|
Natural Resources Defense Council and The California Native Plant Society August 27, 1997 Attached please find the comments of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) regarding your draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on Rangeland Health Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs). As we State in our comments, CNPS and NRDC appreciate the tremendous effort that went into the preparation of the DEIS by Bureau employees, Resource Advisory Council members and others who care about the public's rangelands. Nonetheless, our analysis of the document reveals little basis for hope that the S&Gs considered will achieve the overarching goal of Rangeland Reform `94- substantial and rapid improvement in the health of grazed ecosystems. Because we and the members of our respective organizations believe strongly in this goal, we provide in our comments detailed and comprehensive Suggestions for accomplishing it. We hope that the Bureau of Land Management will seriously consider these suggestions, and take fill advantage of the opportunities to improve not only range health, but also public trust and confidence in your management of the public's lands. We are available to provide additional information, if needed, or to answer any questions. Please feel flee to contact us at any time. Sincerely, Emily B. Roberson, Ph.D. Johanna H. Wald
Comments August 27, 1997 The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) are pleased to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Rangeland Health Standards and Guidelines for California and Northwestern Nevada (DEIS). Domestic livestock grazing has been an issue for the Society and for NRDC for over two decades. CNPS members and staff have worked with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) on grazing issues for many years, including participating on Resource Advisory Councils (RACs) during the preparation of this DEIS. NRDC staff and members have participated in numerous land use and allotment planning efforts as well as in the development and revision of numerous agency policies and rules, including Range Reform `94, pursuant to which this DEIS is being prepared. NRDC and CNPS members use BLM lands extensively for research, education, and recreation. Both CNPS and NRDC agree that properly managed grazing may benefit certain ecosystems, plant communities or species by mimicking or partially mimicking natural disturbance regimes. However, as customarily practiced on public lands in California, grazing has been a leading cause of loss of native communities and conversion to exotic weed fields. Grazing has also been noted repeatedly as the second greatest threat to federally and State listed threatened and endangered plants, following only development (Calif. Department of Fish and Game, 1984 1993). In addition, the adverse impacts of poorly managed grazing on riparian areas and on other wildlife habitats are well known (e.g. Fleishner, 1994; Ohrnart, 1996). We appreciate the tremendous effort that went into the preparation of this DEIS as well as the time and effort contributed by RAC members around the state. Rangeland Reform `94 and this DEIS represent significant achievements for the BLM and for public lands grazing management. CNPS and NRDC are committed to continuing to work with the BLM to fulfill the goals of Rangeland Reform `94 and to improve the health of grazed ecosystems in California. Rangeland Reform `94 was initiated because the American public, the owners of BLM lands, want improved grazing management. They want clean water and healthy streams, wildlife and plant communities on publicly owned lands (see. e.g., Brunson and Steel, 1994). Throughout the Range Reform process, the BLM repeatedly expressed its understanding of the public's desires and its intention to meet their expectations. Thus, for example, in its Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the agency acknowledged that there is a great need for improvement in management in order to "accelerate restoration and improvement of the public rangelands." (58 Fed. Reg. 43208 (August 13, 1993)). Subsequently, in promulgating the final rule, it acknowledged the need to change current management to prevent continued decline "in critical riparian areas," "help correct problems in grazing use and... improve the degraded condition of some areas expeditiously." (60 Fed. Reg. 9907 (February 22,1995)). Above all, the BLM stressed that the goal of Rangeland Reform was "improving the ecological health of the rangelands," (id.)., as well as that "achieving and maintaining properly functioning ecosystems is critical to the protection of public rangelands....' (59 Fed. Reg. 14325 (March 25, 1994)). Based on our review of this DEIS and the proposed standards and guidelines (S&Gs), however, we seriously doubt that either this document or the S&Gs will enable the BLM to fulfill the important commitments to the public made in Rangeland Reform `94. As discussed in detail below, this DEIS relies heavily on subjective information, is vaguely worded, and fails to analyze a range of management approaches. Similarly, as written, the S&Gs in this DEIS are vague, incorporate no timelines or triggers for action, contain an inadequate implementation plan, and include no monitoring plan. There is, in addition, no information about how, where or when the BLM intends to implement the fallback S&Gs which are now applicable to BLM- managed rangelands in California. All of these problems create the impression that completion of the DEIS process will bring little improvement in on-the-ground grazing management in either the short or long term. They also give the impression that finalization of the S&Gs is unlikely to substantively or expeditiously improve the health of BLM lands in California. Summary of Recommendations To remedy these and other problems related to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Rangeland Reform `94, our comments present numerous specific and detailed recommendations to the BLM. In summary, our major recommendations are that the BLM should: 1. Revise the proposed S&Gs to include specific, objective provisions and terms as promised by the Interior Department and BLM during the Rangeland Reform process. 2. Prepare a supplemental DEIS. Indeed, as discussed below, we believe a supplemental DEIS is required by NEPA. 3. Address real alternative approaches to grazing management in the supplemental DEIS, including the real "no action" alternative "i.e. current, pre-Rangeland Reform management, and the "ecosystem management" alternative previously submitted by CNPS. 4. Present, in the supplemental DEIS, essential information about all allotments which is already known to BLM but was omitted from the current draft, including, but not limited to, the following information:
5. Propose, in the supplemental DEIS, specific criteria to be used to identify "priority" allotments and present a management schedule for all such allotments that reveals the actions to be taken over the next three years to improve management, in accordance with Rangeland Reform `94 direction. 6. Present, in the supplemental DEIS a plan for changing current grazing practices prior to the start of the next grazing year for each allotment with known resource damage, in accordance with Rangeland Reform `94 direction. 7. Expand its implementation plan to include specific timelines and triggers for action and incorporate the plan (or alternative plans as appropriate) into the alternatives under consideration. The implementation plan should be sufficiently clear for members of the public and BLM staff to understand precisely how and when the S&Gs will be translated into on-the-ground management changes and practices and must be incorporated into affected land use plans. 8. Develop a monitoring plan and schedule for incorporation in all alternatives as well as affected land use plans along with the final S&Gs. The plan should identify the methods that will be used to monitor the health of different ecosystem elements as well as quantify the cost involved. 