The Bureau of Land Management is proposing to change
the regulations for managing livestock grazing on public lands. While it
is not clear right now what the BLM will finally propose, the changes will
probably be bad for public involvement (it may be seriously restricted)
and the environment and wildlife (even less accountability than now for
ranchers).
WWP thanks Wayne Hoskisson of the Sierra Club for the draft letter
provided below and Martin Taylor of the Center For Biological Diversity
for the response comments to particular portions of the grazing
regulations provided below.
You can provide your comments via email at the
following email address:
WOComment@blm.gov.
Be sure to include the full address for Kathleen Clarke listed below and
the Attention: RIN 1004-AD42
Comments are due by Friday, May 2, 2003.
Address them to:
Kathleen Clarke, Director (630)
Bureau of Land Management
c/o Eastern States Land Office
7450 Boston Boulevard
Springfield, VA 22153
Attention: RIN 1004-AD42
In your comments you could discuss one or more of the following points.
Please DO NOT COPY THESE COMMENTS AND SEND THEM IN. Choose one or more
subjects and rewrite the letter in your own words. For instance if you
chose to write about topic 3, streamlining the permit renewal process,
you might suggest that the real problem is not an overly difficult
renewal process but a failure by the BLM to request funding from
Congress and a failure of Congress to fully fund a workable grazing
management program. You could ask for an economic analysis which
includes a well funded range conservation program in the BLM. Or you
might write that the BLM is exaggerating the supposedly problematic
nature of the permit renewal process and note that at the following
websites is information documenting that the BLM is already exceeding
targets of renewing grazing permits while meeting all obligations to
complete NEPA on permit renewals. [At http://www.doi.gov/pfm/acct2000/html/goal3.html
is a DOI rep
ort in which it is claimed that in 2000 the BLM
exceeded its target for renewal of grazing permits. At http://www.doi.gov/pfm/par2002/par2002_part1.pdf
the 2002 report states that the BLM issued 2,171 grazing permits or
leases, which was 37% over the planned target.]
If you know about local problems with public lands
grazing, please feel free to include your knowledge and concerns about
on the ground issues. If you know of some action the BLM has taken
locally which has improved the health of a landscape you could include
that as a comment.
You should include something like the last two sentences. Sign your
letter with your name and address.
Dear Director Clarke:
The proposed changes to the Bureau of Land Management grazing
regulations are exceptionally vague and thus meaningless. The following
concepts should be considered during the analysis of grazing
regulations.
1. Public access to public lands must be preserved. Grazing permittees
do not possess the land they are permitted to graze and should not be
allowed to deny access to the owners of the land. We all have an
interest in the public lands and no single commercial use should be
allowed to usurp the public interest. What purpose could denying public
access serve? Does the BLM and the privileged public lands rancher fear
allowing Americans to view the places they manage?
2. Permittees should not be given anything resembling a property right
to public lands. Any developments or improvements must remain in the
public domain. Without this the BLM could be coerced into keeping
non-functional grazing allotments in use since the BLM would have to
purchase improvements claimed by the permittee. The permittee is always
just an individual or corporation allowed by the public to use our land.
Our interest should never be diminished. The use of public lands for
commercial livestock production is a privilege and not a right. This has
been established by both statutory law and case law. This principle
should not be violated.
3. The permitting process does not need streamlining. Rather the
permitting process needs teeth. The BLM rarely denies the privilege to
graze to a permittee. Once the BLM has established clear criteria to
decide which lands on which to permit grazing and the conditions under
which grazing will be permitted then the BLM will be serving the public
need. The permitting process should be kept open to the public. The
public has the right to observe and comment on grazing permit renewals.
The BLM should be seeking ways to involve the public rather than
limiting the public when making determinations which involve public
lands.
4. Permit violations need to have consequences. When a commercial
grazing permittee fails to meet the minimal standards determined for a
particular place the permittee should relinquish the grazing permit. In
addition the permittee should be required to follow all applicable
environmental laws including the Endangered Species Act and the Clean
Water Act. Failure to comply with the laws should be grounds to
terminate a grazing permit or lease.
5. The ecological impacts of grazing should always receive the greatest
attention of the BLM. Only with healthy lands can any activity continue
to occur without undue degradation to the public lands. Shortsighted
policies which may let a public lands permittee achieve short term
economic gain at the expense of long term biotic community health should
not be tolerated. The NEPA process should be rigorously followed with an
emphasis on sound biological and ecological science. Social and economic
factors should only influence decisions when the biological and
ecological effects can be distinctly shown to be neutral. If the biotic
community is unhealthy then the long-term viability of any industry
dependent on that community will be jeopardized. The BLM should be
looking at the long-term effects of grazing. Where the ecological
impacts of commercial livestock production cause deterioration of the
public lands then that production is neither ecologically or
economically viable in th
e long term.
