Nevada Department of Business and Industry
Division of Agriculture
350 Capitol Hill Avenue
Reno, Nevada 89502-2992

June 26, 1997

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Rangeland Health Standards and Guidelines for California and Northwestern Nevada. The document appears complete and well written. However there are some points our agency would like to make, particularly in regards to the Susanville RAC recommendations.

Although there are four alternatives listed to improve range land health, it is not clear what criteria will be used to determine which alternate will be used and when. We are especially concerned with alternate #4, the rapid improvement/rapid recovery standards and guidelines. We agree that rangeland must be kept in, or moved toward the goal of proper functioning condition. However, a reasonable period of time must be allowed to reach this functioning status.

If this alternative is utilized excessively, then not only would this remove appropriate management flexibility but result in a greater short term and possibly long term economic impact. The agency must be sensitive to this, even if a minority of persons are impacted. The agency must recognize êal communities have the right to a thriving economy that in many cases is not driven by tourism and recreation interests. In these rural communities, the cumulative adverse economic effect of an AUM reduction would most likely be intensified.

Again, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to provide input into the final document.

Sincerely,

Paul Iverson
Administrator

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