Cattle Grazing Proposal in the Sonoran Desert National Monument

[MTGomer]

The BLM is considering reopening cattle grazing in the SDNM.
This place is hot, dry and has limited resources for the wildlife that lives there such as desert tortoises, Gila Monsters, mule deer, desert bighorn sheep and hopefully soon, the endangered Sonoran pronghorn.
It faces other challenges, such as illegal ATV recreation and a steady stream of illegal alien and narcotic smuggling.
The BLM has spent millions over the last decade restoring the damage done from years of over use by ranching, recreation and criminals.
This would be a giant step backwards for the most biologically diverse, in tact desert ecosystem on the continent.

Please consider submitting a comment against this madness to the email below.
Link to article which contains links to the proposal below that.

[email protected]

Feds propose to open grazing on Sonoran Desert National Monument

The Bureau of Land Management is proposing to expand grazing on the Sonoran Desert National Monument

www.azcentral.com

 

[MO Betta]

Received this email from BLM today:

"The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) today released its analysis of a proposed amendment to the management plan for the Sonoran Desert National Monument that would change the management of grazing allotments in the Monument. The analysis was prepared in response to a 2016 Federal court decision that required the BLM to complete a new Land Health Evaluation and Grazing Compatibility Analysis to be incorporated into the Resource Management Plan (RMP).

Under the Proposed Action, the BLM would amend the Monument’s 2012 Approved RMP and Record of Decision, changing the availability of grazing and the amount of available forage on six allotments north of Interstate 8, which bisects the Monument. The proposed plan amendment would make livestock grazing available on portions of these six allotments on the Monument and livestock grazing would range from ephemeral only to a maximum 4,232 perennially authorized Animal Unit Months.

The proposal is contained in a Proposed Resource Management Plan Amendment/Final Environmental Assessment (PRMPA/EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) published today on the BLM’s ePlanning website: https://go.usa.gov/xwNNS (case sensitive).

The publication of the PRMPA/EA initiates a 30-day protest period and 60-day Governor’s Consistency Review before a Decision Record can be signed. Any person who participated in the process for this PRMPA/EA and has interest which is, or may be, adversely affected by the proposed planning decision may submit a protest on the proposed amendment.

The 2001 presidential proclamation that established the Monument directed the BLM to determine the compatibility of livestock grazing on Monument lands north of Interstate 8, which bisects the Monument. The BLM completed an RMP and Record of Decision for the Monument in 2012, which addressed grazing and other resource uses. In 2016, the U.S. District Court in Arizona remanded a portion of the 2012 RMP and Record of Decision back to the BLM.

The 30-day protest period runs from July 9 through August 7, 2020. The PRMPA/EA and related documents, including instructions for submitting a protest, can be found at the BLM’s ePlanning website: https://go.usa.gov/xwNNS (case sensitive)."

Buttazoni, Brian L <[email protected]> on behalf of PDO_SDNMGrazing, BLM_AZ <[email protected]>

 

[Handlebar]

Does anyone know off the top of their head what the size of the six allotments are?

 

[MTGomer]

Does anyone know off the top of their head what the size of the six allotments are?

https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/nepa/1502599/20017718/250023704/DRMPA-EA_May_2020.pdf

 

[MTGomer]

To summarize what’s going on, it’s been proposed to expand the possibility of grazing as forage is available. This area is so dry and devoid of resources that cattle can’t be sustained there yearly, but now they proposed that when there is a wet year, they move in some cattle to eat the little vegetation that grows.
Im not a big fan of grazing where resources are so scarce that it can only be justified for a short period of time, after a short rain.
As Jeff’s post says, BLM just issued a Finding of No Significant Impaxt (FONSI)
So the proposal is likely to move ahead, but right now is the 30 day protest comment period, which you have standing to weigh in on, if you commented originally.

 

[Handlebar]

Thank you

 

[Irrelevant]

Current conditions summary:

Proposed Action:

No grazing alt:

In the cumulative summaries at the end, every single resource listed (Veg, wildlife, soil, cultural, air qual, visual) is listed as being minor to moderately adversely impacted by the proposed action. I don't see how that can results in the issuance of DNS.

 

[rustednuts]

It sounds like they are they proposing grazing during high forage time as a management tool, perhaps to reduce the fine fuels and fire risks.

 

[belshawelk]

It sounds like they are they proposing grazing during high forage time as a management tool, perhaps to reduce the fine fuels and fire risks.

And thats a good thing. I do the same on my property. Cattle in the spring and summer off in fall. Still a few hang around but for me its all about fire prevention.

 

[azelkhntr]

I've got no problem with letting ranchers graze cattle in there. It should be abolished imo. It was created by mere Presidential decree in 2001 and no the US Congress and the people of the nation did not get to vote on that.

