July 2, 2023
To: Ms. Tracy Stone-Manning, National Director of the Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C.
From: Dr. William Payne, Dean of the College of Agriculture, Biotechnology, and Natural Resources, University of Nevada-Reno
Director Manning,
It is my pleasure to offer these comments regarding the currently proposed Public Lands Rule. The comments are a compilation of College of Agriculture faculty with expertise in policy and the sciences of rangeland ecology and management, and resource economics here at the University of Nevada-Reno.
Best Regards,
William Payne, Ph.D., Dean of CABNR
Cc: Barry L Perryman, Brad Schulz, Paul Meiman, Bob Alverts, Tom Harris, Mike Taylor, Buddy Borden, Tamzen Stringham, Gary McCuin
College of Agriculture, Biotechnology, and Natural Resources, University of Nevada-Reno Ecological and Economic Policy Assessment of Comments on USDI, Bureau of Land Management Conservation and Landscape Health 88 FR 19583 Proposed Rule Change; (43 CFR Parts 1600 and 6100); [LLHQ230000.23X.L117000000.PN0000]; RIN: 1004-AE92; July 3, 2023
Treatment of the Founding Principle:
The principal statement upon which the entire rule change proposal is based, is found in section III. Background; A. The Need for Resilient Public Lands (last sentence); As intact landscapes play a central role in maintaining the resilience of an ecosystem, the proposed rule emphasizes protecting those public lands with remaining intact, native landscapes and restoring others”.
While maintaining options for future generations through resilience is the highest and best plan for public land management, the foundation expressed in the rule change document: “…protecting those public lands with remaining intact, native landscapes and restoring others…” is grounded in neither ecological nor economic realities. First, plant communities are dynamic systems that evolve, going through successional changes even in protected circumstances. For instance, if sagebrush systems could be cordoned off from invasive species and fire disturbances at a moment in time (an impossibility), a half-century later they would not resemble the same systems structurally or compositionally that were protected five decades prior. Shrub densities and age classes would change over the landscape as plants mature and die while new stands develop. Understory species (grasses, forbs, soil biotic crusts) would shift and change along with sagebrush stand changes. Areas that were excellent seasonal habitat become poor seasonal habitat.
Second, ecologically there is no such thing as “…remaining intact, native landscapes”. It is an indefinable term; and which entities will decide what intact could mean? For simplicity’s sake, and despite the fact that there is no scientific ecological support for this claim, assume that intact means that there are absolutely NO exotic, invasive species present in the plant community. Under this assumption if one could possibly circumscribe an area of sagebrush system that contained within its boundary no invasive annual grasses, on the other side of the boundary, invasive annual grasses will and do exist. If the non-invaded area was protected from the livestock grazing process, invasive species will expand into the area and become the dominant lifeform (Gornish et al., 2023; Davies et al. 2021; Perryman et al., 2021; Stephenson et al., 2022; Perryman et al., 2020; Porenski et al. 2020; Perryman et al., 2018). Invasive species will expand into the protected area regardless of management efforts. Protection, and even active management efforts, will not prevent or eliminate the presence of invasive species. The key is preventing or reducing their dominance, not their presence.
If remaining intact, native landscapes refer to landscape compositions and networks of the past, then things like Little Ice Age Climate features, interstate and intrastate linear disturbances such as roads and railroads, urban development, fencing, and the addition of free-roaming bison herds and their unmanaged grazing behavior, intentional burning by Native Americans, and extensive naturally ignited unsuppressed fires would have to be included in the management parameters.
We cannot go back in time in an attempt to produce what someone’s preferred perception of an 18th or 19th century landscape structure and composition might have been. It is an ecological impossibility.
Ecosystems cannot be perpetually protected, ever…anywhere, from any disturbance or invasion without dire ecological future consequences. There is no scientific evidence that protection will ensure health and resilience of landscapes. In fact, all evidence is to the contrary. This same management approach (Pristine-Management-Paradigm; Perryman et al. 2003) employed over the past century has led to the fuel accumulations driving devastating wildfires and species invasions of the present. Additionally, with the advent of invasive species in all landscapes since the 19th century, native ecosystems in the western U.S. are now novel ecosystems with new species compositions and should be managed differently than they were even a few decades ago. Protection to maintain the current ecological state or phase forever, is neither ecologically possible nor a thoughtful idea. The proposed rule is an example of linear thinking approaches to natural resource management that do not consider unintended negative consequences of the action. The rangeland ecology and management profession has embraced non-linear management approaches for at least three decades. Non-equilibrium and non-hysteresis models of plant community changes are a product of modern science and used by the BLM today. The proposed rule nullifies the entire scientific ecological field and instead proposes to base the rule on bad, antiquated, thoroughly debunked science of protection to achieve an imagined state of ecological balance, the pristine-management-paradigm. The proposed rule will set scientific discovery and progress back, resetting the clock for decades. False, linear ecological paradigms have led and will continue to lead to consequences that limit resilience and our management options for the future.