9. Expand, strengthen and clarify the draft best management practices (BMPs). The implementation and monitoring plans referred to above should address monitoring and implementation of BMPs. NEPA Issues A supplemental DEIS is needed The DEIS has numerous serious flaws which we detail below. It fails to comply with some of the most important requirements of NEPA. The DEIS does not analyze any real alternatives. It reveals important gaps in BLM data on ecosystem health. The majority of the information on range condition is based on subjective observation rather than scientific analysis. Because remedying these and other NEPA problems, as well as information gaps discussed elsewhere in our comments, would mean that the agency would be providing the public with a great deal of new information "relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action [and] its impacts," a supplemental DEIS is required. (40 CFR ß l502.9(b)(l)(ii). Moreover, preparation of a supplement will unquestionably further the purposes of NEPA as discussed below (40 CFR ß l502.9(b)(2)). The DEIS does not evaluate any true alternatives. The DEIS does not evaluate any real options, let alone a range of alternatives. The purpose of an EIS and of NEPA is to allow decisionmakers and the public to evaluate a number of different alternative actions and their environmental consequences before decisions are made that affect the allocation of public resources and the environment (40 CFR ß 1502.1). The analysis of alternatives is "the heart" of the NEPA process (40 CFR ß 1502.14) and helps to ensure that the best decisions are reached. Yet, despite the critical importance of this part of the process, this DEIS does not analyze a range of alternative approaches to grazing management as required by NEPA (40 CFR ß 1502.14). In fact, the DEIS does not include any real alternatives and falls to include at least two obvious alternatives: (1) current management, and (2) the ecosystem management alternative developed by CNPS. The DEIS presents four putative alternatives. However, as indicated, they are essentially all the same. Two of those alternatives, 1 and 2, are virtually identical, both being drawn from the S&Gs produced by the RACs. Alternative 4 is also extremely similar to alternatives 1 and 2 because its standards, with the exception of the Water Quality Standard, are the same as in alternatives 1 and 2 (DEIS, p. 2-32). The remaining alternative, alternative 3, the fallback S&Gs, is also similar to the others because the language in the RAC S&Gs is drawn largely from the fallback standards and guidelines. The similarity among alternatives is extremely clear in Appendix 18 and Chapter 4: the environmental impacts of the alternatives are virtually identical. In addition, the language of all four alternatives is so vague (see below) that it is difficult to determine what the alternatives mean, much less discern any differences among them. The lack of real alternatives violates a key requirement of NEPA. As a result the DEIS provides no opportunity for the public or BLM decisionmakers to compare substantively different approaches to the complex challenges of sustainable grazing management. If no alternative approaches have been considered, how is the public, the owners of these lands, to be assured that the BLM is pursuing the best course of action available? The DEIS does not analyze the correct "no action" alternative. The DEIS also does not present the correct "no action" alternative as required by NEPA (40 CFRß1502.l4 (a) and (d)). This is an important omission. The correct "no action" alternative is current, pre-Rangeland Reform management. This alternative would give the public a benchmark against which to assess the new alternatives under consideration. It is essential to understand what would happen if current management remains unchanged in order to understand how conditions will change under the new S&Gs. Instead of analyzing a real "no action" alternative, however, the DEIS analyzes the fallback standards and guidelines from the Rangeland Reform '94 regulations, even though these S&Gs are not currently being implemented anywhere on BLM lands in California. The DEIS' attempt to justify omitting an alternative that reflects the current management scheme is unpersuasive. The DEIS states (p. 2.29) that it does not contain an alternative reflecting the existing situation because the Rangeland Reform `94 regulations require that S&Gs be developed or that the fallback S&Gs be in place. Therefore, according to the DEIS, the pre-Range Reform situation "will change" and is neither the status quo nor the "no action" alternative, In fact, although the fallback S&Gs currently apply to BLM, little or no action has been taken to implement them. Therefore, the "no action" alternative is not in reality the fallback S&Gs. Rather, it is the management program that currently exists- which is still the program that pre-dates Range Reform throughout BLM-administered lands in California. It is also noteworthy that at least one other EIS on S&(Gs, the one prepared by ELM in Montana, did analyze "continuation of current [i.e., pre Range Reform] management" as its "no-action" alternative (See Attachment 1 to these comments). Similarly, in the EIS on Rangeland Reform `94, the BLM analyzed that same option - continuation of current management - as its "no action" alternative, even though it had already decided to change the then-current rules and policies. As the result of the inclusion of this alternative, the national Eis was able to project improvements m range health and contrast those improvements to Current management. Had California ELM followed the same approach in this DEIS, this information would have helped meet the intentions of NEPA and would have allowed the public to fully understand and evaluate the benefits, if any, of the proposed action and other alternatives. The DEIS does not analyze the CNPS "ecosystem management" proposal. CNPS was asked by BLM to submit a proposal for a "rapid recovery" alternative last year. We invested a significant amount of time and effort in developing a thorough and thoughtful proposal. The proposal received extensive review by eminent range ecologists, botanists, wildlife ecologists and other Scientists. Despite assurances from BLM staff that our proposal would be analyzed in this DEIS, it was not included. Nor was any explanation for its omission presented as required by NEPA (40 CFR ß1502.14(b)). BLM staff have told us that the alternative was not included because it was thought to contain "punitive" restrictions on grazing use. This is not the case. Our alternative would restrict grazing use only in cases where grazing management is shown to contribute to ecological damage. BLM staff also have stated that analysis of an "environmentalist" alternative would have forced them to include a "cattlemen's" alternative as well, which would be somehow undesirable. We cannot understand this reasoning. We feel that a proposal developed by the ranching community could well provide useful perspective and recommendations. It would be extremely appropriate, and entirely consistent with the intent of NEPA, to analyze a "cattlemen's" proposal in this DEIS. All sorts of citizens' alternatives are frequently included in EISs. CNPS' proposal addressed the issues and concerns that we present in these comments and that were presented in the scoping comments of both CNPS and NRDC. CNPS' original proposal is included as Attachment 2. We request that it be evaluated as an alternative in the supplemental DEIS, along with the "no action" alternative discussed above, or, at minimum, in the final EIS. We would welcome the inclusion of an alternative from the ranching community as well. DEIS data are insufficient to enable the public to evaluate the alternatives. NEPA regulations specifically require that an Eis must "provide full and fair discussion of significant environmental impacts" (40 CFR ß 1502.1) as well as that the information provided "be of high quality. Accurate scientific analysis... [is] essential~' (40 CFR ß 1 800. 1(b))' and the agency preparing an Eis must "insure the professional integrity, including scientific integrity, of the discussions and analyses" contained in it (40 CFR ß 1502.24)). This DEIS fails to meet these requirements in numerous ways, described below. First, the DEIS reveals large and important gaps in the BLM's data on grazed ecosystems. in fact, the data that are lacking are so important and so central as to directly call into question the Bureau's ability to manage livestock grazing adequately. in particular, the DEIS suggests that the Bureau has little in the way of objective information on current range conditions, as well as that it may even lack any information, including professional judgment information, for some of the lands under its jurisdiction. In fact, we believe that the BLM has far more information about the lands it permits grazing on in California than it has included in this document. For example, this document refers to, but does not present, information on specific grazing management problems on individual allotments (see, e.g., Table 4.3.1 and 4.3.1.a). The DEIS relies heavily on professional judgment to evaluate the current condition of grazed BLM lands. The DEIS does not reveal exactly how many acres or miles of stream were evaluated using professional judgment as opposed to more quantitative measurements. A footnote to Table 3.4.1(a) States that "much" of the data on ecological condition came from "professional judgment assessment." However, Chapter 3 does state that professional judgment was used to evaluate the range condition of up to 3.1 million acres and the trend of up to 4.3 million acres of uplands. There are several problems with relying heavily on professional judgment. It is subjective. Different observers, even with excellent training and intentions, often reach radically different