Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Livestock Grazing Plan Amendment EIS

204 Pages·2016·4.55 MB·English

Grand Staircase-Escalante
Bureau of Land Management
B
National Monument US Department of Interior
L
M

Livestock Grazing Plan Amendment EIS
Preliminary Alternatives
Comment Report
T
i
t
l
e

o
f

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
/
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

U
s
e

June 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Purpose of and Need for the Monument Management Plan Amendment.......................... 1
1.3 Description of the Planning Area and Decision Area .............................................................. 2
1.4 Description of the Alternatives Development Process ........................................................... 5
1.5 Description of the Public Involvement Process for the Public Review of the
Preliminary Alternatives .................................................................................................................. 5
1.5.1 Press Releases and Other Media Coverage ................................................................ 5
1.5.2 Project Website ................................................................................................................. 5
1.5.3 Public Meetings ................................................................................................................... 5
2. COMMENT SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ 7
2.1 Method of Comment Collection and Analysis .......................................................................... 7
2.2 Summary of Public Comments ...................................................................................................... 8
2.2.1 Written Submissions by Geographic Area .................................................................. 8
2.2.2 Number of Comments by Category ............................................................................. 9
2.2.3 Feedback during Public Meetings ................................................................................ 13
2.3 Substantive Comments Related to Alternatives .................................................................... 14
2.3.1 General Comments ........................................................................................................ 14
2.3.2 Alternative A .................................................................................................................... 16
2.3.3 Alternative B .................................................................................................................... 17
2.3.4 Alternative C ................................................................................................................... 17
2.3.5 Alternative D ................................................................................................................... 18
2.3.6 Alternative E .................................................................................................................... 19
2.3.7 Suggestions for a New Alternative (or Alternative Component) ....................... 20
2.3.8 Combination of Alternatives ........................................................................................ 22
2.4 Summary of Changes to the Preliminary Alternatives .......................................................... 22
2.4.1 Alternative A .................................................................................................................... 22
2.4.2 Alternative B .................................................................................................................... 23
2.4.3 Alternative C ................................................................................................................... 23
2.4.4 Alternative D ................................................................................................................... 23
2.4.5 Alternative E .................................................................................................................... 24
3. FUTURE STEPS ................................................................................................................ 27
3.1 Summary of Future Steps and Public Participation Opportunities .................................... 27
3.2 Contact Information ..................................................................................................................... 28
4. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 29

June 2016 GSENM Livestock Grazing MMP-A/EIS i
Preliminary Alternatives Comment Report
Table of Contents

TABLES Page

1-1 Landownership ................................................................................................................................................. 4
1-2 Public Meetings ................................................................................................................................................. 6
2-1 Submissions by Affiliation ............................................................................................................................... 9
2-2 Submissions by Geographic Location .......................................................................................................... 9
2-3 Comments by Category .............................................................................................................................. 10
2-4 Substantive Comments Related to the Alternatives ............................................................................ 11
2-5 Importance of Scoping Issues ..................................................................................................................... 12

FIGURE Page

1-1 Planning Area .................................................................................................................................................... 3

APPENDICES

A List of Commenters
B Comments by Category

ii GSENM Livestock Grazing MMP-A/EIS June 2016
Preliminary Alternatives Comment Report
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Full Phrase

AUM animal unit month

BLM United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

EIS environmental impact statement

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976

Glen Canyon Glen Canyon National Recreation Area

GSENM Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument

MMP-A Monument Management Plan Amendment

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

NPS United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service

June 2016 GSENM Livestock Grazing MMP-A/EIS iii
Preliminary Alternatives Comment Report
Table of Contents
This page intentionally left blank.

iv GSENM Livestock Grazing MMP-A/EIS June 2016
Preliminary Alternatives Comment Report
C 1
HAPTER
I
NTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
The United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Grand
Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM) is preparing a livestock grazing monument
management plan amendment (MMP-A) and associated environmental impact statement (EIS) to
guide management of BLM-managed lands within GSENM, as well as lands for which GSENM has
administrative responsibility for livestock grazing. Livestock grazing on the affected lands are
currently managed according to land use decisions set by four regional management framework
plans signed in 1981: Escalante, Paria, Vermilion, and Zion (BLM 1981a, 1981b, 1981c, and
1981d) and by a subsequent plan amendment completed in 1999 (BLM 1999).
Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Council on Environmental
Quality’s (CEQ) regulations for implementing the NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR],
Parts 1500-1501), federal agencies are required to consider the environmental effects of their
actions before taking such actions. Actions that are subject to the NEPA include projects and
programs that are entirely or partially financed, assisted, conducted, regulated, or approved by
federal agencies; new and revised agency rules, regulations, plans, policies, or procedures; and
legislative procedures (40 CFR, Part 1508.18). The actions proposed by the BLM as part of the
Livestock Grazing MMP-A are subject to the requirements of the NEPA.
1.2 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE MONUMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT
Based on public comments on the preliminary alternatives and ongoing intra- and interagency
coordination, the purpose of and need for the MMP-A continues to be refined.
This MMP-A is needed to integrate livestock grazing and rangeland management into the existing
MMP. It also provides for the comprehensive, science-based management of livestock grazing
that enables multiple use/sustained yield of renewable resources through improved land health.
Land use plan decisions are needed to identify the lands available for livestock grazing, the
amount of forage available for livestock, and possible grazing management practices, such as
grazing systems, range improvements (including land treatments), seasons of use, and stocking
rates (BLM 2005).

