Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1\), <br />(0 <br />(II} <br />(.0 <br /> <br />UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR <br />BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT <br />COLORADO STATE OFFICE <br />2850 YOUNG FIELD STREET ' <br />LAKEWOOD, COLORADO 80215-7076 <br /> <br />~~:... <br />aflu?1 ~,f~D 4A...,....'.::.~.'..'....:.:.... <br />-tv V,-",- 2! ". <br />va . · . <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />RECEI":':,) <br />NOV I ~ ll:'O~ <br /> <br />In Reply Refer To: <br />CO-930 <br />1600,4100 <br /> <br />CoIorad';) V/,.;, <br />Cons~rvat,':::n Lv....)_::! <br /> <br />Dear Interested Citizen: <br /> <br />It is with pieasure that I present the final documents relating to Standards for public land health and <br />Guidelines for livestock grazing management (Standards and Guidelines) for public lands <br />administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Colorado. This is the culmination of <br />many months of hard work involving interested publics, our three Resource Advisory Councils <br />(RAC), and BLMstaff. Attached for your information are the following documents: <br /> <br />. decision records for plan amendments to BLM's resource management plans (RMPs) In <br />Colorado. . . . <br />. final 'version of the Standards arid Guidelines, <br />. change sheet for the environmental assassment (EA), <br /> <br />;) <br /> <br />J <br /> <br />Thirty-nine (39) individuals and organizations as wall as BLM staff and the RACsprovided <br />comments on the draft EA that was distributed on June 28, 1996. All comments were reviewed <br />and considered in the decision. <br /> <br />. .j,. <br />" <br /> <br />'-, <br /> <br />I would like to highlight one of the biggest Issues that surfaced during the comment period: "Should <br />there tie a separate standard for socio/economic conditions 7" Advocates of a socio-economic <br />stafldard argued that such a standard provides assurance that the needs,of the humancommunlW <br />will be given equel consideration with the environment. After much consideration, we have decided <br />to not adopt a sdoio-economic standard for the following reasons~ .1 )It is.very.ditficuIHo.provide . <br />measurable socia-economic indicators that relate to the health of public lands. 2) Standards relate. <br />primarily to physical.and biological features of the landscape. Socio-economic considerations are' <br />importantto.determine appropriate uses and management techniques. 3) To varying degrees,BLM. <br />management plays a role in the social and economic well-being of local communities. But in most <br />situations in Colorado, BLM's influence is minor and factors that effect the social.andeconomlc . <br />well-being of local communities extend far beyond BLM management. It would be unwise to <br />develop a socio-economic standard where BLM has only limited capability to make .needed changes. <br />4) The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) mandates that BLM lands be <br />managed on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield, recognizing the nation's need for <br />domestic sources of minerals, food, timber, and fiber. 5) The "Preamble" to the standards and <br />guidelines document emphasizes the inter-relationship between healthy public lands and healthy <br />communities and that proper balance is needed among social, economic, and environmental <br />considerations. The "Interpretation" section acknowledges that soclo-economic factors can affect <br />landscape potential and this must be recognized. The "Implementation" section emphasizes a <br />collaborative pr04ess to define desired resource management objectives, of which socio-economic <br />considerations are part. <br /> <br />-._i'< <br /> <br />