It is also important to recognize that the underpinning language discussed above that forms the foundation for the entire rule change is not found in the Purpose (Section 6101.1) of the proposed rule or in the discussion of its purpose (Page 19588). The proposed rule lacks any clear statement of purpose that is meaningful, ecologically sound and logically related to the actions encouraged or required by the remainder of the proposed rule. As a result, the reader is left to search the other sections of the proposed rule to attempt to determine its actual purpose.
One reasonable place to look for indications of purpose is the discussion of the proposed rule’s purpose (Page 19588). Here, the reader finds two dominant themes. First, there is a strong emphasis on “establishing a regulatory framework”. Is there any evidence that “a new regulatory framework” will do anything to ensure ecosystem resilience? Second, there is a surprising and undeniable emphasis on managing old-growth forests. This section relies heavily on Executive Order 14072 and discusses the importance of healthy forests on BLM lands, placing considerable emphasis on mature and old-growth forests. Interestingly, two-thirds of the text in this section that describes the proposed rule’s purpose, is devoted to managing for resilience of old and mature forests on BLM lands. How much forest, and specifically mature and old-growth forests does BLM manage? Is the proposed rule only applicable to forests managed by BLM? The word “forest” appears an impressive 5-times in this relatively short section that discusses the proposed rule’s purpose, while “rangeland” does not appear in this section even once. The word “rangeland” only occurs 3-times in the entire proposed rule and only because of references to “rangeland health”. Is the purpose of the proposed rule to guide management of mature and old-growth forests on BLM lands? If not, and it is intended to guide management across all lands managed by BLM, how applicable are EO 14072 and concepts regarding health of mature and old-growth forests to other ecosystems such as rangelands? Also worth mentioning is the intersection of old-growth woodlands and pinion-juniper encroachment concerns and patterns. Encroachment occurs under protection management scenarios. Old growth means “old growth”, a plant community nearing the end of its natural life cycle. Protection beyond that parameter has devastating consequences as witnessed by recent wildfires in BLM Oregon & California Railroad Revested forest areas of western Oregon. Again, the proposed rule is based upon mythological ecology without any connection to reality.
The underpinning language of the rule change is hopelessly flawed and impossible to achieve from a scientific, ecological standpoint. The entire approach is based on imposing plant community land use standards on dynamic ecosystems. Related to the false ecological paradigm that underpins this effort, the proposed rule also fails to recognize that all lands are part of human managed landscapes.
The proposed rule completely ignores more than a century of Congressionally approved legislative bills that reflect the definition of conservation established by President Roosevelt and Forest Service Chief Gifford Pinchot, that conservation is simply the wise use of natural resources, for the greatest good, for the greatest number in the long run. Through the years federal agencies, in response to Congressional legislation, developed sound policies, rules, and proven practices in support of this definition, along with multiple-use and sustained yield practices of natural resource management. This document, however, ignores this history as if it never existed. This history represents multiple attempts to develop and describe the relationship between human managers and the systems for which they manage natural resources. It may be incomplete or imperfect, but it should not be ignored. Again, the proposed rule attempts to turn an overarching philosophy (conservation) applicable everyplace, into a largely static land use intended to achieve perpetual, largely static outcomes from systems that are dynamic in nature. The rule is based on an ecological myth.
Some of the key historic laws that established the foundation of conservation principles through sustained yield multiple-use management of natural resources include:
Hatch Act of 1887, Forest Reserve Act of 1891, Forest Fire Prevention Act of 1897, Sundry Civil Act of 1897, Forest Reserves Transfer Act of 1905, Weeks Law of 1911, Smith-Lever Act of 1914, National Park Act of 1916, Clark-McNary Act of 1924, Recreation and Public Purpose Act of 1926, McSweeney-McNary Act of 1928, Knutson-Vandenburg Act of 1930, Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of 1936, Oregon and California Railroad Grantland Act of 1937, Pittman-Robertson Act of 1937, Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act of 1960, McIntire-Stennis Act of 1962, Wilderness Act of 1964, Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act of 1964, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, National Trails Act of 1968, National Environmental Policy Act of 1970, Mining and Mineral Policy Act of 1970, Wild Horse and Burro Act of 1971 (and subsequent amendments), Rural Development Act of 1972, Endangered Species Act of 1973, Forest and Rangeland Renewable resources Planning Act of 1974, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, National Forest Management Act of 1976, Clean Water Act of 1977, and Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978.