conclusions. It is vulnerable to pressure. It can be difficult for agency staff to take personal responsibility for a statement that public resources are damaged by grazing. For these reasons, objective measurements should always be provided, at least for a subset of observations, so that the public can verify the results of subjective estimates of ecosystem condition. Photographs, using repeatable photo point methodology, can also be useful in this regard Objective measurements also assist agency staff by helping to calibrate subjective estimates. NEPA requires that monitoring results be provided to the public upon request (40 CFR ß 1505.3(d)). We request that the supplemental DEIS and final EIS separately display the information that is based on objective and subjective observations. Even professional judgment was apparently unavailable for almost 700,000 upland acres which remain "unclassified" according to Appendix 7, and for 268 allotments for which insufficient information exists for an impact assessment according to Chapter 4. As noted elsewhere, the DEIS presents no monitoring schedule so the public has no way of knowing when these important data will be gathered. There Is no way for the BLM to adequately manage grazed ecosystems with no information on their current condition. The supplemental DEIS and final EIS should include a timetable for gathering missing information on current condition, including allotment health, as well as a monitoring plan and schedule. Equally troubling is the extent to which the text of the DEIS undermines the validity of the quantitative information it does present, rather than assure readers of its high quality and integrity. This is particularly true of the quantitative information on range condition (see, e.g., pp. 3-35 3.38 for discussion of the ecological Site inventory (ESI)). If, as this discussion suggests, even the data that the BLM has are of extremely limited usefulness, then one must question on what basis the agency justifies continuing to allow livestock to graze the public lands, We also must question the basis for the management decisions and management proposals III this DEIS. Does the BLM really intend to say here that few or none of the data it has collected until now can be used for present purposes (whatever they are) - and does it really expect the public to accept this position? The DEIS also omits some important information. For example, Chapter 3 presents general data on soil condition (p- 3-18). However, the location, type, and source of the soil condition problems on 120,000 acres are not disclosed. Survey methods for soil condition (infiltration rate measurements, line or frequency transects, relieves, etc.) are also not described, although NEPA requires that methods be disclosed (40 CFR ß 1502.24). A footnote to Table 3.3.! states that site specific soils information will be developed as the BLM "actually complete[s] inventories. although in this case, as in others, the DEIS provides no hint as to when these inventories will in fact be completed. In any event, it is not clear what site specific information, if any, is currently available for soils. The discussion of the impacts of grazing on soils is fairly general in this DEIS. CNPS has recently prepared a literature review on grazing impacts to soils which we submit as Attachment 3 to these comments. The information in the review may be useful during the development of the supplemental DEIS. Another example is provided by ecosystem condition. No information is presented on how many acres of different ecosystem or plant community types are not functioning properly. These data could be very useful. For example, if oak woodlands are more likely to experience damage than chaparral, the BLM could focus restoration efforts in these communities. The BLM apparently has some of this information: for example, the DEIS containS estimates (albeit inconsistent ones) of the number of allotments that are currently failing to meet one or more of the fundamentals of rangeland health, (see e.g., p. 4-3), but no specific information about any of those allotments is provided. Environmental consequences are inadequately assessed The environmental consequences section also has serious flaws. It contains very general and broad descriptions and presents little plant community- or allotment-specific information on projected ecosystem condition under any of the alternatives. The information that is presented appears to be based largely on guesses rather than on scientific analysis. For example tables 4.2.3 and 4.2.3.a. show the percentage of riparian areas that would be in proper functioning status under the alternatives. The vast majority of the information in those tables, both on current and future condition, is based on professional judgment according to page 4-S. We discussed the problems with professional judgment earlier in these comments. Little attempt is made to estimate the specific length of time that will be required to improve ecosystem health under the various alternatives. The DEIS States (p. 4-21) that the implementation of alternative 1 is "predicted to be completed within 15 years," a timeframe that is wholly inconsistent with the intent of Rangeland Reform `94 that improvements be accomplished in a timely manner, as well as with key regulatory deadlines for action discussed elsewhere in these comments. With respect to alternative 4, the only Statement made is that it may improve some aspects of ecosystem health "faster" and alternative 3 may improve some aspects of ecosystem health "slower" than alternatives 1 and 2 (p. 4-7; Appendix 18). This vagueness makes it difficult for the public to understand the specific relative merits of alternative 4 vs. alternatives 1,2, and 3. Chapter 4 presents some information on expected changes in grazing management on differing numbers of allotments under the alternatives 1,2 and 3 vs. alternative 4. Tables 4.3.1 and 4.3.1(b) show the number of allotments that would require management changes under alternatives 1 and 4. However, it is difficult to understand why different numbers of allotments fail to meet standards under alternatives 1 and 4. The standards in alternative 4 are identical to those in alternative 2 (DEIS, p. 2-32) which, according to Chapter 4, would have virtually the same Impacts as alternative 1. Therefore it would seem that at least 97 allotments do not meet standards under alternatives 1,2 or 4 and probably fail to meet alternative 3 as well. The DEIS does not specifically describe how BLM staff converted the standards and guidelines into proposed changes in management. It appears that, again, much reliance was ¿í ÿp&laqno;"Ýsional judgmªlÝ rather than the application of objective, quantifiable, repeatable standards, to propose management changes. We request that the supplemental DEIS include a list of which allotments fail to meet standards under the alternatives as well as a clear explanation of how the numbers of allotments failing to meet standards under each alternative was determined. Comments on standards and Guidelines In order to achieve the goals of Range Reform `94, and meet public expectations i e., real on- the-ground improvement in current conditions, the S&Gs must be meaningful and specific and they must provide agency field personnel with sufficient and understandable guidance to ensure that necessary changes in management are identified and carried Out. Regrettably, few of the proposed S&Gs meet these tests. The standards and guidelines are unacceptably vague. The proposed S&Gs in all alternatives are generally much too vague to have any meaning for the public, BLM staff, or on-the-ground grazing management. As such, they fall far short of the kinds of S&Gs that the Interior Department and the agency promised the public would be produced by the States with the assistance of the RACs, following adoption of the Range Reform regulations. In promulgating the Range Reform rules, the Interior Department explicitly recognized that
Accordingly, the Department asserted that the S&Gs would
The Department emphasized that the S&Gs would be more specific than the fallback standards and guides which it described as "relatively general" and which it noted
The proposed standards, however, are virtually identical to the fallback standards as are numerous guidelines and all the S&Gs presented in this document, including the rapid improvement alternative, use language that is extremely general, non-specific, vague and subjective. The S&Gs are dominated by statements such as:
