![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sitaangelA full article?
Saturday, June 18, 2005
Administration excised scientists' warnings in grazing report
By Julie Cart / Los Angeles Times
Comment on this story
Send this story to a friend
Get Home Delivery
The Bush administration altered critical portions of a scientific
analysis of the environmental impact of cattle grazing on public lands
before announcing Thursday that it would relax regulations limiting
grazing on those lands, according to scientists involved in the study.
A government biologist and a hydrologist, who both retired this year
from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, said their conclusions that the
proposed rules might adversely affect water quality and wildlife,
including endangered species, were excised and replaced with language
justifying less stringent regulations, which are favored by cattle
ranchers.
Grazing regulations, which affect 160 million acres of public land in
the Western United States, set the conditions under which ranchers may
use that land, and guide government managers in determining how many
cattle may graze, where, and for how long without harming natural
resources.
The original draft of the environmental analysis warned that the new
rules would have a "significant adverse impact" on wildlife, but that
phrase was removed. The BLM now concludes that the grazing regulations
are "beneficial to animals."
Eliminated from the final draft was another conclusion that read: "The
Proposed Action will have a slow, long-term adverse impact on wildlife
and biological diversity in general."
Also removed was language saying how the rules changes could adversely
affect endangered species.
"This is a whitewash, they took all of our science and reversed it 180
degrees," said Erick Campbell, a former BLM state biologist in Nevada
and a 30-year BLM employee who retired this year. Campbell was the
author of sections of the report pertaining to impacts on wildlife and
threatened and endangered species. "They rewrote everything. It's a
crime," he said in an interview this week.
Campbell and the other retired BLM scientist who criticized the rules
were among more than a dozen BLM specialists who contributed to the
Environmental Impact Statement. Others who worked on the original draft
could not be reached or did not return calls seeking comment.
A BLM official acknowledged that changes were made in the analysis and
said they were part of a standard editing and review process. Ranchers
hailed the regulations as a signal of new openness from the
administration.
"We're hopeful that some of the provisions will strengthen the public
lands grazing industry, and give our members certainty in their
business," said Jenni Beck of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.
"We are encouraged that this EIS demonstrates the benefits of grazing on
public lands."
Livestock graze on public land in 11 Western states, including 8 million
acres in California. The vast acreage is needed to support a
comparatively small number of livestock because in the arid region
topsoil is thin and grass is generally sparse.
Only 2 percent of the nation's beef is produced from cattle on public
lands.
The new rules, published Friday by the BLM, a division of the Department
of Interior, ensures ranchers expanded access to public land and
requires federal land managers to conduct protracted studies before
taking action to limit that access.
The rules reverse a long-standing agency policy that gave BLM experts
the authority to quickly determine if livestock grazing is inflicting
damage.
The regulations also eliminate the agency's obligation to seek public
input on some grazing decisions. Public comment will be allowed but not
required.
In recent years, concerns about the condition of much Western grazing
land has been heightened by persistent drought which has denuded
pastures in the most arid areas, causing BLM managers to close some
pastures, and leading many ranchers to sell their herds.
The new rules mark a departure from grazing regulations adopted in 1995,
under President Clinton and Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt. Those
regulations reflected the view of range scientists that a legacy of
overgrazing in the West had degraded scarce water resources, damaged
native plant communities and imperiled wildlife.
Babbitt ordered the BLM to establish standards that spelled out when
public lands are open for grazing, and for the first time requiring
range specialists to assess each pasture to ensure it held enough
vegetation to support both wildlife and livestock. It was the first time
in more than 50 years that the federal government attempted sweeping
reforms of how Western ranchers operated on public lands.
By 1994, studies from scientists at the Department of Interior and the
Department of Agriculture persuaded government land managers that
livestock grazing was the most pervasive threat to plant and animals in
the arid West.
Some conservation groups seized on the studies to mount a campaign to
eliminate public lands grazing altogether, prompting a backlash that
accused environmentalists of engaging in "rural cleansing" that would
drive families off the land, some of whom had been there since the 19th
century.
This week, environmentalists were sharply critical of the new rules.
"It's an explicit rollback," said Thomas Lustig, staff attorney for the
National Wildlife Federation in Boulder, Colo. "What (Interior Secretary
Gale Norton) did was take Babbitt's regs and found parts where they
could put a hurdle in to undermine the reforms."
Officials with the BLM said the new rules represented a step forward in
improving the agency's management of livestock grazing on federal land.
Bud Cribley, the agency's manager for rangeland resources, said the
report was written by a number of specialists from different offices
within the BLM. When it was finished, in November 2003, the agency
believed it "needed a lot of work," Cribley said.
"We disagreed with the impact analysis that was originally put forward.
There were definitely changes made in the area of impact analysis. We
adjusted it.
"The draft that we published we felt adequately addressed the impacts.
We felt the changes we did make were based on good science."
Most of the changes came in sections analyzing projected impact of the
rules on fisheries, plant and animal health as well as water quality and
quantity.
Former BLM hydrologist Bill Brookes, who assessed the regulations'
impact on water resources, said in the original draft that the proposed
rule change is "an abrogation of (BLM's) responsibility under the Clean
Water Act."
"Everything I wrote was totally rewritten and watered down," Brookes
said in an interview Thursday.
"Everything in the report that was purported to be negative was watered
down. Instead of saying, in the long-term, this will create problems, it
now says, in the long-term, grazing is the best thing since sliced
bread."