For a rule change to suggest that conservation is a “use” in and of itself not only violates the century-long history of resource management legislation and practice, but also creates an Executive Branch definition established by administrative rule. Congress has defined conservation in numerous legislative acts, including those listed above. To suggest that new regulations are needed to implement this new definition, developed by and for one specific agency, is without merit and would cause confusion and inconsistencies. There is nothing in the proposed rule that the BLM cannot accomplish under existing law, regulation, rule, and policy. Why is a rule addition necessary? Further, there are no details in the document. A rule must contain specifics regarding implementation and compliance, otherwise it is open for widely held interpretations among polar viewpoints, which leads to more litigation. Some examples are presented below under specific comments.
Conservation is an overarching philosophy, not a land use. The Society of American Foresters Dictionary of Forestry defines conservation as, “the management of a renewable natural resource with the objective of sustaining its productivity in perpetuity while providing for human use compatible with sustainability of the resource. For a forest this may include managed, periodic cutting and removal of trees followed by regeneration conservation.” The Society for Range Management defines conservation as, “The use and management of natural resources according to principles that assure their sustained economic and/or social benefits without impairment of environmental quality.”
The document once again ignores and seemingly rejects more than seven decades of active natural resource management applying the principles of multiple use and sustained yield and the work of thousands of dedicated resource professionals, academics, and leaders.
Multiple Use was defined by Congress in the 1960 and 1964 Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Acts, the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, the National Forest Management Act of 1976, the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978. The Society of American Foresters Dictionary of Forestry defines Sustained Yield as “the achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level annular periodic output of the various renewable resources without impairment of the productivity of the land.” Likewise, the Society for Range Management defines it as, “Production of specified resources or commodities at a given rate for a designated unit of time.” There is no need for a new definition of conservation as a use, especially one that pertains only to the rule document and nowhere else in scientific literature, legislation, or case law.
Another major flaw that is not addressed in any way is the question of professional capacity and the appropriations to fund that capacity. The Bureau of Land Management is in some cases 30-years or more behind in renewing current grazing permits as one example. There is a current shortage of trained and experienced rangeland ecology and management graduates from both accredited and non-accredited university programs. The Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, and the NRCS have been partnering with the Society for Range Management over the past several years in an attempt to recruit more high school graduates and other interested publics into the profession. Land management is a profession that requires specific training and education. Other degree tracks such as environmental studies do not qualify graduates to work as land managers. These are professional positions with stringent requirements and educational qualifications. Given the current workforce shortage, it would be impossible to implement such a rule for a decade or more until shortages are overcome. There is a backlog of data collection and permitting decisions now with the current workforce. Implementation of a form of this rule would create an unfunded mandate that could never be achieved.
The draft rule also places renewed emphasis on prioritizing the designation of new Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Many dedicated and competent natural resource professionals have effectively managed the Public Lands for seven decades. Over forty years ago, BLM Districts followed the 1980 Final Guidelines for Areas of Critical Environmental Concern during their respective Resource Management Planning processes established by FLPMA. BLM Districts aggressively examined and dedicated many ACECs during the intervening time through Resource Management Planning. As an example, forty years ago this year, the Oregon Roseburg District Office evaluated fifteen recommended ACECs. Seven areas were found to be qualified for their relevance and importance and were designated in the 1983 Resource Management Plan. A significant effort to identify and protect lands suitable for designation as ACEC has been ongoing, and the legislative authorities and planning rules for creating ACECs have not changed. New ACECs as recommended by this proposal should be the rare exception, making no further action necessary.
Moreover, lands dedicated as ACECs do not necessarily preclude development, but help ensure the consideration of the sensitive values at issue in those cases where appropriate development may be planned. Approximately 25% of BLM-managed public lands are already included in special management designations: Wilderness Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, National Conservation Areas, National Monuments, Wilderness Study Areas, ACECs, and other designations made either through the legislative or administrative processes that already exist. This indicates that BLM already has the necessary rules and procedures in place to protect special areas, making the proposed rule unwarranted.
It also appears the proposed rule has not gone through the process of advanced notice of proposed rulemaking that is important to all interests and constituencies. No informational meetings have been set in several key states with significant BLM land areas (e.g., Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Utah, Wyoming). Such meetings should be added as part of the process.
Socio-Economic Impacts Insufficiently Explored
The economic and fiscal implications of conservation leases on rural communities and counties, which are likely to restrict or prohibit commercial uses (mineral, oil and gas, animal agriculture, etc.) and recreation on large areas of public land, have been left out of consideration and insufficiently analyzed. There is no discussion of how the implementation of conservation leases will fiscally impact federal payments-in-lieu-of-taxes (PILT) for public lands associated with rural counties and municipalities.