This vague language may read well, but it has little specific meaning for grazing management in the field. How should the public, or BLM staff, interpret such S&Gs? Why are no provisions present in most S&Gs, or the implementation plan, to actually trigger changes in grazing management, if ecosystem health is deteriorating. We are alarmed at the expectation that somehow BLM staff will be able to translate these vague statements into management actions such as changes in season of use, utilization levels, herd management, location of water developments, etc. This document does not provide adequate guidance for BLM staff or the public to understand how or when that is to be accomplished, notwithstanding the Department's explicit promise that the S&Gs and associated allotment review process would do just that. Utilization We welcome the inclusion of some utilization limits in the S&Gs. Utilization limits are essential to proper grazing management (e.g., Clary and Webster, 1989). We are concerned, however, that many of the utilization limits presented allow too much use to effectively restore ecosystem health. We recommend that no limits be adopted that allow greater use than the alternative 4 limits. The limits in alternative 4 are based on scientific studies evaluating the effects of grazing on ecosystem health (see Holecheck et al., 1995), while many of the utilization limits in the other alternatives are based on judgment, including the judgment of laypersons. Note that utilization limits, and the associated improvements in ecosystem health, often result in a substantial increase in both the quantity and quality of forage. Many studies have shown that moderate or even light use can result in greater economic returns to the livestock operator than heavy use (see Attachment 4). Utilization limits, therefore, often lead to improvements both in the health of the ecosystem and the finances of the rancher. We are also concerned that no limits on browse utilization are presented. As the CNPS' ecosystem management proposal noted,
Browse limits for riparian and upland species should be added to the S&Gs. Comments on alternative 4 Alternative 4, the "rapid improvement" alternative, is not significantly different from alternatives 1,2 or 3. It uses identical vaguely worded standards to those in alternative 2. Therefore it suffers from the same basic problem: how are these standards to be translated into changes in grazing management and when? The first two guidelines in alternative I begin with the words "if monitoring or verified observation indicates.... (pp.2-32, 2-33). However, alternative 4, like alternatives 1,2, and 3, does not include a monitoring plan (see below). There is no assurance, therefore, that sufficient "monitoring or verified observation" will Occur to produce meaningful management improvements. Where specific direction is given as in guideline 6 (p. 2-34), vague wording is added so that the specific direction becomes meaningless. For example, guideline 6 reads:
It is impossible to determine from this when, if ever, a minimum stubble height will be implemented. The supplemental DEIS should explain exactly how implementation of alternative 4 will differ from the other alternatives. Absence of a suitability standard None of the S&Gs presented in the DEIS contain a standard that requires the identification of lands suitable for grazing. We regard this as an extremely regrettable omission. Livestock grazing has significant impacts on ecosystem values and other uses. Accordingly, it should be viewed in the context of all other uses and specifically in light of its economic and environmental consequences as well as of the alternative uses foregone. A standard requiring identification of lands as suitable - or not - for grazing, based on economic and environmental analyses that incorporate foregone alternative uses, should be an integral part off any S&Gs that are adopted. Conditional endorsement of alternative 4 Although alternative 4 suffers from many problems including its lack of clarity, a monitoring plan, and timelines, the DEIS analysis reveals it would accomplish improvements in ecosystem health faster than the other alternatives. The DEIS does not provide sufficient information for us to understand exactly how or when this improvement is to be achieved. However, we would endorse the selection of alternative 4, if the omitted assurances and timelines for its implementation were added to it. According to Table 4.3.4.1 (p. 4-28), the total employment change due to the selection of alternative 4 as compared to the other alternatives would be a loss of only nine jobs in all of California. It does not therefore appear likely that the selection of alternative 4 would create irreparable economic damage while, according to the DEIS, it would yield significant environmental benefits. Monitoring No monitoring plan is presented as part of any alternative considered in this DEIS. This is extremely unfortunate. Without a monitoring plan, there is no way for the public or permittees to evaluate the quality of the information upon which BLM will base its management decisions under these S&Gs. Without a monitoring plan and a budget, there is no way to assess the likelihood that the BLM's new approach to range management will be carried out. Chapter 3 does include a good, although general, discussion of monitoring techniques, but it does not State which, if any, of these methods will be used or, more importantly, when they will be used. The section in Chapter 2 on S&G implementation states (p. 2.3):
This is a reasonable approach. However, without a specific monitoring schedule and timelines, it may not lead to management changes on the ground. We are concerned that without specific timelines we will see very slow implementation of these S&Gs, if they are implemented at all. This issue is of particular concern given the severe resource shortages within BLM. Many Resource Areas do not have adequate staffing in fisheries, botany, soils, wildlife, or even range management. Under these Circumstances, it is essential that the agency develop a well thought out monitoring plan to carefully allocate scare staff to gather the information needed to properly manage grazing. Monitoring has long been the Achilles heel of the BLM's range program in California and throughout the West (e.g., U.S. General Accounting Office, 1992)). Indeed, according to this DEIS, California BLM not only has generally failed to do the monitoring that was the basis of the pre-Range Reform grazing program, it has equally generally failed even to do the inventorying that is a prerequisite for monitoring (DEIS Section 3.3,3). Under these circumstances, the BLM has an obligation to provide the public with a specific monitoring plan and projected budgets that will accomplish the goal of Range Reform `94 in the supplemental Eis as well as in the final - an obligation which NEPA underscores (See, e.g., (40 CFR ß 1505.3). A monitoring plan must be included in all the alternatives considered in the supplemental DEIS and in the final Eis -- as well as incorporated in every affected land use plan along with the final S&Gs. The supplemental Eis must also provide more information about the allotment evaluation process that will be followed. Implementation The DEIS contains little specific or clear information on timelines for implementation of S&Gs or for improvement of ecosystem health. This makes it difficult for the public to understand how or when we are to see corrections to improper grazing management. Chapter 4 does present some general information on implementation. it states that 16,267 AUMs would be eliminated within 1-5 years under alternatives 1, 2 and 3 and that 35,901 AUMs would be eliminated under alternative 4 (pp. 4-22, 4-24). However, it does not say where these reductions would take place or what S&Gs would result in the reductions. As noted above in our comments on the environmental consequences section, we do not understand why the numbers of allotments and acres not meeting standards under alternative 4 and under other alternatives are different, because the alternative 4 standards are identical to those in alternative 2 (p. 2-32). To address this conclusion as well as the other concerns we raise regarding implementation, we suggest again that the supplemental DEIS clearly disclose which allotments are not meeting standards, which specific standards are currently being violated on each allotment, and when management corrections will be made. Another aspect of the implementation plan referred to in Chapter 2 also concerns us. On page 2- 3, the plan states that after grazing management related ecosystem damage is identified, the NEPA process will be used to make a decision regarding management changes. What exactly does this mean? What kind of NEPA process is being referred to and how does the BLM intend to manage that process so as to minimize needless further delay in identifying and making critical improvements in grazing management? How will the BLM ensure compliance with the one year deadline for remedial action that has been imposed by the grazing regulations (43 CFR ß 4180.1(a))? We request that the supplemental DEIS or the final Eis clarify how this NEPA process will be used to improve grazing management. Finally, according to the Rangeland Reform regulations, there are at least two specific implementation phases that must be initiated: 1. management must be changed on allotments with