Current work in wildlife, rivers, public lands, and climate

Tuesday, August 9, 2005
BLM to waste time and taxpayers dollars on Supplemental EIS for New Regulation that ignore science

Today WildEarth Guardians decried the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) announcement “that it will prepare a supplement to the final Environmental Impact Statement on proposed changes to its grazing regulations.”
Contact: WildEarth Guardians

Santa Fe, NM – Today WildEarth Guardians decried the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) announcement “that it will prepare a supplement to the final Environmental Impact Statement on proposed changes to its grazing regulations.” (See the BLM website.)

The changes to the regulations were proposed in December 2003 and a final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was issued on June 17, 2005. The rule changes shifted the emphasis on public land management from wildlife, water and environmental quality to the new stated aim of “improving BLM’s working relationships with ranchers.”

Shortly thereafter it was discovered that the BLM had ignored comments from its own scientist and scientists from the Fish and Wildlife Service criticizing the rules, stating the changes would have adverse impacts on wildlife. The FEIS even concludes the grazing regulations are “beneficial to animals.”

“Rather than spending more time and taxpayer money on a Supplemental EIS for a rule that will harm wildlife and water, the BLM should put the new rule where it belongs: in the trash basket,” said Billy Stern, Grazing Reform Program Coordinator for WildEarth Guardians. “Releasing a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement will not change the basic conclusions of the scientists: that these rule changes are harmful to wildlife, to our rivers and streams, and to water quality.”

The rules were expected to go into effect this summer, but a lawsuit filed by the environmental group Western Watershed Project in July claiming that many of the conclusions in the FEIS were arbitrary and capricious seems to have delayed final implementation of the rules and may have lead to the decision to issue a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.

“Wildlife populations are struggling throughout the West, often due to the impacts from grazing,” continued Stern. “While wildlife and scenic public lands are enjoyed by millions, these rules benefit a small special interest group favored by the Bush administration of fewer than 25,000 ranchers who lease public land.”

The regulations give new rights to the livestock industry on the 160 million acres of land that it leases from the American people and make it harder for the average citizen to participate in on-the-ground decisionmaking. The rules also make it harder for the agency to respond when they find reductions in grazing are needed to protect the environment.

“The Bush administration is making it clear that they want to take the ‘public’ out of public lands,” said Stern. “BLM Director Kathleen Clarke claims the ‘regulations will produce long-term rangeland-health benefits’ including ‘increased vegetation along stream banks, which will reduce soil erosion and provide more habitats for wildlife.’ That all sounds wonderful. However, only one of more than a dozen changes to the regulation has any potential benefit to streams and wildlife: The regulation that makes it easier for a rancher to rest an area from grazing. The other changes move forward the administration’s agenda of privatizing public lands and limiting public involvement.”

The new rules will no longer require the BLM to consult with the public on several key issues: designating and adjusting allotment boundaries, renewing/issuing grazing permits and leases, modifying permits or leases, or issuing temporary permits or leases. This means that citizens will no longer be informed or have opportunity to participate in the management of our public lands.

The bulk of the regulatory changes give new rights to the industry making it harder to remove livestock from the publicly-owned lands managed by the BLM. Specifically, the regulations:

Give the livestock industry title to future structures (fences, wells and pipelines) built at government expense for the benefit of the industry. This means compensation would be required if the lease or permit was revoked.

Remove the requirement for the BLM to seek ownership of the water rights associated with Federal land, when they become available under state law. The livestock industry is increasingly arguing that they have a right to graze on any land near their water rights, even if they don’t own the land.

Expand the definition of “grazing preference” linking it to a specific amount of forage, rather than a specific area or “allotment.” This means with any decrease in forage due to drought, weed invasion or generally declining conditions, livestock would be given preference to forage over wildlife or wild horses, and it opens up the industry to arguing that they can use up all available forage in an area, leaving nothing but dust and bare soil, no matter what the damage.

Modify the definition of “interested public” in a way that would exclude newcomers to an area from participating in livestock grazing decisions, since they would have had no chance to comment of previous decisions, and burdens the rest of the public by requiring continuing involvement to maintain “interested public” status even if they are only interested in specific decisions.

Remove public involvement from biological assessments and evaluations done for wildlife, even if they could have contributed new scientific documentation or evidence. This leaves such studies to be written “in house” and reviewed and revised only by government officials who may or may not have wildlife or ecological expertise.

Call for taking up to two years for proposing management changes, and up to five years to phase in grazing reductions needed to protect wildlife or water quality, rather than requiring a response the following year. This allows for damage to continue up to seven years.

State that all management must be supported by monitoring data, a change which the environmental community supports. However, after years of budget woes, it is unlikely that the BLM has conducted or will conduct comprehensive monitoring, further limiting the agency’s ability to effectively manage and make timely changes when necessary.

Leave current livestock numbers and grazing practices in place while areas are being reviewed under regulatory or legal action.

Allow livestock grazing permit holders who have violated BLM laws and regulation on one allotment to continue to hold other permits, leaving these areas vulnerable to further violations and ecological damage.

WildEarth Guardians represent more than 1500 residents of the Southwest who believe public lands should be managed primarily for the protection of fish and wildlife.