There is no discussion of how conservation leases will exclude public land from potential conversion to municipal and industrial development in areas adjacent to urban areas, thereby restricting continued economic and population growth in these areas (e.g., public lands on the outskirts of the Las Vegas metro area in Clark Co., Nevada).
In addition to economic and fiscal impacts, there is no discussion of how continued expansion of renewable energy projects on public land, projects critical to achieving the national climate goals, will affect rural community infrastructure and school systems.
Financial institutions such as Farm Credit make loans to rangeland ranch enterprises. If cattle are reduced due to lower AUM allocations, loans that are on the books of financial institutions will be under pressure. Reduced herd size will force some federal land grazers to bankruptcy or operate with revenue streams that are incapable of servicing existing loans. These loans are on the books of financial institutions and will force bank actions that include collateral takeovers that are below loan values. This would have devastating consequences for bank balance sheets while the national banking system is under current pressure.
Fragmentation of Public Lands through Conservation Leases will Restrict Economic Activity
There is no discussion on how the introduction of conservation leases and the increased use of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) could be used strategically to fragment the landscape in order to restrict commercial development beyond the geographic footprint of the lease/ACEC.
Multiple Use and Access to Public Lands
Expansion of conservation leases and ACECs could restrict recreation on public lands, thereby rendering those lands effectively private for the lifetime of the conservation lease and contravening the spirit of the multiple use mandate.
Relationship with Grazing Leases
Several aspects of the relationship between conservation leases and grazing leases are insufficiently addressed. For example, would targeted-livestock grazing be an approved conservation practice? Targeted grazing is a widely used tool for controlling the dominance of invasive annual grasses. If so, would it economically benefit ranchers to elect to use conservation leases rather than grazing leases? Will it restrict the use of a scientifically sound management tool for the sake of an anti-grazing ideal that is not grounded in science?
Further, there is limited discussion in the proposed regulation on the administrative requirements to apply for/maintain a conservation lease. Would there be support offered to smaller entities, such as many current grazing lessees, to develop conservation plans necessary to successfully obtain conservation leases?
Conflicting Public-Land Leases
The procedure to resolve potential conflicts where an entity wants to pursue a conservation lease on a piece of public land currently used for a commercial purpose (e.g., mineral, oil and gas, livestock grazing) is not explained.
Agency Capacity
It is well-known that the BLM faces challenges processing renewals of current public-land grazing permits given current staffing. The proposed regulation does not sufficiently address how agency staffing will expand to handle the increased volume of administrative work associated with the creation of conservation leases and expanding the permitting process currently used for grazing permits to all BLM-managed lands. These activities require trained professionals with degrees held in rangeland ecology and management or similar programs. The document does not address this human capital challenge at all.
Specific Comments:
Page 19584: “the proposed rule clarifies that conservation is a use on par with other uses of the public lands under FLPMA’s multiple-use and sustained-yield framework.” This statement relies on FLPMA language, Sec 103, C, (definition of multiple use): …. “a combination of balanced and diverse resource uses that takes into account the long-term needs of future generations for renewable and nonrenewable resources, including, but not limited to, recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural scenic, scientific and historical values;” These either produce a tangible product in demand by society, have unique features that attract visitors, or are sufficiently unique from other areas to benefit the scientific community. Conservation as a land use has none of these readily identifiable features or clear benefits to society. Conservation is not a clear use but rather is an overarching approach and philosophy. Land uses are implemented with conservation in mind, to the extent possible (e.g., minerals, oil and gas) with a specific land use.
Page 19586: with respect to conservation leases: “These leases would be available to entities seeking to restore public lands or provide mitigation for a particular action. They would not override valid existing rights or preclude other, subsequent authorizations so long as those subsequent authorizations are compatible with the conservation use.” There is no definition of “compatible” and no discussion of how it would be determined or who would determine it. The statement also ignores the reality that resources such as minerals occur where they occur. Many, especially rare-earth minerals, are essential to meeting industrial and national security needs. The proposed rule has a strong potential to preclude access to these resources in perpetuity, adversely affecting economic well-being of local communities and states, and national defense.
Page 19586: “Any conservation lease issued for the purposes of providing compensatory mitigation would require a term commensurate with the impact it is offsetting.” With respect to minerals, many ROW and utility/transportation distribution systems, and possibly oil and gas, conservation leases for these land uses are permanent, given the permanence of these uses and the indefinite duration of the effects of their actions within their footprint. No other permitted land use has a guarantee of being allowed forever in a specific area. It is then no longer a lease but a perpetual right.