known grazing damage before the next grazing season; and 2. other priority allotments must be addressed within three years. The BLM must address known grazing damage before next season. The DEIS does not include information on how or when the BLM will address the kno'wn range health problems disclosed in the DEIS itself. The Rangeland Reform `94 regulations (43 CFR ß 4180.1(a)) require the BLM to take action to improve ecosystem health no later than the start of the next grazing year upon determining that watersheds are not in, and are not making progress toward, properly functioning physical condition. The information in Appendix 7 clearly shows that the vast majority of BLM lands are nOt currently in properly functioning physical condition, whether condition is measured as range condition or ecological status. Table 3.4.1(a) also shows that the majority of riparian areas are not in proper functioning condition. The DEIS does not disclose which of these improperly functioning BLM lands are deemed to be "making progress toward" properly functioning condition and which are not. The DEIS (pp. 3-16, 4-3) also states that at least 82 allotments do not currently meet one or more of the fundamentals of range land health due to grazing management problems. The regulations direct the BLM to take action "not later than the start of the next grazing year" to address these problems as well (43 CFR ß 4180.1). The supplemental DEIS and the final Eis should include an allotment management schedule stating (1) exactly what lands or allotments require management change before next season under the regulations and (2) what actions will be taken to address the problems. In addition, California BLM is currently operating under the fallback S&Gs pursuant to ß 4180.2(f) of the regulations. The fallback S&Gs set several important standards for ecosystem function and requirements for management. What steps, if any, are being taken to implement the fallback standards and guidelines? The BLM has an obligation to provide the public with information similar to that outlined above. Specifically, the BLM must develop and publish a concrete plan, with a specific timetable, pursuant to which it will apply the fallback S&Gs to known high priority allotments within each California district. It simply cannot expect the public to assume that this important work will be done. To assist the BLM with its duty to address known grazing problem areas, apply the fallback standards and review priority allotments, we identify below the allotments where management attentiOn is sorely needed. These allotments are among the many the agency knows have serious grazing conflicts and damage, even though it may not in fact have all the information it would like to have - and we would like it to have - regarding current resource conditions and grazing problems. Horse Pasture Ridge Allotment This Arcata Resource Area allotment contains two Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) -- Eden Valley and Thatcher Ridge. Both WSAs are very important ecologically with extensive rare plant habitats and high value anadramous fish watersheds. On the east side of the Eden Valley WSA, around Bennett Valley, trespass grazing is known to be occurring and is affecting anadramous fish habitat along Elk Creek, a tributary of the Middle Fork of the Yolo River and a potential Wild and Scenic River. The WSA on the other side of this allotment, Thatcher Ridge, together with associated Forest Service roadless areas, forms a key wildland area of 74,000 acres. Grazing in this WSA is believed to be responsible for the ongoing conversion of native vegetation in meadows to tar weed. Ord Mountain Allotment This Desert District allotment includes WSAs and rare plants as well as habitat for listed species such as the desert tortoise and bighorn sheep. Unlike some BLM allotments, it has been monitored, most recently in 1996. According to the monitoring report, utilization levels are excessive, "there is a livestock distribution problem," forage species, which include native grasses, exhibit "poor age structure, low densities and poor vigor," and "[t]he current `grazing system' needs to be reevaluated and modified as needed." Members of CNPS have visited the allotment on several Occasions, most recently two weeks ago, and have reported "shocking" damage to soils and plant communities, particularly around water sources. Carrizo Plain This Area of Critical Ecological Concern within the Caliente District includes several allotments. Carrizo Plain is the largest remaining contiguous fragment of California grassland in the state. The area contains many rare plants including several listed species. There are also several listed animals in the area, such as the giant kangaroo rat. Soda Lake provides wintering habitat for rare birds including sandhill cranes, and many species of raptors. Grazing management in the area is poor. Cattle are supposed to be managed to protect and restore the valuable resources of the plain, but they frequently trespass into areas that are supposed to be protected. Erosion and soil surface damage from trampling, particularly of wet soil, is severe in many areas. Soda Lake receives runoff that is contaminated with feces, urine, and sediment from soil disturbance. CNPS members and others have repeatedly expressed serious concerns to BLM regarding the management and condition of this exceptional area. Twin Peaks Allotment This Susanville District allotment has long been of concern to many because of its outstanding natural resource values and serious grazing conflicts. The allotment includes several WSAs, is used throughout by wild horses and burros, and is home to California and Nevada's blue ribbon mule deer herd. Although riparian areas COnstitute only a small percentage of the acreage in this allotment, BLM has acknowledged in the past that they were being seriously abused as a result of overgrazing by livestock. In 1993-94, the Bureau conducted an evaluation of conditions in this allotment which confirmed these and other problems, Since then we understand the allotment's riparian areas were assessed to determine which, if any, were in proper functioning condition. We further understand that this assessment and other information available to the Bureau reveal that grazing is continuing to cause serious resource damage. Action on priority allotments must occur within three years In promulgating the Range Reform rules, the BLM and the Interior Department made commitments to the public regarding the completion of allotment screening within a three year period, at least for high priority allotments:
Priority status is to be based largely on a review of riparian conditions in allotments (59 Fed. Reg. 14327). The DEIS contains no reference to that three year period or to the use of riparian condition as a key criterion for high priority status. On the contrary, the DEIS clearly implies that the Bureau has no obligation to complete its review by any specific date (up to at least 15 years from the date of the final Eis and Record of Decision). The DEIS also presents no information regarding either the content of the criteria that will be used to determine whether an allotment is a high priority one, or the timeline for their development. We call upon the BLM to develop an implementation plan, complete with budgets, that will enable screening of high priority allotments to be completed by August 21, 1998, and to include that plan in the supplemental EIS along with at least a list of allotments that should be denominated high priority because of riparian damage. If the Bureau believes that there are additional allotments that should be considered high priority because of the condition of other resources, those allotments should also be included. The public should be invited to comment on the proposed allotments and to submit other nominations as well. Interim S&Gs are needed Because of the tremendous difficulty involved in translating the vague statements about ecosystem health that make up most S&Gs into Site specific guidance for changes in grazing management, interim S&Gs are needed. Interim S&Gs will provide BLM managers with measures they can implement immediately while allotment evaluations are being made, For this reason, the Susanville RAC proposed some transitional guidelines (Guideline 14, p. 2.24), along with a monitoring plan. Although these guidelines are incomplete and weak, we support their implementation on allotments where utilization standards are currently absent. The BLM has not complied with its own planning regulations. According to the Bureau, this EIS is being prepared not only to serve as the NEPA document for adoption of final S&Gs, but also for amending the land use plan provisions relating to livestock grazing throughout the State. The EIS, however, fails to comply with a key regulatory requirement for plan amendments. The BLM's planning rules specifically address the plan amendment process. In particular, they direct that "[i]n all