Saturday, June 18, 2005
Administration excised scientists' warnings in grazing report
By Julie Cart / Los Angeles Times
Comment on this story
Send this story to a friend
Get Home Delivery
The Bush administration altered critical portions of a scientific
analysis of the environmental impact of cattle grazing on public lands
before announcing Thursday that it would relax regulations limiting
grazing on those lands, according to scientists involved in the study.
A government biologist and a hydrologist, who both retired this year
from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, said their conclusions that the
proposed rules might adversely affect water quality and wildlife,
including endangered species, were excised and replaced with language
justifying less stringent regulations, which are favored by cattle
ranchers.
Grazing regulations, which affect 160 million acres of public land in
the Western United States, set the conditions under which ranchers may
use that land, and guide government managers in determining how many
cattle may graze, where, and for how long without harming natural
resources.
The original draft of the environmental analysis warned that the new
rules would have a "significant adverse impact" on wildlife, but that
phrase was removed. The BLM now concludes that the grazing regulations
are "beneficial to animals."
Eliminated from the final draft was another conclusion that read: "The
Proposed Action will have a slow, long-term adverse impact on wildlife
and biological diversity in general."
Also removed was language saying how the rules changes could adversely
affect endangered species.
"This is a whitewash, they took all of our science and reversed it 180
degrees," said Erick Campbell, a former BLM state biologist in Nevada
and a 30-year BLM employee who retired this year. Campbell was the
author of sections of the report pertaining to impacts on wildlife and
threatened and endangered species. "They rewrote everything. It's a
crime," he said in an interview this week.
Campbell and the other retired BLM scientist who criticized the rules
were among more than a dozen BLM specialists who contributed to the
Environmental Impact Statement. Others who worked on the original draft
could not be reached or did not return calls seeking comment.
A BLM official acknowledged that changes were made in the analysis and
said they were part of a standard editing and review process. Ranchers
hailed the regulations as a signal of new openness from the
administration.
"We're hopeful that some of the provisions will strengthen the public
lands grazing industry, and give our members certainty in their
business," said Jenni Beck of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.
"We are encouraged that this EIS demonstrates the benefits of grazing on
public lands."
Livestock graze on public land in 11 Western states, including 8 million
acres in California. The vast acreage is needed to support a
comparatively small number of livestock because in the arid region
topsoil is thin and grass is generally sparse.
Only 2 percent of the nation's beef is produced from cattle on public
lands.
The new rules, published Friday by the BLM, a division of the Department
of Interior, ensures ranchers expanded access to public land and
requires federal land managers to conduct protracted studies before
taking action to limit that access.
The rules reverse a long-standing agency policy that gave BLM experts
the authority to quickly determine if livestock grazing is inflicting
damage.
The regulations also eliminate the agency's obligation to seek public
input on some grazing decisions. Public comment will be allowed but not
required.
In recent years, concerns about the condition of much Western grazing
land has been heightened by persistent drought which has denuded
pastures in the most arid areas, causing BLM managers to close some
pastures, and leading many ranchers to sell their herds.
The new rules mark a departure from grazing regulations adopted in 1995,
under President Clinton and Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt. Those
regulations reflected the view of range scientists that a legacy of
overgrazing in the West had degraded scarce water resources, damaged
native plant communities and imperiled wildlife.
Babbitt ordered the BLM to establish standards that spelled out when
public lands are open for grazing, and for the first time requiring
range specialists to assess each pasture to ensure it held enough
vegetation to support both wildlife and livestock. It was the first time
in more than 50 years that the federal government attempted sweeping
reforms of how Western ranchers operated on public lands.
By 1994, studies from scientists at the Department of Interior and the
Department of Agriculture persuaded government land managers that
livestock grazing was the most pervasive threat to plant and animals in
the arid West.
Some conservation groups seized on the studies to mount a campaign to
eliminate public lands grazing altogether, prompting a backlash that
accused environmentalists of engaging in "rural cleansing" that would
drive families off the land, some of whom had been there since the 19th
century.
This week, environmentalists were sharply critical of the new rules.
"It's an explicit rollback," said Thomas Lustig, staff attorney for the
National Wildlife Federation in Boulder, Colo. "What (Interior Secretary
Gale Norton) did was take Babbitt's regs and found parts where they
could put a hurdle in to undermine the reforms."
Officials with the BLM said the new rules represented a step forward in
improving the agency's management of livestock grazing on federal land.
Bud Cribley, the agency's manager for rangeland resources, said the
report was written by a number of specialists from different offices
within the BLM. When it was finished, in November 2003, the agency
believed it "needed a lot of work," Cribley said.
"We disagreed with the impact analysis that was originally put forward.
There were definitely changes made in the area of impact analysis. We
adjusted it.
"The draft that we published we felt adequately addressed the impacts.
We felt the changes we did make were based on good science."
Most of the changes came in sections analyzing projected impact of the
rules on fisheries, plant and animal health as well as water quality and
quantity.
Former BLM hydrologist Bill Brookes, who assessed the regulations'
impact on water resources, said in the original draft that the proposed
rule change is "an abrogation of (BLM's) responsibility under the Clean
Water Act."
"Everything I wrote was totally rewritten and watered down," Brookes
said in an interview Thursday.
"Everything in the report that was purported to be negative was watered
down. Instead of saying, in the long-term, this will create problems, it
now says, in the long-term, grazing is the best thing since sliced
bread."