Page 19586: “Conservation leases and ACECs could also provide opportunities for co-stewardship with federally recognized Tribes and additional protections for cultural resources.” What data exists indicating that cultural resources need additional protection? Archaeological laws, regulations and policies are broad, strongly adhered to and very effective. This statement seems to award the potential for co-stewardship to federally recognized tribes but no other entity, including land users. This seems quite exclusionary.
Page 19587: The proposed rule responds to, and advances directives set forth in several Executive and Secretarial Orders and related policies and strategies.” Executive orders and Secretarial orders are intended to clarify laws, regulations and policy based on said laws and regulations.” Proposed rules are not developed to further said Orders. As stated, this is a backwards approach outside the normal use of Laws, regulations, policy and associated Orders.
Page 19588: Section 6101.4—Definitions
“This section provides new definitions for concepts such as conservation, resilient ecosystems, sustained yield, mitigation, and unnecessary or undue degradation, along with others used throughout the proposed rule text. These definitions apply only in 43 CFR part 6100.” Changing long-standing and clearly understood definitions crafted by professional land management societies to address a single proposed Federal rule, which is subservient to Congressional legislation (FLPMA) has no legal or land management basis. Going forward it will only result in confusion and management paralysis.
Page 19588: “The proposed rule would define ‘conservation’ in the context of these regulations to mean maintaining resilient, functioning ecosystems by protecting or restoring natural habitats and ecological functions.” There is no definition provided for what constitutes a natural habitat; thus, it can become a moving target subject to the interpretation of one individual or organization, which may change with time or location. It fails to recognize a modern reality: there are many novel plant communities present on BLM land, often with introduced species (plant, animal and fish) that benefit wildlife and other uses. If natural means absence of non-native species, that is impossible to achieve and maintain in most areas (invasive plants are not going away and none have yet to be drastically reduced, let alone eliminated). Many of these were introduced purposely to achieve management goals and objectives, because native species are notoriously unsuited for restorative seedings (or have few propagule sources) for many arid-lands, given the abundance and adaptability of undesired invasive species, especially invasive annual grasses, but also other listed noxious weeds (e.g., knapweeds and thistles).
Page 19589: The proposed definition would also clarify that Indigenous Knowledge can be high-quality information that should be considered alongside other information that meets the standards for objectivity, utility, integrity, and quality set forth in Federal law and policy. What about knowledge from any other individual, family, group or organization that has spent decades of time on the area being considered? A multi-generation ranching family often has substantial knowledge and high-quality information that deserves equal consideration of the information and knowledge available to decision makers. Conversely, much ecologically based traditional native knowledge has been lost over time since treaty and settlement implementations.
Page 19589 (and definition on page 19598): “The proposed rule would define the term ‘Indigenous Knowledge’ to reflect the Department of the Interior’s policies, responsibilities, and procedures to respect, and equitably promote the inclusion of, Indigenous Knowledge in the Department’s decision making, resource management, program implementation, policy development, scientific research, and other actions. Indigenous Knowledge (IK) means a body of observations, oral and written knowledge, practices, and beliefs developed by Tribes and Indigenous Peoples through interaction and experience with the environment. IK is applied to phenomena across biological, physical, social, cultural, and spiritual systems. IK can be developed over millennia, continues to develop, and includes understanding based on evidence acquired through direct contact with the environment and long-term experiences, as well as extensive observations, lessons, and skills passed from generation to generation. IK is developed by Indigenous Peoples including, but not limited to, Tribal Nations, American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians.”
This proposed rule elevates Indigenous tribes and peoples above all others. Why is this appropriate? Tribal citizens are likely to have knowledge that others for the most part, probably lack. This knowledge, however, does not automatically carry over to better knowledge about land management. Tribes and their members have no greater history (interaction) than non-tribal entities with invasive species and other issues on public lands that have appeared since the late 1800s. Focusing on any one entity will ultimately result in valuable information that others possess not being included in future planning processes and decisions. Information from all available sources should be readily sought, with equal effort toward and value of all groups. The elevation of indigenous groups above all others also appears to occur on page 19592. Specifically, …. “to protect resilient ecosystems; and meaningfully consult with Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations. Authorized officers would be required to include Indigenous Knowledge in decision making and encourage Tribes to suggest ways in which Indigenous Knowledge can be used to inform the development of alternatives, analysis of effects, and identification of mitigation measures”. Consultation with Tribal Governments should be encouraged in order to provide input for any issue related to land management (regardless of whether or not this rule is adopted). Tribal Governments should not be excluded from the process, nor should any other group or individual with appropriate knowledge. The level of encouragement for participation conferred toward tribes should be no less or no greater than that put toward others.