6. Extending non-use of a grazing allotment for conservation or recovery
purposes should be determined by the accomplishment of range health or
conservation goals. While it is commendable to consider changing the
non-use period to five years from three years this new time limit makes
no more sense than the original time period. Recovery periods could
easily range from five years to twenty years. Once an area has recovered
the grazing AUMs should be adjusted downward so that the public lands
remain in a healthy condition.
7. The concept of reserved common allotments makes no sense particularly
in times of drought. All lands suffer from the same lack of moisture and
the suppression of normal plant growth during a drought. Lands which are
returned to a healthy status should be maintained in that condition and
not returned to previous uses which caused the deterioration.
8. There should be no delay between when a grazing allotment starts to
deteriorate and when grazing practices are adjusted to correct grazing
related problems. A second year of grazing under unfavorable conditions
can contribute to loss of plant vigor and the deterioration of forage
production. Grazing allotments should be monitored closely and grazing
pressure should be adjusted promptly to correct problems before those
problems become irreversible. If adequate monitoring cannot be
maintained and Congress will not allocate funds for monitoring then the
allotment should be retired until such time as Congress provides the
resources for proper monitoring and evaluation of all allotments.
Now is not the time to return to disastrous grazing practices of earlier
decades. The Bureau of Land Management should be considering some
positive steps to improve the health of the public lands and not merely
attempt to prop up a failing extractive industry with unsustainable
grazing practices. The BLM should consider establishing a permanent
permit or lease retirement with adequate compensation to the permittee.
The BLM should look at ways to reward ranchers who achieve 100%
compliance with the standards and guidelines for rangeland health.
Conversely, permittees who fail to achieve compliance should be managed
to bring them into compliance. This should be done promptly and quickly.
The regulations in Rangeland Reform 94 should be rigorously followed. If
those regulations do not result in improved public lands, then the
regulations should again be strengthened.
So far the information released by the Bureau of Land Management
concerning some proposed new grazing regulations is vague and
indeterminate. Is the BLM purposely remaining elusive? As this process
progresses, will the BLM become more substantive in its intentions? Will
the BLM engage in an equally comprehensive analysis as that conducted by
Secretary Babbitt? Will we expect to see an analysis which addresses the
health of the public lands? Will there be an analysis of the economics
of commercial cattle production on public lands which includes a
comprehensive accounting of the costs and expenses of maintaining
commercial livestock production on public lands?
Please accept these preliminary comments from me. Please keep me
informed about the progress of this rulemaking.
Thank you
Part 2 BLM Proposals and Center for Biological
Diversity Response Recommendations
1. BLM PROPOSAL: Clarifying the permit renewal performance review
requirements
when grazing permits are pledged as security for loans.
CBD RECOMMENDATION: delete 43 CFR 4130.9, which recognizes the use of
permits or leases as collateral as if this were legal, when it is not.
Add terms and
conditions to all newly issued permits and leases that prohibit their
use as collateral.
2. BLM PROPOSAL: Clarifying who is qualified for public lands grazing
use and who will receive preference for a grazing permit or lease.
CBD RECOMMENDATION: That the fee formula (4130.8) be reformed to remove
the flaw by which the fee fails to track changes in market rates to the
point it is now 10 times less than average west-wide market rental rate
of un-irrigated rangeland, or that fee formula be eliminated and
replaced with a competitive bidding process. Grazing permits and leases
should be opened to a competitive bidding process in the following
manner: a) bids would be for the fee to be paid per AUM of actual
forage use for the period of a permit or lease. The reserve price on a
permit should be no less than 50% of current average of private market
rental rates for the state in which the permitted grazing allotment
lies, as published annually by the National Agricultural Statistics
Service; b) the highest bid from any bidding and qualified stock owner
would establish the fair market value grazing fee for that permit; d)
the incumbent permittee would be offered first option to renew the
permit paying the
highest bid; e) if the permittee declines, the highest bidder would be
offered the permit; f) if the highest bidder declines, the bidding
process would be reopened until a willing permittee is identified; g) if
no qualifying bids are received, the allotment would be cancelled and
closed to livestock grazing and designated as unsuitable for that use.
