", implying that such determination has not been made. Contrary to this implication, the lands which encompass our grazing allotments lie within Grazing Districts, and such determination has therefore already been made. 3. Assumption #5 uses the phrase "monitoring or verified observation indicates management changes are needed". We support scientifically valid monitoring. The phrase "verified observation", however, is not defined either in the glossary or, so far as we know, in the regulations. It is therefore a nebulous term. Observations which are not scientifically valid should not be used to "determine" a need for change. This is especially important to us because our family has been subjected to full-force-and~effect decisions by a former District Manager based upon political motivations which were not supported by scientific monitoring, and it was only the scientific monitoring of the BLM itself which helped us defeat his efforts. The economic cost to us in defending our permit against his actions, however, was staggering. The science of range management, the legal requirements of BLM, and common decency should not permit anything less than the best science to prevail. We request that the phrase verified observation" be removed from both the letter and the spirit of the final EIS and implementation of the S&Gs. Furthermore, such scientific monitoring, in order to determine "progress toward" accomplishment of the S&G's, must be conducted by range studies made over time. An "instantaneous" evaluation, conclusion and determination should not be permitted. 4. Assumption #7 uses the phrase "all implementation will be coordinated and in consultation with the affected grazing permittees/lessees...." This implies that monitoring and decision-making will not be conducted with such coordination and consultation with the permittees, but only once a decision is made, the implementation will be coordinated and consulted. This is wrong. All phases of monitoring, evaluation, analysis, interpretation, decision-making, and implementation must be made with full coordination, consultation, and cooperation with the permittees. 1.10 CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA: 5. We believe the approach taken and accepted for the CDD is the appropriate approach, because rangeland "health" is affected by much more than the presence or absence of livestock: it is also affected, and in many cases, much more affected, by wild horses and burros, recreation, fishing, hunting, camping, and other non- livestock-related issues. We believe the existing grazing regulations regarding rangeland health fall far short of recognizing such impacts, and what is appropriate for livestock management is and should be appropriate for other uses of the public range. This is recognized by the document, but no analysis is made. 2.1 INTRODUCTION: 6. The document errs in not considering a "no action" alternative. The document recognizes than most of the existing land use plans (LUPs) comply with the fundamentals of rangeland health. The regulations do not require that the LUPS comply with standards and guidelines, but rather with the fundamentals of rangeland health. Once this is recognized, there exists no need to artificially amend the existing LUPs which are already in compliance with the fundamentals. This, then, should serve as the basis of the "no action" alternative where those LUPs are in compliance. Where a particular LUP is not in compliance, then it should be brought into compliance with the fundamentals. 2.4 IMPLEMENTATION - Screening: 7. This section uses the phrase "available data and the professional judgment of the staff." As long as the "and" ties the professional judgment of the staff to the available data, we do not object. However, professional judgment is not possible without monitoring conducted over time. The best professional, if he is new to an area or allotment, cannot know if progress has been made toward meeting a particular S&G without reference to past monitoring data and history of the allotment. 2.4 IMPLEMENTATION - Management Change: 8. The phrase "ecosystem position, resource risk, biological values" is not defined. However, the phrase itself identifies these as societal value judgments which are not properly left to the "staff', but must instead be made by public involvement, including scoping and all other NEPA requirements. Prior to making final any "prioritization" and acting upon it, BLM must expose such prioritization to public involvement through the NEPA process. 2.4 IMPLEMENTATION - Inventory and Assessment: 9. The phrase "ecosystem position, resource risk, biological values" is not defined. However, the phrase itself identifies these as societal value judgments which are not properly left to the "staff', but must instead be made by public involvement, including scoping and all other NEPA requirements. Prior to making final any "prioritization" and acting upon it, BLM must expose such prioritization to public involvement through the NEPA process. In addition, a step must be added between steps 2 and 3. Once an inventory occurs, MONITORING over time must be conducted to determine what causes result in what effects. Only with scientifically valid data can step 3 then occur. The document as it is written preconcludes that livestock are the cause of any effect, and that pre- conclusion is biased. Furthermore, an unknown or unrelated cause (e.g. flash flooding or 1000-year precipitation events) may result in the non achievement of a S&G at the point of inventory, but monitoring conducted over time may show that the existing livestock management is sufficient in improving a condition inventoried at a point in-time. 2.4 IMPLEMENTATION - Prioritization: 10. This section references Appendix 6, which is a flow chart showing the implementation process. This flow chart should be modified to separate Trend Unknown from No Upward Trend. This is necessary to prevent an unnecessary decision and hardship upon a grazing permittee simply for lack of data on Blm part. As written, if BLM has no data confirming trend, the assumption is that no trend is occurring. Therefore, a lack of monitoring by BLM will potentially be used to create adverse decisions upon a permittee, when in fact an upward trend is occurring and would be supported by the missing monitoring data. "Trend Unknown" should flow to "Monitor", which should flow back to "Existing Situation". We assume that "Monitor" as used in this flow chart means "monitoring based upon rangeland studies conducted over time". If our assumption is wrong, then the flow chart should be modified to say "Monitor based on rangeland studies conducted over time". 2.5 ALTERNATIVE 1: STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES PROPOSED BY THE RESOURCE ADVISORY COUNCILS: 11. Generally, we support this alternative over the others because it is area- specific and developed by people more familiar with our area. The S&Gs are therefore more applicable here than would statewide or other S&Gs. Our support for this alternative, however, is conditional upon changes made to the S&Gs for Susanville (Section 2.53) as listed below. 2.53 SUSANVILLE RAC RECOMMENDED STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES: Standard 1. 12. The criteria regarding Standard I should be eliminated. Rills, gullies, pedastalling, scour and sheet erosion are all natural features of the landscape. Their presence or absence is not indicative of any necessary cause and effect relationship with livestock grazing. Furthermore, their presence at any point in time would not indicate, even if there existed a connection between these features and livestock grazing, that the present livestock grazing has anything to do with their occurrence on the landscape. Secondly, the vigor and diversity of species, the potential natural vegetation, or whether or not the "desired" species are present, have nothing to do with infiltration and permeability rates of soils. A soil can exhibit the same infiltration rates (or improved) under cheatgrass or other exotic species as it can under the "natural" vegetation. Standard 2. 13. The criteria regarding Standard 2 should be modified to read:
Standard 4. 14. The standard should be modified to read: Seventy-five percent of riparian and wetland areas are in properly functioning condition or if functioning-at-risk, have a static to upward trend. 15. The meaning should be modified to read: The riparian and wetland vegetation and/or rock is controlling erosion, . . . 16. The criteria should be modified to read:
17. We agree with the exceptions and exemptions to Standard 4. Standard 5. 18. The standard should be modified to read: Healthy, productive and diverse populations of native and other desirable plant and animal species, including special status species, are maintained. Guideline 1. 19. The guideline should be modified to read: Where herbaceous species control the functioning and erosion of a stream reach or significant portion thereof, sufficient herbaceous stubble will be present at the end of the growing season, or at the end of the grazing season if grazing occurs after fall dormancy. The residual or regrowth should provide sufficient herbaceous forage biomass to meet the requirements of plant vigor maintenance, bank protection, and sediment entrapment. Utilization of stream-side herbaceous plants should be limited to 80% utilization of the current year's total growth, and utilization of stream-side woody plants should be limited to 50% utilization of the current year's total growth, and/or livestock should be removed to allow sufficient time for plant regrowth.
Guideline 2. 20. The phrase "generally the goal will be to achieve Potential Natural Communities in the riparian zone" should be eliminated from this guideline, because potential natural communities ("pristine" conditions) are not beneficial to many species of wildlife which use the riparian zone in one way or another. If a "condition" statement is to be included, it should recognize that a mosaic of vegetation seral stages and conditions in riparian areas, as in the uplands, will likely result in the most diverse and abundant plant and animal communities. Guideline 3. 21. The phrase "and during critical times of plant growth" should be eliminated from this guideline. First, complete "rest" is not necessary during any stage of growth of the plant. Secondly, "critical times" could potentially be construed to mean any time of the plant up to and through dormancy. Combined with complete rest, this could be construed to mean that all of the livestock permittees are out of business, because potentially no grazing would be permitted for most of the year, and especially during the green period which is so critical to livestock and wildlife performance and growth. Third, wild animals graze during times of "critical times" of plant growth, and there is no reason why domestic animals should arbitrarily be prohibited from doing so. Guideline 4. 22. The phrase "so that overall use does not detract from the goal of achieving rangeland health" should be eliminated from this guideline. Because these regulations and S&Gs affect livestock only, the implication of the above phrase is that if "overall use" does result in detraction from the goal of rangeland health, that livestock would be the use to "move over' or "get off'. This is unfair and is wrong, and such a conclusion would be a violation of BLM's mandate to protect the grazing preference of the permittee. Guideline 5. 