Page 19592: “… the proposed rule does not prohibit land uses that impair ecosystem resilience; it simply requires avoidance and an explanation if such impairment cannot be avoided.” This same concept seems to occur under NEPA. If NEPA covers this approach why is an additional layer of compliance needed? Additional compliance requirements will only lengthen the process of any land management action/decision and often reduce decision space and flexibility. A longer process to achieve the same outcome will only work against the need for timely and flexible management decisions, which ultimately works against maintaining ecosystem resilience.
Page 19592: “Proposed § 6103.1–1(b) through (d) would require the authorized officer to establish goals, objectives, and success indicators to ensure that each land health standard can be measured against resource conditions and to periodically review authorized uses for consistency with the fundamentals of land health. Once land health standards and guidelines are established, any action in response to not meeting them would be subject to § 6103.1–2(e)(2) and taken in a manner that takes into account existing uses and authorizations. Under the proposed rule, the BLM may establish national indicators in support of the implementation of the fundamentals of land health.” Nowhere in the discussion associated with this statement does the proposed rule consider site potential. Every ecological site, or suite of ecological sites across a landscape has a specific potential for plant species, plant communities and biomass production. Goals, objectives, standards and guidelines have to fall within the sites/landscape potential. If not, failure is the eventual outcome, and likely the loss of ecological resilience, or inappropriate implementation of a land use, including “conservation” should it become a land use.
Page 19584: (1st paragraph of Executive Summary): Is it true that the “public lands are increasingly degraded and fragmented due to adverse impacts from climate change and a significant increase in authorized use”? Can this be substantiated? Blanket statements such as this are mis-leading and offer no scientific evidence of the claims. Landscapes include humans and some fragmentation is a consequence of economic development that cannot be removed, notwithstanding there is no specific definition of fragmentation, and fragmentation can be good or bad depending upon the combination of species and the value judgements placed upon them. Parsing of landscapes can just as easily increase biodiversity as it may threaten other species or groups. Again, bad science underpins the proposed rule. Which authorized uses have increased? Livestock grazing has decreased over the past few decades while recreation (motorized, non-motorized, and dispersed) has increased.
Page 19584: (2nd paragraph of Executive Summary and throughout document): This section states that the definition of conservation includes “protection and restoration”. The actual definition of “conservation” in the proposed rule (page 19598: Definitions) does not just include “protection and restoration”, but rather limits conservation to just those two components! The Society of American Foresters and Society for Range Management definitions of “conservation” are much more inclusive of a wide variety of efforts. The overriding tone of the proposed rule and its definition of “conservation” separates conservation from land uses and puts them at odds with one another. This is a false dichotomy, a gross oversimplification of conservation vs. use, and another example of non-hysteresis, linear thinking. Managing uses is what conservation is…or should be (e.g., Range Conservationists were not, and are not government employees whose job it was to eliminate livestock grazing, but rather those who promoted and pushed for appropriate or improved approaches to livestock grazing management).
Page 19585 (under “Management Decisions to Build Resilient Public Lands” (III.B)): Here, the proposed rule states that conservation is “not limited to lands allocated to preservation, but applies to all BLM-managed lands and programs.” What is “preservation” compared to “protection”? Protection is a rejected linear management approach, and it is unclear what the definition of preservation is. Does this statement imply that the intent of the proposed rule is to place all BLM land into preservation (protection)?
This section continues with “Conservation, in this proposed rule, includes management of renewable resources consistent with the fundamentals of land health (described below), designed to reach desired future conditions through protection, restoration and other types of planning, permitting, and program decision making.”
The first part of this statement is in direct conflict with the definition of conservation presented in the proposed rule – it limits conservation to protection and restoration, and this text includes management of renewable resources. The desired future condition approach is appropriate ecologically, but it is not defined here and in conflict with the main underpinning concept of “intact landscapes”. For instance, livestock grazing management should be included as a conservation action, but the proposed definition for conservation indicates otherwise since it limits conservation to protection and restoration.
Page 19584, (2nd paragraph of Executive Summary): “It also advances tools and processes to enable wise management decisions based on science and data”. There is no indication of how the rule would do this, and who or what entity determines what wise management may be or how the rule will promote management based on science and data.
Page 19585, (Management Decisions to Build Resilient Public Lands; III.B.): “…the BLM does not currently have regulations that promote conservation efforts for all resources.” Livestock grazing regulations currently promote conservation efforts for all resources. True, they focus on a single land use (livestock grazing), but promote conservation efforts for watershed, wildlife habitat quality, fuels management, carbon sequestration, air quality, water quality, fisheries, and other ecosystem services. Rangelands are a kind of land, not a land use (Society for Range Management Glossary). The resource and use should not be confused. If what is meant is that the BLM currently does not have regulations for all of the land uses they manage, then that is an appropriate statement. However, the proposed rule lacks a clear statement of purpose as was discussed above. The quote presented above from Page 19585 appears to be an attempt to clarify the intent of the proposed rule and provides solid evidence that the authors have no realistic conceptions about management and conservation.
