Opinion ID: 183027
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Elimination of the Fundamentals of Rangeland Health as enforceable standards, delayed enforcement, and increased monitoring requirements

Text: Before they were amended, the BLM's grazing regulations required the BLM to take corrective action whenever it determined that existing grazing practices were causing violations of either the Fundamentals of Rangeland Health or the Standards and Guidelines. 43 C.F.R. § 4180.2(c) (1995). The 2006 Regulations remove this requirement with respect to the Fundamentals of Rangeland Health. See 71 Fed. Reg. 39,508 (amending 43 C.F.R. § 4180.1). Furthermore, upon discovery of non-compliance with applicable Standards and Guidelines, the BLM is required to phase-in any grazing reduction of more than ten percent over a period of five years. 43 C.F.R. § 4110.3-3(a)(1). And the BLM, under the 2006 Regulations, has two years to initiate an enforcement action. Id. § 4180.2. Finally, the 2006 Regulations require the BLM to use monitoring data to identify the significant factors that contribute to failing to achieve the standards or conform with the guidelines, and to propose appropriate action only after it is determined based on that data that existing grazing management practices or levels of grazing use on public lands are significant factors in failing to achieve the Standards and Guidelines. Id. Plaintiffs challenge these changes and argue that they will have significant undisclosed and unconsidered environmental consequences. Plaintiffs argue that the Fundamentals of Rangeland Health are a key requirement for ensuring healthy rangelands and the BLM provided no rational explanation for its decision to eliminate them as enforceable standards. Plaintiffs point out that during the adoption of the 1995 Regulations, the Fundamentals of Rangeland Health were identified as the basic components of rangeland health and were intended to serve as overarching principles to be supplemented by the standards and guidelines. 68 Fed. Reg. 68,452, 68,466 (emphasis added). In the Final EIS, the BLM acknowledges that some comments expressed concern that the Standards and Guidelines are replacing the Fundamentals of Rangeland Health. Final EIS at 5-75. The BLM, however, concludes that the Fundamentals are redundant and overly broad and, therefore, there is no environmental consequence of no longer enforcing them directly. Id.; see also 71 Fed.Reg. 39,402, 39,492-93 (concluding that the Fundamentals are a duplicate administrative mechanism). With regard to the delay in enforcement following the finding of a violation of the Standards and Guidelines, the BLM's own team of experts expressed concern. AR 68008. [T]hese cumulative delaying tactics could result in a protracted 7 year period for full implementation and change and thus would result in a long-term, adverse impact upon wildlife resources and biological diversity, including threatened and endangered and special status species. Id. BLM's experts were not the only ones troubled by the environmental implications of the potential enforcement delays. In its response to the proposed amendments extending the enforcement period, FWS stated that [i]n the arid West, biological and many physical resources are usually already near thresholds of change, and [e]xtending the deadline for initiating an appropriate course of action to make remedial changes in grazing practices ... from 12 to 24 months could be extremely detrimental to long-term range health and fish and wildlife resources. AR 68067-67. The EPA reviewed the proposed amendments and reported that it was concerned that this proposed change would allow for an additional twelve months over the current regulations's time frame for making necessary changes. AR 68052. Finally, the ARC-DEIS observed that BLM funding and staffing levels do not provide adequate resources for even minimal monitoring and the additional monitoring requirement will further burden the grazing decision process, thus adversely impacting wildlife resources and biological resources in the long-term. AR 68008. FWS further explained that a requirement for monitoring before a remedial action can even be initiated may threaten special status species, such as the sage-grouse that require timely proactive rangewide measures to ensure their survival. AR 68069. The EPA also commented on the monitoring changes and expressed concern that the increased monitoring requirements would delay implementing land management changes and impair the BLM's ability to take action that is necessary to immediately address actions on rangelands that are being degraded by existing uses. AR 68051. In a comment submitted by the California Department of Fish and Game, that agency similarly took issue with the proposed changes in enforcement and warned of environmental consequences. [T]he proposed revisions tend to weaken the ability of local BLM Districts to manage rangelands in a timely fashion by [requiring monitoring and] adding considerable time before action can be taken. The rangeland management process... needs to be able to respond to the condition of the rangeland in order to conserve fish and wildlife resources.... Rangeland health could be compromised by the proposed requirement that changes requiring more than a 10 percent reduction in grazing could be phased in over 5 years. Fragile ecosystems in arid environments cannot wait that long for change to occur. AR 61054-55. In the Final EIS, the BLM acknowledges that changes to the basis for rangeland health determinations, the time frame for taking action to meet rangeland health standards, and increased monitoring requirements may delay administrative enforcement actions. The agency concludes, however, that such delay would affect only a relatively small number of allotments. Final EIS at 4-23, 4-24. This conclusion is based on a five-year BLM study in which the agency assessed 58 million acres of BLM land (or, roughly a third of its total grazing land) and found that 16 percent of allotments failed to meet the Standards and Guidelines due to existing livestock grazing practices or levels of grazing use. Id. at 4-24. Therefore, the BLM concluded at most approximately 16 percent of all allotments evaluated in the future may fail standards due to current livestock grazing practices. Id.