23. The phrase "potential natural vegetation or" should be eliminated from this guideline The existing LUPs already call for various seral conditions and trends. In some cases, this "desired plant community" is the potential natural vegetation ("pristine conditions"), and in other cases it is something else, but in all cases, BLM has already defined what is the "desired plant community". Guideline 8. 24. This guideline should be eliminated because it subjugates livestock use to another use. In the alternative, it should be modified to read: Livestock grazing plans will consider the coordinated needs of livestock management together with site-specific wildlife habitat needs, and coordinated management plans will be developed. Guideline 11. 25. This is not a livestock management S&G. It should be eliminated or, in the alternative, should be modified to read: Prescribed fire and (natural) prescribed fire will be integrated with grazing management to promote a mosaic of healthy plant communities and vegetation diversity. Where prescribed or natural fire is used, it should be designed and implemented so as to be the least obtrusive to the permitted livestock use. Guideline 13. 26. This guideline should be eliminated due to its potential infringement on private water rights and permitted grazing use. In the alternative, it should be modified to read: Development of springs, seeps, and other water-related projects shall be designed to promote rangeland health, livestock management, and wildlife management. Wherever possible, water sources (excluding wells, 'warm- weather' pipelines, private, and private water-righted waters) shall be available year long for use by wildlife. However, the livestock permittee shall not be responsible for the maintenance of available water at any location or time outside his area of use or time of use. Guideline 14. 27. This guideline should be eliminated, for a number of reasons. First, it is premised and written to imply that all livestock practices are abusive, but it will only focus on the "most abusive". This is an inherently biased approach, and one that is absolutely unjustified. Second, the regulations require the authorized officer to take action not later than the next grazing season when a determination is made that grazing practices on an allotment are in non-compliance with the S&Gs, regardless of the time or regardless of the allotment. The premise of this guideline is that "we know its happening, we just haven't discovered it yet, so let's assume that everywhere we haven't looked must be being 'abused'". The premise is biased, and is untrue, and is contrary to the written regulation. Third, in a realistic sense, the time and manpower it will take to enforce this "interim" guideline would be better invested in monitoring, evaluation, interpretation, and management action on the allotments themselves. Fourth, a variety of monitoring methods exists which are far superior and demonstrably more accurate that the "Landscape Appearance Method" of determining utilization. One such method for herbaceous species is the Height:Weight Method. It should be used wherever possible, rather than the subjective Landscape Appearance Method. If the landscape Appearance Method is used, we insist that BLM or any others using it couple it with objective, rather than subjective, and quantitative, rather than "qualitative" monitoring. Fifth, utilization higher than 60% on herbaceous species has been documented to result in no harm to the health of riparian areas. likewise, utilization levels higher than 50% on upland species have been document to result in no harm to the health of the uplands. In some instances, utilization up to 85% in rest-rotation management systems has resulted in improved ecological condition. Sixth, there is no reasonable reason to limit utilization to the arbitrary level of 20% on "key browse species". Livestock and deer diets do not depend upon a single species or a couple of species, but are greatly varied and include a very wide diversity of forage species. To create such an arbitrary standard on one or two plant species and impose it on the livestock operation would be wrong. Additionally, monitoring by Nevada Division of Wildlife in a neighboring allotment to ours has shown utilization of bitterbrush (a key browse species) BY RESIDENT DEER WHEN NO LIVESTOCK HAVE BEEN PRESENT, TO EXCEED 90% UTILIZATION. The imposition of the guideline would arbitrarily punish livestock operators for "excesses" which may very well be caused by wildlife itself. The "interim" guideline is no more than a police action, and the letter and intent of the regulations are toward improving management, not policing the range. We support (and always have) the former. We oppose the latter. 2.6 ALTERNATIVE 2. STATEWIDE CONSISTENCY / CONSOLIDATED STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES. 29. This alternative shares some of the same drawbacks in wording as does the Susanville RAC S&Gs. We support the more area-specific S&Gs of SusanviIle, with the above-noted conditional changes. Where wording is similar between Alternative 1 and 2, we propose the changes noted above in reference to Alternative 1 be made if Alternative 2 is adopted. In addition to the above applicable changes, the phrase "and meeting management goals" should be eliminated from the Standard for Riparian and Wetland Areas at the bottom of Page 25, Chapter 2. In addition, the phrase "There is a diversity of insects and amphibians" should be eliminated from the "As indicated by" section on Page 26, Chapter 2. Finally, all references to "microphytic or cryptogamic soil crusts" should be eliminated at this time. The existing scientific standard to describe rangeland vegetative potentials is the Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly Soil Conservation Service) Range Site Descriptions. To our knowledge, these do not include a description of, or potential in each site description for, such crusts. Therefore, until more scientific knowledge exists to incorporate the known vegetative potential with a known potentials for cryptogamic crusts by range site type, any such standard or guideline should be deferred. To do otherwise would be to impose a potentially arbitrary standard or guideline. 