Page 19586 (Science for Management Decisions to Build Resilient Public Lands; III.C.): This section addresses extending fundamentals of land health to all uses, and in doing so directs them to make determinations about the causes of failures to achieve land health.
There is no description of how other land uses will be assessed or monitored other than the statement, “To support conservation actions and decision making, the proposed rule applies the fundamentals of land health (taken verbatim from the existing fundamentals of rangeland health at 43 CFR 4180.1 (2005)) and related standards and guidelines to all renewable-resource management, instead of just to public-lands grazing.” Holding other land uses to the same or similar standards as livestock grazing has merit, however, it is not that simple. A blanket approach for all uses will not be possible because some land uses (e.g., mining, or other extractive uses for example) have very different impacts. The document must clarify what rangeland health fundamentals will be applied for each designated use described in previously executed land use categories.
Pages 19587-19588, (Related Executive and Secretarial Direction; IIIF): EO 13990; Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis, “…use science to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, bolster resilience to the impacts of climate change and prioritize environmental justice”. No entity, legislative action, individual, or court has a clear definition for “environmental justice” let alone determined how to prioritize it. Inserting an indefinable, value laden political subject into a rule document is reckless and less than thoughtful. Remove the statement entirely. It has the potential to be at odds with ecology and economics. Justice in the court system frequently leads to the exacerbation of ecological disasters. Case in point, the spread of invasive species and dominance has been fostered by the Justice System time and time again through limitations on targeted livestock grazing implementation.
EO 14008; Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad
“…build resilience against effects of climate change and focus on most pressing vulnerabilities…; The most pressing vulnerabilities have not been identified and no explanations of how they will be addressed are offered. The statement presupposes that there is a “climate crisis”. There is no scientific consensus that a “crisis” is operating. Professional land managers are always operating on the vagaries of weather patterns. It is only when inflexible political agendas are imposed that the management system and efforts break down.
SO 3399; Department-Wide Approach to the Climate Crisis and restoring Transparency and Integrity to the Decision-Making Process; this statement is political-speak and means nothing.
Page 19599, (Section 6102(a)(5); How will BLM determine characteristic disturbances? The proposed rule does not define “characteristic disturbance” nor provide guidance on how to determine it. So, perhaps all landscapes (whatever those are…see definition of landscape in proposed rule) that evolved with large herbivores (Perryman et al. 2021) should be managed for livestock grazing to “maintain or mimic characteristic disturbance.” Further, this must be considered restoration, because it will not fit under the definition of protection in the proposed rule.
Page 19599, (Section 6102.2(a); Requires authorized officers to “use available data, including watershed condition classifications, to identify intact landscapes on public lands…”. 6103.2(a) further requires that “watershed condition classifications” must be completed as part of all land use planning processes.” We are aware of no description anywhere in scientific literature or agency documents that describe watershed condition classifications for rangelands. If we are correct that they do not currently exist, they must be developed before they can be implemented. Furthermore, the link between watershed condition classifications (whatever they may be) and intact landscapes (there is no such thing ecologically) are unknown and would need to be established. The USDA Forest Service developed a Watershed Condition Classification
(Potyondy and Geier 2011) in response to national guidance in USDA to promote “restoration of watershed and forest health”. Is this the tool that the proposed rule requires to be used? Nowhere in the proposed rule is it specified or cited, nor is USDA Forest Service given credit. If this is the required tool, the rational for its use is not given. How does this compare to existing BLM condition assessments? What makes this more applicable to BLM management than anything the BLM is already familiar with and using? What will be required to ensure applicability of this approach to rangelands and BLM decision trees given it was developed by the USDA Forest Service with an emphasis on forest health and the management of National Forest System lands? If it is determined to be applicable to lands managed by BLM, how much training will be required to ensure effective adoption and implementation of this tool by BLM? This tool is relatively new and has not been thoroughly assessed by the Forest Service. Has the Forest Service provided recommendations for the assessment tool?
