| The Department of the Interior and
its Bureau of Land Management today released details of a proposed
grazing rule that would improve grazing management and help continue
public lands ranching in the rural West. The proposed rule, announced
by Interior Secretary Gale Norton in a speech in New Mexico, recognizes
the economic and social benefits of public lands ranching, as
well as its preservation of open space in the rapidly growing
West.
"This proposed rule will help public lands ranchers stay
on the land," Secretary Norton said in remarks to the Joint
Stockmen's Convention in Albuquerque. "It will do that by
creating a regulatory framework that lets ranchers succeed based
on sound business judgment and sustainable ranching practices."
Norton added, "This proposal recognizes that ranching is
crucial not only to the economies of Western rural communities,
but also to the history, social fabric, and cultural identity
of these communities."
The BLM also unveiled the proposed rule in Washington, D.C.,
where BLM Director Kathleen Clarke said the proposed changes "will
improve the Agency's working relationships with its grazing permittees,
resulting in better stewardship of lands that are crucial for
open space and wildlife habitat in the rapidly growing West."
She called the proposal "a major step forward for effective,
efficient public rangeland management," adding, "The
BLM recognizes the economic contributions and social value of
ranching. This proposed rule reflects our Agency's commitment
to continue livestock grazing as one of the legitimate uses of
the public lands."
After the proposed rule's publication in the Federal Register,
the public will have more than 60 days to comment on the proposal.
The BLM expects to publish a Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) on the proposed
grazing rule later this month, which will be followed by a 60-day
public comment period. The comment periods for the proposed rule
and the Draft EIS will end on the same day.
The proposed rule would, among other things,
- ensure that BLM managers consider and document the social,
cultural, and economic consequences of decisions affecting grazing;
- allow the BLM and a grazing permittee to share title of permanent
range improvements, such as a fence, well, or pipeline;
- require assessments and monitoring of resource conditions
to support BLM evaluations of whether an allotment is meeting
rangeland health standards;
- allow a more realistic timeframe (24 months rather than the
current 12 months) for deciding on grazing-related actions needed
to achieve rangeland health standards;
- remove the current three-consecutive-year limit on temporary
non-use of a grazing permit by allowing livestock operators
to apply for non-use for up to one year at a time (whether for
conservation
or business purposes);
- eliminate, in compliance with recent Federal court rulings,
existing regulatory provisions that allow the BLM to issue long-term
"conservation use" grazing permits; and
- make clear how the BLM will authorize grazing if a Bureau
decision affecting a grazing permit is
"stayed" (postponed) pending administrative appeal.
-- BLM --
BLM FACTSHEET
The proposed grazing rule would revise existing Federal grazing
regulations in the following ways under three
categories of action.
- Improving Working Relationships with Grazing Permittees
and Lessees
- In this category, the proposed rule would:
- ensure that BLM managers consider and document the
social, cultural, and economic consequences of decisions
affecting grazing, consistent with the requirements
of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969;
- allow the BLM and a grazing permittee to share title
of certain permanent range improvements -- such as a
fence, well, or pipeline -- if they are constructed
under what is known as a Cooperative Range Improvement
Agreement (as was allowed prior to 1995);
- phase in grazing decreases (and increases) of more
than 10 percent over a five-year period whenever possible,
consistent with existing law and in full recognition
of the BLM's authority to respond as necessary to drought,
fire, and other resource conditions;
- expand the definition of "grazing preference"
to include an amount of forage on public lands attached
to a rancher's private "base" property, which
can be land or water. This expanded definition, similar
to one that existed from 1978 to 1995, when the "Rangeland
Reform" rules took effect, makes clear that grazing
preference has a quantitative meaning (forage amounts,
measured in Animal Unit Months) as well as a qualitative
one (precedence of position in the "line"
for grazing privileges).
- Assessing and Protecting Rangelands
- In this category, the proposed rule would:
- require assessments and monitoring of resource conditions
to support BLM evaluations of whether an allotment is
meeting rangeland health standards. Currently, these
evaluations may be supported by documented observational
assessments rather than by the more in-depth information
collection procedures used in monitoring;
- extend to 24 months, from the current 12 months,
the BLM's self-imposed deadline for initiating an appropriate
course of action to make remedial changes in grazing
practices that significantly contribute to an allotment's
failure to meet rangeland health standards;
- remove the current three-consecutive-year limit on
temporary non-use of a grazing permit by allowing livestock
operators to apply for non-use for up to one year at
a time, whether for conservation or business purposes.
- Addressing Legal Issues and Enhancing Administrative
Efficiency
- Under this category, the proposed rule would:
- eliminate, in compliance with Federal court rulings,
existing regulatory provisions that allow the BLM to
issue long-term "conservation use" permits;
- make clear how the BLM will authorize grazing if
a Bureau decision affecting a grazing permit is "stayed"
(postponed) pending administrative appeal;
- clarify that if a livestock operator is convicted
of violating a Federal, state, or other law, and if
the violation occurs while he is engaged in grazing-related
activities, the BLM may take action against his grazing
permit or lease only if the violation occurred on the
BLM-managed allotment where the operator is authorized
to graze;
- improve efficiency in the BLM's management of public
lands grazing by reducing the occasions in which the
Bureau is mandated to involve the interested public.