June 2016 GSENM Livestock Grazing MMP-A/EIS 1
Preliminary Alternatives Comment Report
1. Introduction
Updated land use plan decisions for livestock grazing are also needed to incorporate new
information and the many changes that have occurred since the 1980s. Livestock grazing
decisions for GSENM need to be consistent with Proclamation 6920, which created the National
Monument.
The purposes of this MMP-A are as follows:
• Establish goals and objectives for livestock grazing and rangeland management
• Establish broad-scale decisions that set the stage for site-specific implementation
decisions, such as timing (season of use), duration (length of time), frequency of
livestock grazing (how often), and magnitude (number of animal unit months
(AUMs)) of livestock grazing
• Identify where grazing uses are allowed, restricted, or prohibited (i.e., available or
unavailable for livestock grazing)
• Identify grazing management practices
• Provide the land use plan level decisions needed to integrate livestock and rangeland
management with the management of GSENM objects and other resources.
For the decision area in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (Glen Canyon), the MMP-A
ensures that the BLM’s administration of grazing permits protects the park resources and values
of Glen Canyon in accordance with the US Department of the Interior, National Park Service
(NPS) Organic Act of 1916 (54 United States Code, Section 100101). It provides that the BLM
accomplish the goals and objectives defined in the 1979 Glen Canyon National General
Management Plan, the Glen Canyon Grazing Management Plan, and other applicable land use
plans. These goals and objectives are in place to protect park resources and to avoid
unacceptable impacts or impairment.
The purposes for Glen Canyon are the same as those for GSENM, with decisions to be made by
the NPS in accordance with applicable laws and policy.
1.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE PLANNING AREA AND DECISION AREA
The planning area encompasses approximately 2,316,200 acres in Garfield and Kane Counties,
Utah, and Coconino County, Arizona. The planning area includes all BLM-managed lands within
GSENM and BLM- and NPS-managed lands for which GSENM has livestock grazing
administration responsibility. This includes lands within portions of the BLM’s Kanab and
Arizona Strip Field Offices, as well as lands managed by the NPS in Glen Canyon.
The planning area is bordered on the west by Bryce Canyon National Park and the BLM Kanab
Field Office; on the north by Dixie National Forest; on the east by Capitol Reef National Park
and Glen Canyon; and on the south by the BLM Arizona Strip and Kanab Field Offices, Utah
State and Institutional Trust Lands, and Glen Canyon. Small areas of state, municipal, and private
lands are contained in the planning area (see Figure 1-1, Planning Area).

2 GSENM Livestock Grazing MMP-A/EIS June 2016
Preliminary Alternatives Comment Report
1. Introduction
FIGURE 1-1
June 2016 GSENM Livestock Grazing MMP-A/EIS 3
Preliminary Alternatives Comment Report
1. Introduction
The BLM’s decision area for this planning effort includes all BLM-managed lands for which
GSENM has livestock grazing management responsibility. This includes some lands within the
BLM Kanab and Arizona Strip Field Offices. The NPS decision area includes lands in Glen
Canyon for which GSENM has livestock grazing administration responsibility. The decision area
totals approximately 2,253,700 acres of the planning area and does not include state, municipal,
or private lands. Table 1-1, Landownership, shows acres by landowner in the planning area and
the decision area.
Table 1-1
Landownership
Landowner Acres
Planning Area
BLM 1,934,800
NPS 318,900
State 19,900
Private 42,500
Total 2,316,100
Decision Area
BLM, GSENM 1,866,500
BLM, Kanab Field Office 54,800
BLM, Arizona Strip Field Office 13,500
NPS, Glen Canyon 318,900
Total 2,253,700
Source: BLM GIS 2014
Note: Acres have been rounded to the nearest 100.

There are 96 allotments in the decision area, 20 of which (318,800 acres) are wholly or partially
in Glen Canyon. The BLM administers these allotments in accordance with enabling legislation
for Glen Canyon and by means of a memorandum of understanding and interagency agreement
between the BLM and the NPS. Twenty allotments (65,500 acres) are wholly or partially within
the BLM Kanab Field Office. GSENM has decision-making authority for allocation decisions
related to these allotments. It also administers the permits in conformance with the Kanab RMP
(BLM 2008b). The Sink Holes allotment (2,300 acres) is partially within the BLM Arizona Strip
Field Office. GSENM has decision-making authority for allocation decisions related to this
allotment; it administers the permit in conformance with the Arizona Strip RMP (BLM 2008c). The
BLM Arizona Strip Field Office administers the Rock Reservoir allotment and Coyote allotment in
GSENM.1
Of the 96 allotments in the decision area, 84 allotments or areas, totaling 2,089,200 acres, are
wholly or partially available for livestock grazing. This includes 35,500 acres that are unallotted
for livestock grazing (1,600 acres in Glen Canyon). Livestock grazing could be authorized in
unallotted areas, but they currently do not have any grazing preference allocated. The total
grazing preference in the decision area is 106,202 AUMs. This includes 76,957 active AUMs

1 There are two Coyote allotments, one administered by the BLM Arizona Strip Field Office and the other by the
BLM GSENM.

4 GSENM Livestock Grazing MMP-A/EIS June 2016
Preliminary Alternatives Comment Report