Page 19599: Section 6102.1 (a) states, “BLM must manage certain landscapes to protect their intactness”. This wording is vague and problematic. Even if “intactness” could be defined (it cannot, despite the definition offered in the proposed rule; see opening comments), there are also problems with “certain” and “landscapes” as used. How does anyone know which areas are being referred to as “certain”? What defines “certain”? The definition of landscape offered in the proposed rule (Page 19598) is incredibly broad and vague, and further complicates the problem. The end result of this is a requirement for BLM to do something in an area that seems impossible to identify. Even if one could determine what “certain landscapes” and “intactness” mean, the confusion continues as one progresses through this section and considers what could and could not be performed in these areas. Section 6102.1(a)(1) requires “Maintaining intact ecosystems through conservation actions”. Conservation is defined in the proposed rule as “…protecting or restoring natural habitats and ecological functions”, so those appear to be the only options. If BLM determines that restoration is not necessary, how do they know what management actions they can or cannot implement under protection? Protection is defined in the proposed rule as “the act or process of conservation by preserving the existence of resources while keeping resources safe from degradation, damage, or destruction”. What does it mean to keep resources “safe from degradation, damage or destruction”? Apparently, protection is preservation. Preservation typically results in very limited implementation of management actions, the failed and debunked pristine-management-paradigm approach. Is that what is intended by the proposed rule? What management actions are available to BLM under “preservation” as defined in the proposed rule to fulfil the requirements of this section? Further, section 6102.1(a)(2) requires “managing lands strategically for compatible uses while conserving intact landscapes…” This seems to conflict with the definition of protection. Given the definition of protection in the proposed rule (equals preservation), what would compatible uses be and how would they be determined? If one imagines they are an employee of the BLM, whose job it is to manage natural resources and land uses, it is impossible to determine from the proposed rule as written, what is being required or encouraged to happen, how to do it, and where it should happen!
Page 19599, (Section 6102(a)(5)): How will BLM determine characteristic disturbances? The proposed rule does not define “characteristic disturbance” nor provide guidance on how to determine it. So, perhaps all landscapes (whatever those are…see definition of landscape in proposed rule) that evolved with large herbivores should be managed for livestock grazing to “maintain or mimic characteristic disturbance.” Further, livestock grazing must be considered restoration, because it will not fit under the definition of “protection” description offered in the proposed rule.
Page 19595, (New Information Requirements; middle column on p. 19595 under V. Procedural Matters): This section does not provide a comprehensive list of new information requirements related to the proposed rule. For example, new inventories, monitoring and assessment needs, or new land health assessments to name a few.
Page 19586: “Any conservation lease issued for purposes of providing compensatory mitigation would require a term commensurate with the impact it is offering”. This statement does not indicate how the following issues below will be addressed or analyzed.
Literature Cited
Davies, K.W., J.D. Bates, B.L. Perryman, S. Arispe. 2021. Fall-winter grazing after fire in annual grass-invaded sagebrush steppe reduced annuals and increased a native bunchgrass. Rangeland Ecology and Management. 77:1-8.
Gornish, Elise S., Guo J. S., L.M. Porensky, B.L. Perryman, E.A. Leger. (accepted) Pre-fire grazing treatments can affect post-fire vegetation in a dryland system. Ecological Solutions and Evidence. 4:e12215
Perryman, B.L., B.W. Schultz, and P.J. Meiman. (2021). Forum: A Change in the Ecological Understanding of Rangelands in the Great Basin and Intermountain West and Implications for Management: Revisiting Mack and Thompson (1982). Rangeland Ecology and Management. 76:1-11.
Perryman, B.L., B.W. Schultz, J. K. McAdoo, R.L. Alverts, J.C. Cervantes, S. Foster, G. McCuin, and S. Swanson. (2018). Viewpoint: An alternative management paradigm for plant communities affected by invasive annual grass in the Intermountain West. Rangelands, 40: 77-82.
Perryman, B.L., B.W. Schultz, M. Burrows, T. Shenkoru, and J. Wilker. 2020. Fall-grazing and grazing exclusion effects on cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) seed bank assays in Nevada, USA. Rangeland Ecology and Management. 73:343-347.
Perryman, B.L., R. Wilson, W.I. Morrill. 2003. Viewpoint: Eastern Nevada Landscape Coalition Position: There are consequences of doing nothing in natural resource management. Rangelands, 25(2), 30-34.
Porensky, L.M, O. Baughman, M.A. Williamson, B.L. Perryman, M.D. Madsen, E.A. Leger. 2020. Using native grass seeding and targeted spring grazing to reduce low-level Bromus tectorum invasion on the Colorado Plateau Biological Invasions. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-020-02397-0
Potyondy, J.P. and T.W. Geier. 2011. Watershed Condition Classification Technical Guide. FS-978. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 41 p.
Stephenson, M.B., B.L. Perryman, C.S. Boyd, B.W. Schultz, T. Svejcar, K.W. Davies. 2022. Strategic supplementation to manage fine fuels in a cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) invaded system. Rangeland Ecology and Management,