Under this provision, the BLM could involve the public
in such matters as day-to-day grazing administration,
but would no longer
be required to do so. The BLM would continue to involve
the public in all major Bureau planning decisions, such
as grazing allotment plans and land-use plans;
- provide flexibility to the Federal government in
decisions relating to livestock water rights by removing
the current requirement that the BLM seek sole ownership
of these rights where allowed by state law;
- clarify that a biological assessment of the BLM,
prepared in compliance with the Endangered Species Act,
is not a decision of the Bureau and therefore is not
subject to protests and appeals;
- and increase certain service fees to reflect more
accurately the cost of grazing administration. (The
fees apply to the BLM's issuance of livestock crossing
permits, transfer of grazing preferences, and cancellation
or replacement of grazing bills.)
The proposed rule would make no changes in rangeland health
standards and guidelines that were developed by the BLM's Resource
Advisory Councils under the "Rangeland Reform '94" rules
that took effect in August
1995. The proposal would not establish forage reserves known as
"Reserve Common Allotments," a concept that the BLM
had been considering earlier this year, nor would the proposed
rule allow grazing operators to
temporarily lock gates on public lands (for such purposes as protecting
livestock or private property), another idea that had been under
the BLM's consideration.
Also, the proposal would make no changes in the way the Federal
grazing fee is calculated, a formula established by Congress in
1978 that continues under a 1986 Presidential Executive Order.
Those interested in submitting comments about the proposed rule
will have more than 60 days to do so; the deadline will be the
same as that of the related Draft Environmental Impact Statement,
which the BLM will
publish later this month. For regular mail, the address is: Director
(630), Bureau of Land Management, Eastern States Office, 7450
Boston Boulevard, Springfield, Virginia 22153, Attention: RIN
1004-AD42. For
personal or messenger delivery, comments should go to the Bureau
of Land Management, 1620 L Street, N.W., Suite 401, Washington,
D.C. 20036. For electronic mail, the direct Internet response
address is: www.blm.gov/nhp/news/regulatory/index.htm or www.blm.gov/grazing.
Alternatively, comments may be e-mailed to WOComment@blm.gov.
ALERT & INFORMATION FROM NWF
In the big picture, these rules are another step in a series
of administration actions to roll back safeguards and weaken protections
for people and wildlife for the benefit of narrow interest groups.
The BLM
proposals should be seen in the context of the administration
action to lift Clean Water Act protections for 20 million wetland
acres nationwide, to give oil and gas drilling a priority over
all other uses of land owned
by all the American people, to permit up to seven times more mercury
emissions from coal-fired power plants than would occur if nothing
more was done than to obey the law on the books or to exempt operators
of older
power plants from installing the best available pollution cutting
technology when updating their facilities.
Specifically, the proposed grazing rules are especially damaging
because they will disenfranchise the public and entrench abusive
livestock grazing.
The administration proposes to eliminate an existing requirement
that BLM seek public input before it issues, renews, or modifies
a grazing permit. The administration’s justification is
that the public is already consulted
when BLM analyzes the environmental impacts of these decisions.
Although that sounds somewhat reasonable, what the administration
fails to note but is certainly aware of is that environmental
assessments are
notoriously backlogged owing to severe restrictions on BLM’s
staff and budget. In fact, Congress has excused BLM from the mandatory
preparation of such assessments until at least 2008.
So the bottom line is the administration is essentially saying
that the public will have no right to participate in grazing decisions:
it won’t have a chance to comment on environmental assessments
because they are so
backlogged, and it will lose its right now contained in the regulations
to participate as BLM makes these decisions.
Next is the administration’s proposal to selectively reinstitute
rules dating from the era of former Interior Secretary James Watt
that would require BLM to monitor rangeland conditions to determine
if grazing
practices are harming wildlife, water resources and habitat. That
sounds reasonable. But the truth is that required monitoring was
used to delay BLM from taking action, even where the cause of
the problem was obvious.
Even where monitoring might be helpful in elucidating the problem,
just as with environmental assessments, monitoring is often delayed
due to staff shortages.
Even in cases where BLM musters the staff and budget to document
abuse through monitoring, if the remedy requires a 10 percent
or greater reduction in grazing, it would have to be phased in
over five years. This
change allows abusive grazing practices to be tolerated at the
expense of wildlife, recreation and other public land values.
Russ Heughins, the Rangeland Committee chair of NWF’s affiliate
the Idaho Wildlife Federation, summed this all up as well as anyone.
“The Bush administration’s proposed grazing rules
imperil wildlife by turning a
blind eye to known, degraded rangeland conditions by doubling
the time required to initiate remedial actions necessary to rehabilitate
over-grazed public land.”
OPINION OF MIKE PENFOLD - Former BLM Director - BILLINGS GAZETTE
"Its not a good thing…They're trying to move grazing
regulations back to the good ole' days."
You should submit your comments on or before February 6, 2004.
For regular mail, the address is:
Director (630), Bureau of Land Management, Eastern States Office,
7450 Boston Boulevard,
Springfield, Virginia 22153, Attention: RIN 1004-AD42. For personal
or messenger delivery, comments should go to the Bureau of Land
Management, 1620 L Street, N.W., Suite 401, Washington, D.C. 20036.
For electronic mail, the direct Internet response address is:
www.blm.gov/nhp/news/regulatory/index.htm or
www.blm.gov/grazing. Alternatively, comments may be e-mailed to
WOComment@blm.gov. |