cases, the effect of the amendment on the plan shall be evaluated." (43 CFR ß 1610.5-5 (emphasis added)). This DEIS wholly ignores that directive. It contains no evaluation of the effect of amending any land use plan in the state to include the proposed S&Gs. While it asserts that the S&Os are consistent with existing plan provisions, it provides no support for that assertion and, in particular, provides no information about specific grazing provisions of any plan that will be affected by such an amendment, (Such information about Current management as the DEIS does contain is scattered throughout the document (See, e.g. p. A5- 1 discussing the M-I-C process) while the information about plans that is provided is extremely limited and somewhat confusing - Appendix 4 contains the names, dates and geographic areas of plans and some, but apparently not all, of the plan amendments that have been completed.) The DEIS's assertion that the S&Gs are consistent with existing plans is not only unsupported, it is simply not credible: public land grazing management practices must be consistent with BLM land use plans (43 CFR ß 1610.5-3) and, as the BLM recognized in promulgating the Range Reform rules, resource conditions will deteriorate unless current practices are changed. If, as both the Range Reform DEIS and this DEIS assert, public land conditions will improve under the new rules, it must be as the result of changes to practices permitted by plans, and thus to changes in plan provisions! In any event, the Bureau should consult the environmental documents that have been prepared in connection with plan amendments to establish what needs to be done and what kinds of information need to be provided to achieve its purposes with respect to S&Gs. Weeds Non-native invasive weeds are one of the most serious threats to California ecosystems. They are also among the most important economic threats to the livestock industry. The DEIS does briefly discuss some of the problems caused by weeds in grazed plant communities. It also discloses that weed problems are widespread on BLM grazing allotments (p. 3-18). The DEIS does not disclose what percentage of allotments have been surveyed for non-native weeds. All four alternatives State that actions will be taken to combat weeds. However, the alternatives do, not present any schedule for weed surveys on allotments, or for eradication of known infestations. We suggest that alternatives in the supplemental DEIS include a weed inventory and management program and budget Management of special status plants The treatment of special status plant species (SSPS) in this DEIS is extremely weak. This DEIS and the Range Reform process present the BLM with the opportunity to determine the impacts of grazing on SSPS and to adjust management accordingly. None of the alternatives in this DEIS take advantage of that opportunity. Livestock grazing has caused or contributed to the rarity of many California native plant species (Calif. Dept. Fish and Game, 1984-1993; Skinner and Pavlik, 1994). This DEIS Covers 4.4 million acres of grazed plant communities in California and Nevada which provide habitat for at least 149 SSPS (DEIS p. 3-52), including state and federally listed species. The discussion of SSPS in Chapters 3 and 4 is very superficial and requires expansion in the supplemental DEIS. According to the BLM, in 1992, more than 6 million acres of BLM lands had not yet been inventoried for SSPS (Willoughby et al., 1992). DEIS Chapter 3 does not disclose which, if any, of these needed inventories have been performed. There is no way for the BLM to understand the impacts of grazing on SSPS if it does not even have basic information on their location. In addition, if the majority of BLM lands remain unsurveyed, how is the public or the BLM to be assured that the SSPS list in Appendix 11 is complete? In Chapter 4, species are divided into groups based on their expected responses to the alternatives. No explanation is given of how the determination of impacts to the species was made. As with mOSt other environmental parameters, the DEIS' analysis does not reveal any differences among the impacts of the alternatives on special status plants, except that alternative 4 is expected to impact the species "faster" than the other three alternatives (p. 4.15,16). The lack of any differences among impacts of alternatives provides further support for our conclusion that there are no real alternatives presented in this DEIS. Appendix 11 displays information on the effects of livestock grazing on the species under Current management. Appendix 11 does not clearly explain how the grazing effects were determined, but BLM staff have confirmed that essentially all the information is based on professional judgment. We have discussed the problems with professional judgment earlier in these Comments. Appendix 11 states:
While this statement is sometimes true, it is certainly not universally true. If this theory was a primary criterion for assessing grazing impacts to SSPS, then the assessments are seriously flawed. Grazing may harm plants following the growing season in many ways (see, e.g., Fleishner, 1994). Grazing animals may consume perennial species throughout the year. They may trample the soil and damage or destroy above and below ground plant parts and seedbanks. They may damage habitat through deposition of urine, feces, or sediment which alters the soil nutrient or chemical status. They may damage habitat by altering the microclimate through consumption or trampling of overstory vegetation. They may alter hydrologic cycles by facilitating gullying or stream channel changes. Any of these impacts, and others we have not listed, may negatively impact SSPS following the growing season. We suggest that the supplemental DEIS discuss the methods used to determine grazing impacts to SSPS more fully. Some of the information in Appendix 11 conflicts with information in the Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (Inventory) (Skinner and Pavlik, 1994), which is widely cited as the premier scientific reference on rarity in California flora. Several species which are designated in Appendix 11 as being unaffected or positively affected by grazing are listed in the Inventory as possibly threatened by grazing and/or trampling. These species are: Antirrhinum subcordatum This conflict between the information in the DEIS and information in the Inventory concerns us. The alternative submitted to BLM by CNPS contained a guideline for SSPS management where the response to grazing is not known: If a rare or sensitive species is present, but inadequate information is available on grazing impacts, species, a multi-year scientifically sound (peer reviewed) monitoring and evaluation program (conservation strategy) will be developed and initiated immediately. Possible mitigations will also be developed and will be included, on a conditional basis, in the management plan (AMP, Land Use Plan, Resource Area Plan). If after an appropriate monitoring period (14 years), grazing is found to be detrimental to the species OR if monitoring is not performed, then mitigations will be implemented. Conditional mitigations to be considered will include (1) adjusting season of use, (2) increases in minimum allowed stubble height (reductions in allowed use) in sensitive plant habitat, or (3) closing affected pastures to grazing. Where an approved ecosystem management plan, habitat management plan, recovery plan, conservation strategy or other management plan exists for one or more rare species, an evaluation and report will be made of whether the plan is being implemented and monitored. This mirrors, in many ways, BLM's own policy on SSPS management (California BLM Manual Supplement 6840.06 (March 25, 1996)). We recommend that the strategy quoted above be followed for all species for which there is any doubt as to the impacts of grazing. Doubt certainly exists for species listed in the Inventory as being possibly threatened by grazing or trampling. Exclosure studies are the generally accepted method for determining grazing impacts to rare plants and other resources. We suggest that exclosure studies be initiated immediately for the species listed above. We may be able to assist in these studies. CNPS members include many skilled amateur and professional botanists. There may be locations where CNPS volunteers can help the BLM to establish or monitor SSPS studies. Please contact Emily Roberson, if CNPS can be of assistance in this effort. Appendix 11 lists 26 species that are known to be negatively affected by current grazing management. Although Chapter 4 does State that impacts will be reduced, nowhere in the DEIS is any information provided regarding what exactly will be done to reduce these known negative impacts, or when the mitigation will take place. The supplemental DEIS should clearly explain what measures will be taken to protect these species from further damage. The supplemental DEIS should also include a schedule revealing when