 

[TheTone]

Who doesn’t enjoy seeing ridiculously skinny cattle in an super dry environment with cactus stuck all over their face

 

[Hammsolo]

The BLM is considering reopening cattle grazing in the SDNM.
This place is hot, dry and has limited resources for the wildlife that lives there such as desert tortoises, Gila Monsters, mule deer, desert bighorn sheep and hopefully soon, the endangered Sonoran pronghorn.
It faces other challenges, such as illegal ATV recreation and a steady stream of illegal alien and narcotic smuggling.
The BLM has spent millions over the last decade restoring the damage done from years of over use by ranching, recreation and criminals.
This would be a giant step backwards for the most biologically diverse, in tact desert ecosystem on the continent.

Please consider submitting a comment against this madness to the email below.
Link to article which contains links to the proposal below that.

[email protected]

Feds propose to open grazing on Sonoran Desert National Monument

The Bureau of Land Management is proposing to expand grazing on the Sonoran Desert National Monument

www.azcentral.com

This is a huge problem in Washington where I live. Welfare Ranchers pay less than $3 a year to graze cattle in the Colville National Forest, and freak out when anyone mentions raising the cost or them being accountable for the damage to stream beds and riparian forests. We all should comment.

 

[Hammsolo]

I've got no problem with letting ranchers graze cattle in there. It should be abolished imo. It was created by mere Presidential decree in 2001 and no the US Congress and the people of the nation did not get to vote on that.

For a fee that is large enough to cover damage and raise funds for water catchments and other land and animal conservation projects?

 

[MTGomer]

It sounds like they are they proposing grazing during high forage time as a management tool, perhaps to reduce the fine fuels and fire risks.

High forage time and fire risk don’t really exist.

The 4 inches of rain a year make it so there’s almost no forage or a little bit of forage after a rain event. There’s definitely no high forage.
It is 114 right now and hasn’t rained in months.

The lower Sonoran desert didn’t evolve with fire and is not conducive to burning. When you do see it burn, it typically runs out of the higher country and then Peters out.
Or in the case of the Bush fire North of Phoenix recently, an infestation of non native weeds grow quite thick, which do burn. The monument doesn’t have these weeds.

 

[azelkhntr]

Who doesn’t enjoy seeing ridiculously skinny cattle in an super dry environment with cactus stuck all over their face

Apparently you’ve never walked up on a group of Red Angus in the grease wood and mesquite. They’ll give you pause, and brother you best turn the other way cause they’ll wreck your day.

 

[MO Betta]

Got a notice of approval today:

"The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Lower Sonoran Field Office in Phoenix, Arizona, has published the Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment (RMPA) for Livestock Grazing in the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM).

On July 9, 2020, the BLM published the Proposed Resource Management Plan Amendment/Final Environmental Assessment which considered the potential impacts of four alternatives, including the Selected Alternative. Under the Selected Alternative, all six livestock grazing allotments within the SDNM and north of Interstate-8 are available for livestock grazing. The authorized livestock use across all six allotments is a range from ephemeral only to a maximum 4,232 perennially authorized animal month units (AUMs). The classification for each allotment and maximum perennially authorized AUMs would be set at the implementation-level with public involvement.

On August 7, 2020, the BLM received two valid protests to the Proposed Resource Management Plan/Final Environmental Assessment. Thirteen other emails and letters were received, but the BLM determined that they were not valid protests either because they were comments only, or they were improperly filed with the BLM.

The approved Decision Record for the Approved RMPA, and Protest Resolution Report are both available on the project website located at: https://go.usa.gov/xwNNS. For more information, contact Doug Whitbeck, Range Management Specialist at: 623-550-5800 or [email protected]."

 

[Oak]

I didn't read through the whole protest resolution report, but maybe someone with a better BLM background can answer whether the following paragraph affirms that implementation-level NEPA will be completed before any grazing permits are issued?

This Proposed RMPA/Final EA is typical of planning-level analysis—broad in scope and qualitative
rather than quantitative—as the planning decisions under consideration (i.e., the allotments available
or unavailable for grazing and range of animal unit months [AUMs] available on all allotments north
of Interstate [I-] 8) are not implementation of site-specific actions and do not specifically authorize
grazing, in contrast to the approval of grazing permits, which do authorize grazing but are outside the
scope of this planning effort. As the decisions under consideration by the BLM would not result in
on-the-ground implementation actions, the analysis was conducted at a programmatic level. This
analysis identifies impacts that may result in some level of change to the resources, regardless of
whether that change is beneficial or adverse.

 

[1_pointer]

I didn't read through the whole protest resolution report, but maybe someone with a better BLM background can answer whether the following paragraph affirms that implementation-level NEPA will be completed before any grazing permits are issued?

The way I read it, yes, NEPA would have to be completed to issue a term-grazing permit. In general, a land use plan, which this is, sets the side boards on the management/actions. Future actions would require future NEPA, the level of which is determined my the action being taken. For a term grazing permit, those were done previously in an environmental assessment, but a temporary non-renewable could possibly be authorized by a categorical exclusion.