BLM Land Abuse.pdf

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) spends tens of millions of dollars annually on vegetation removal projects, destroying native pinyon pine and juniper forests and sagebrush stands in the West. These projects, done in the name of habitat and watershed "restoration," have little scientific evidence to support their effectiveness in improving forage or habitat for wildlife, or reducing stream erosion and runoff.

A 2019 report analyzed existing scientific literature on mechanical vegetation removal projects, finding that scientific evidence often counters claims made by proponents of vegetation treatments. The report raises questions about why the BLM is spending taxpayer money on these projects, which can have devastating effects on public lands.

Vegetation removal projects use various methods, including bull hog masticators, the Dixie Harrow method, chaining, chainsaws, herbicides, and prescribed fire. However, the scientific analysis shows that these methods produce more negative or non-significant results than positive results for wildlife, with bird species suffering the most.

The report found that ignoring the effects of livestock grazing on public lands makes it difficult to assess the success or failure of vegetation removal projects. Livestock grazing is a widespread land use that can impact vegetation dynamics, but few studies control for its effects or assess treatments on a longer-term basis.

The science also does not support the argument that vegetation removal projects can prevent large-scale wildland fires. In fact, mechanized vegetation removal may result in increased invasive species that lead to increased fire danger. Additionally, the report found that watershed restoration is not a reliable benefit of vegetation removal, as treatments do not reliably increase water yield on a watershed scale.

Overall, the report concludes that the BLM's vegetation removal program is a gamble with taxpayer money, with little scientific evidence to support its effectiveness. The report suggests that hand thinning of vegetation is a less disruptive method of treatment to soils and that better ways to restore watershed health are needed.