these measures will be implemented. We further recommend that the supplemental DEIS include a survey or inventory schedule disclosing when allotments or portions of allotments that have not been surveyed for SSPS will be surveyed. Finally, we are aware that some Resource Areas, particularly in the Desert District, do not employ a full time botanist. It is very difficult for the BLM to meet its obligations to protect SSPS under the state and federal Endangered Species Acts and Rangeland Reform `94, to comply adequately with NEPA, or to properly manage native plant communities generally, without adequate staffing in botany. The BLM's 1992 plant management strategy (Willoughby Ct al., 1992) found that 12 additional botany staff were needed in California. We hope that botanical staff will be promptly added to Resource Areas where they are currently absent. Water Quality and the Clean Water Act Section 313(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. ß 1323(a), requires federal agencies to conform their activities to federal and state water quality standards (WQS) and regulations. ~e Mountain Audubon v. Rice 914 F.2d 179, 182(9th Cir. 1990); ONRC v. U.S. Forest Service, 834 F.2d 842, 848 (9th Cir. 1987); Northwest Indian Cemetery v. Block, 795 F.2d 688,697 (9th Cir. 1986), rev'd on other grounds 485 U.S. 439 (1988) all hold that federal land management activities must comply with state WQS under ß 313 of the CWA. This requirement extends to both "point source" and "non point source" activities permitted by federal agencies which may affect water quality, id., and applies to BLM's management of grazing on public lands in California as the DEIS concedes. The DEIS treatment of water quality, however, concerns us because it strongly implies that the BLM is not now complying with its duties under the CWA. Although the DEIS does not inform readers, the state of California has adopted State Basin Plans for all inland waters, including those located on or flowing through BLM-administered lands, in order to ensure that State waters attain the fishable/swimmable goals and other requirements of the CWA. These plans identify beneficial uses for the waters in each basin and set Out WQS that must be met to achieve or preserve those uses. Most of the waters in the state have multiple beneficial uses which typically include non-contact and contact recreation, wildlife and fisheries among them. To attain or preserve these uses, numeric WQS have been established for many, if not all, of the waters covered by this EIS. (See e.g., Central Coast Basin Plan). For cold water aquatic habitat on approximately 350,000 acres of BLM lands covered by the Central Coast Plan, for example, numeric WQS have established for pH, dissolved oxygen and temperature. Indeed, Channel Islands National Park is currently operating under a Cleanup or Abatement order from the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board due to improper grazing management practices which have contaminated waters on Santa Rosa Island. The island, like many BLM lands, is extremely remote and used only for recreation. However, it is still required to comply with the applicable numeric WQS. Unfortunately, the DEIS suggests that clean water standards are still not being met, or even monitored, on at least some BLM lands. Statements such as:
strongly imply both that clean water standards are not currently being met and also that compliance with standards is unlikely to result from this DEl S. In fact, discussions with BLM staff have indicated that it may be the policy of some within the agency to deliberately avoid implementation and enforcement of water quality standards in some places. The DEIS does acknowledge that grazing on public lands is causing water quality problems, even though monitoring data are incomplete. For example:
The riparian data and information about fish presented in the DEIS further suggest that the number of problem areas may be larger than the discussion of water quality in Chapter 3 implies. (See, eg.. Table 3.4.1(a), p. 3.52). However, even where specific water quality problems are known to exist, only "some" of the problems have been resolved (p. 344). The DEIS does not elaborate regarding the location of areas involved, their number, or management changes made or contemplated in response to these water pollution problems. The DEIS and alternatives present little hope for improvement in either water quality monitoring or water quality itself. According to our analysis, as well as the DEIS' own analysis in chapter 4 and Appendix 15, none of the alternatives include adequately specific timelines, standards and/or guidelines to ensure that water quality will be improved on BLM lands throughout California (p. 4.27). Best Management Practices The BLM is required to acquire state certification of compliance with the Clean Water Act for all permitted activities (CWA ß 410(a)). The DEIS implies that the Best Management Practices (BMPs) currently in development will meet that requirement. However, the draft BMPs displayed in Appendix 10 are worded just as vaguely as the S&Gs in the alternatives, with all the associated problems that we have discussed above. They also fail to include a monitoring plan or timelines for implementation, problems which we have also discussed earlier. In essence, the draft BMPs are simply a laundry list of general actions that may, or may not, be taken to protect water quality. For example,
* * *
(p. Al 0.3), are essentially meaningless statements because they lack any specific objective measures. Appendix 9 provides a useful contrast to the draft BMPs. Although also somewhat vague, the Nevada BMPs are much more complete and specific than those proposed for California. The Nevada BMPs include clearer mandates such as the one recommending recording the use of key species (BMP 7.9). Comparison of the two states' BMPs for facilities illustrates the difference between them. The Nevada BMP states, among many specific recommendations:
The California draft BMP states:
Clearly the Nevada BMP will be both easier to implement and more effective than the vague California draft BMP. What is more, even if the BMPs contained objective and specific language and even if BLM were to actually implement them, BLM could not simply assert that it was in compliance with California's WQS. See Northwest Indian Cemetery, 795 F.2d at 697. Indeed, we understand that an Oregon lawsuit has recently forced the federal government to monitor the effectiveness of BMPs in meeting numerical water quality standards. We suggest that the current draft BMPs are unlikely to achieve compliance with water quality standards and that they therefore will not withstand a test of effectiveness monitoring in California. We recommend that the BLM, the Water Resources Control Board, and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards expand, strengthen, and clarify the draft BMPs. We further recommend that the draft BMPs be subjected to scientific peer review and additional public comment and that an effectiveness monitoring program, and schedule, be added to the Draft BMP proposal. Finally, we recommend that the BLM integrate its BMP program with its program for complying with S&Gs, both currently (i.e. the fallback S&Gs) and in the future. Concerns with some assumptions underlying the analysis Some of the assumptions underlying the DEIS analysis set out on p. 1-7 are puzzling. Assumption 1 states that S&Gs will be incorporated into and will amend existing land use plans Our concerns regarding the plan amendment process are discussed earlier in these comments. Assumption 2 states that this EIS will not assess the rangeland health or grazing suitability of any specific tract. We disagree. This EIS can and should disclose what is known about the ecological condition of publicly owned lands in allotments. The EIS repeatedly States that data are available on water quality, riparian condition, upland condition, weed infestation, soil condition, etc. at least for some allotments. The supplemental DEIS should include this available information, along with the one- and three-year schedules for making management changes on priority allotments that the regulations and the Department's commitment require. Assumption 4 states that uses other than livestock grazing will not be analyzed in this DEIS. NEPA directs that cumulative impacts be analyzed in EISs (40 CFR ßß 1508.7 and 1508.8). While it would be impossible for this DEIS to analyze alternative approaches to the management of all other uses, the DEIS should certainly disclose how grazing, recreation, OHV use, and other uses combine to impact ecosystem health. Assumption 5 states that implementation will occur On a priority basis based on "monitoring or verified observation". However, as we have noted, no monitoring plan is included in this DEIS. How and when is this needed monitoring or verified observation to occur? Assumption 10 States that livestock will not be removed if removal will not fix a