2.8 ALTERNATIVE 4. RAPID IMPROVEMENT/RECOVERY STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES. 30. This alternative should be eliminated from further consideration. The document at Chapter 5, page 3 makes note that BLM approached the California Native Plant Society, Natural Resources Defence Council, and Range Watch, for their "input" to develop this alternative. All of which have what we consider to be biased anti-livestock agendas. This alternative is not, therefore, a representation of scoping for the document at all, but rather the "anti-livestock" alternative. We must question why livestock interests were not "approached" by B~I for the development of a "rapid improvement/recovery" alternative. Additionally, the entire approach of the body of the alternative makes the erroneous assumption that removal of livestock is the "cure" to any real or perceived problems". There exist an abundance of research articles and publications written by professionals who are actually employed in researching and monitoring the West, and an abundance of these articles and publications refute entirely the purported position of Holechek as it is cited in this document. To develop an entire alternative on two articles written by a single author is to ignore the applicable data and research available to the BLM. We consider this a completely biased approach Finally, the simplistic conclusion attributed to Holechek that 50% utilization in most cases "causes range destruction in the rugged arid ranges of the West." is refuted by the abundance of data and research to the contrary. It also does not account for the myriad of grazing strategies that have been successfully applied in the West. Winterfat, for instance, has been documented to maintain and improve with utilization in the heavy to severe range if used during the dormant winter period. Another example is that allotments with rest-rotation have improved with heavy and severe utilization during the green and dormant periods, because the rest and deferment built into the system more than account for such heavy and severe utilization levels. If this alternative is not eliminated from further consideration, we request that we, other livestock permittees, and livestock associations and organizations, be permitted 120 days to develop and submit a "Rapid Improvement/Rapid Recovery Standards and Guidelines" alternative which would then be submitted to BLM for inclusion in this NEPA process, prior to the development of a Final EIS. COMMENTS SPECIFIC TO OUR GRAZING ALLOTMENTS: 31. Because of the general nature of the document, and the non-specificity to conditions on our grazing allotments, we are unable to make further comment regarding the analysis of the alternatives as they may be applied in the future. We will note, however that the last monitoring evaluation by BLM of our Twin Peaks Allotment showed a marked improvement in ecological condition at several of the monitoring locations; 88% of the riparian areas in functional condition with a static, upward, or "proper functioning" status; and slight to light utilization throughout the majority of the allotment. These improvements were made possible by a cooperative management approach taken by BLM and us in the early 1980's, in which we learned some from the BLM personnel, and they learned some from us, m the development of our Allotment Management Plan. This AMP included deferred grazing management, rotation of livestock to various areas of the allotment at different times, spring developments, etc., and was based on a recognition by BLM that our economic stability is crucial to making any management plan successful. The politics of BLM in the 90's has occasionally resulted in the departure from that cooperation and recognition by "mid-management" in BLM, but we have continued to work with the field people in the continued management of the allotment based upon sound science and economics. We greatly appreciate Blm on.the-ground efforts and cooperation. All of this occurred long before the notion of "rangeland reform" and "standards and guidelines" became the vogue. We believe the implementation of "standards and guidelines" to be largely an unnecessary bureaucratic exercise, and one which detracts BLM from their monitoring and management efforts on the ground, to the benefit of all resources and resource users. We look forward to the continued coordination, cooperation, and consultation by BLM with us in the management of all of our BLM allotments. Thank you. Sincerely yours, President, John Espil Sheep Co., Inc. |
| Page last updated: 2002-11-26 11:30:03.323 | ||
|
[Home][News][Information][Recreation][What We Do][BLM Facts][Directory] |
||
|
Bureau of Land Management California State Office 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W-1834 Sacramento, CA 95825-1886 Phone: (916) 978-4400 Phone: (916) 978-4416 TDD (916) 978-4419 Contact Us via eMail |
This is a U.S. Government computer system. Before continuing please read this Disclaimer, Privacy Policy, and Kid´s Privacy Policy | |