problem. We agree that livestock should not be removed unless improvements in ecosystem health will result. However, the overwhelming majority of scientific studies indicate that the fastest way to recover rangeland health, especially in degraded riparian areas, is to allow a multi-year period of complete rest from grazing (see, e.g., Elmore and Kauffman, 1994; Clary and Webster, 1989) Moreover, it may be impossible to accurately determine whether livestock removal will improve ecosystem health without actually removing livestock to test its effects. The alternative submitted by CNPS included a proposal for the establishment of reference areas or exclosures throughout BLM lands to test the effects of livestock removal. Many range ecologists have repeatedly made that recommendation as well (see eg. National Research Council, 1994). We understand that there are very few exclosures currently on BLM lands. We recommend that the supplemental DEIS include 9 proposal for establishment of a system of exclosures or reference areas in all plant community types on BLM lands. List of Recommendations For your convenience, we set out all of our recommendations immediately below: 1. The BLM should prepare a supplemental draft environmental impact statement (SDEIS) addressing the concerns raised in these and other public comments on this DEIS. 2. The SDEIS should evaluate real alternative approaches to grazing management including, but not limited to,
3. The SDEIS should separately display data which are derived from objective measures and subjective or "professional judgment" observations. 4. The SDEIS should clarify the differences among the impacts of alternatives, if any. It should include specific estimates of the amount of time that will be required under each alternative to improve the condition of various resources and allotments. 5. The implementation plan should be expanded and clarified to include specific timelines and triggers for action (e.g., if riparian areas are in non~functioning condition, they will be rested from livestock grazing until they attain proper functioning condition). The implementation plan should be incorporated into the alternatives and should be sufficiently clear for the public and BLM staff to understand precisely how and when the S&Gs will be translated into on-the-ground management. The implementation plan should explain how additional NEPA analysis, if any, will be included in on-the-ground implementation. 6. Interim guidelines and monitoring, such as those proposed by the Susanville RAC, should be implemented on all allotments where utilization limits are currently absent. These guidelines should remain in place until more comprehensive Site specific S&Gs are developed. 7. The SDEIS should clearly explain the methods used to determine the numbers of acres and allotments that would meet standards under the various alternatives. 8. A monitoring plan and schedule should be added to all alternatives -- as well as incorporated in every affected land use plan along with the final S&Gs. The plan should identify the objective methods that will be used to monitor the health of different parts of the ecosystem. 9. The SDEIS should present a list of all allotments, grouped by Resource Area. The list should reveal:
10. The SDEIS should also present a management schedule for all allotments. The schedule should show:
11. The BLM should provide the necessary information and analysis in the SDEIS to support amending affected land use plans or develop a new plan for accomplishing the needed amendments. 12. The BLM should develop a weed survey and management plan for all allotments. 13. The Bureau should install a system of exclosures to study the impacts of grazing on SSPS where impacts are unknown. 14. The SDEIS should disclose exactly what actions will be taken to mitigate grazing impacts to SSPS under the different alternatives. These actions, along with a schedule for implementation, should be incorporated into land use plans with the final S&Gs. 15. The BLM, the Regional Water Quality Control Boards, and the Water Resources Control Board should expand, strengthen and clarify the draft BMPs. Draft BMPs should be subjected to peer review and public comment. An effectiveness monitoring program and implementation schedule should be added to the Draft BMP proposal. 16. The ELM should send a letter to all affected interests in California requesting information on known grazing damage. This will provide a nearly cost-free method for the BLM to acquire valuable information on management needs. Conclusion NEPA directs that
The lack of any real alternatives in this DEIS gives rise to concern that BLM had already decided on its management direction before this DEIS was released. In addition, the vague language of the alternatives, and the lack of any monitoring plan, make it almost impossible for the public to understand what that management direction will be. We appreciate the tremendous effort that went into the preparation of this DEIS. We also appreciate the continuing commitment of the ELM to open discussions with the public about the Rangeland Reform `94 process. However, our analysis of this DEIS finds little basis for hope that the health of grazed ecosystems will be substantively and rapidly improved under these S&Gs. It would be extremely unfortunate if, after millions of tax dollars have been invested, after thousands of hours have been invested by the RACs, the public at large, and the BLM, grazing management on ELM lands is not improved. The BLM is well aware that public trust of government agencies is not high. The public strongly supports improved grazing management on public lands (Brunson and Steel, 1994). That is why Rangeland Reform `94 was developed - because of strong political pressure from American voters and taxpayers. And that is why reform of damaging grazing management practices is eventually inevitable, because the taxpayers support it. The BLM has a tremendous opportunity to begin the inevitable process of modernizing grazing management and improving the health of grazed public lands. We make suggestions in these comments about how this goal may be accomplished. We hope that the agency will seriously consider these suggestions, and will take full advantage of the opportunities for improved range health and public trust offered by Rangeland Reform `94. Attachments: [BLM note: Attachments available for review at the BLM California State Office, 2135 Butano Drive, Sacramento, CA 95825] References Brunson, M. 1992. Effects of longer versus short-duration cattle grazing on winter forage available to mule deer in the northern Sierra Nevada foothills. M.S. Thesis. University of California, Davis, CA. Brunson, M.W. and B.S. Steel. 1994. National public attitudes toward federal rangeland management. Rangelands 16(2): 77-S 1. California Department of Fish and Game. 1984-1993. Annual reports of the status of California state listed threatened and endangered plants and animals. (see any year since 1984 for information on grazing threats). Clary, W.B. and B.F. Webster. 1989. Managing grazing of riparian areas in the Intermountain region. Gen. Tech. Rpt. INT-263. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. Elmore, W. and B. Kauffman. 1994. Riparian and watershed systems: degradation and restoration. In: M. Vavra, W.A. Laycock, and R.D. Pieper Eds. Ecological Implications of Livestock herbivory in the West. Society for Range Management, Denver, CO. Fleishner, T.L. 1994. Ecological costs of livestock razing in western North America. Conservation Biology 8: 629-644. Holecheck, J.L., R.D. Pieper and C.H. Herbel. 1995. Range Management: Principles and Practices. 2nd edition. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Loft, E.R., J.W. Menke, J.G. Kie and R.C. Bertram. 1987. Influence of cattle stocking rate on the structural profile of deer hiding cover. J. Wildlife Manage. 51(3): 655-64. National Research Council, 1994. Rangeland health: new methods to classify, inventory, and monitor rangelands. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. Ohmart, R.D. 1996. Historical and present impacts of livestock grazing on fish and wildlife resources in western riparian habitats. In: P.R. Krausman (ed). Rangeland Wildlife. Society for Range Management, Denver. Skinner, M.W. and B. Pavlik. 1994. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. 5th edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. U.S. General Accounting Office. 1992. Rangeland Management - Interior's Monitoring Has Fallen Short of Agency Requirements. GAO/RCED-92-5 1. Willoughby, J., E. Hastey, K. Berg. P. Ditterner, R. Fellows, R. Holmes, J. Knight, B. Radtkey, and R. Rosentreter. 1992. Rare plants and natural plant communities: a strategy for the future. Fish and Wildlife 2000 series. BLM-CA-PT-92-018-6850. U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management, Sacramento, CA. |
| Page last updated: 2002-11-26 11:30:04.043 | ||
|
[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 | |