3. BLM PROPOSAL: Clarifying the provisions addressing grazing preference
transfers.
CBD RECOMMENDATION: There should be no preference transfer. Issuance of
a permit to a new permittee is a new permit issuance, not a transfer.
Issuance of all new permits or reissuance of existing permits should be
opened to competitive bid as described above in item (2). Permits must
be subject to full NEPA disclosure and conformance with all other
resource protections laws before any permit is issued.
4. BLM PROPOSAL: Reinstating an earlier provision that BLM and the
permit holder may share title to certain range improvements if the
improvement was constructed under a Cooperative Range Improvement
Agreement.
CBD RECOMMENDATION: No change in existing regulation.
5. BLM PROPOSAL: Clarifying that BLM will follow state law with respect
to the acquisition of water rights.
CBD RECOMMENDATION: No change in existing regulation.
6. BLM PROPOSAL: Examining whether BLM should authorize temporarily
locked gates on public lands in order to protect private land and
improve livestock operations.
CBD RECOMMENDATION: No change in existing regulation.
7. BLM PROPOSAL: Clarifying which non-permit related violations BLM may
take into account in penalizing a permittee.
CBD RECOMMENDATION: Strike 43 CFR 4140(a)(2). No other changes in this
section.
8. BLM PROPOSAL: Considering ways to streamline the grazing decision
appeal process.
CBD RECOMMENDATION: Reform applicable sections to
allow broader public access to administrative remedies for grazing
decisions. Provide a simpler appeals process to the State Director of
the BLM, giving the State Director authority to suspend ongoing grazing
and/or stay the proposed action if there is evidence of harm (or
probable harm) to resources by ongoing and/or planned grazing in the
project record.
9. BLM PROPOSAL: Extending the time period that BLM may approve nonuse
of forage from 3 to 5 years for resource improvement, business, or
personal needs.
CBD RECOMMENDATION: That planning regulations be modified to allow
allotment cancellations by BLM authorized officers (due to surrender of
permits or absence of bids or applications) to be considered as
automatic revisions to the applicable land or resource management
plans. BLM authorized officers should have authority to grant non-use
for the entire 10 years of a permit or longer until resource conditions
have fully recovered, without the requirement to do land or resource
management plan amendments.
10. BLM PROPOSAL: Creating provisions re-emphasizing consideration of
social, economic, and cultural impacts, in addition to the ecological
impacts, of Federal actions to ensure compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act.
CBD RECOMMENDATION: No change to regulations.
11. BLM PROPOSAL: Requiring a permittee/lessee to apply to renew a
permit or lease.
CBD RECOMMENDATION: There should be no automatic renewals of leases or
permits, but renewal only upon application or competitive bid by
qualified stock owners.
12. BLM PROPOSAL: What criteria BLM will consider before approving
increases in permitted use.
CBD RECOMMENDATION: Strike sect 4110.3-1, which codifies conditions for
increasing use.
13. BLM PROPOSAL: Considering whether to amend the provision stating
when BLM will implement action that changes grazing management after
determining that the allotments used by a permittee or lessee are not
meeting or significantly progressing toward meeting land health
standards.
CBD RECOMMENDATION: Strike any provision to allow ephemeral grazing in
sect 4110.2-2, 4160.3, 4180.2 and replace with specific prohibition on
ephemeral grazing. If monitoring needed to avoid resource damage cannot
be done for lack of funds or staff, allotments should be placed in 100%
non-use until such time as monitoring objectives can be met.
14. BLM PROPOSAL: Establishing and administering a new concept called
Reserve Common Allotments
CBD RECOMMENDATION: No addition to regulations for this purpose.
15. BLM PROPOSAL: Adding a fee schedule for preference transfers,
crossing permits, applications for nonuse, and replacement/supplemental
billing under existing service charge authority. We do not intend to
address grazing fees in this rulemaking.
CBD RECOMMENDATION: Correct the flaw in the grazing fee formula that
causes the fee to fail to track changes in market rates, or open permits
to competitive bidding as described under item (2) above. No other added
fee schedules as proposed would then be necessary, as BLM would be
receiving fair market value for grazing privileges, using free market,
best business practices.
QUESTIONS: Does not the present grazing fee
formula fail to meet FLPMA requirements to obtain fair market value? Did
not the secretary already admit that the present grazing fee formula is
flawed in the Rangeland Reform 1994 DEIS and supporting record of
evidence? If the Secretary's goal is to improve BLM business practices,
why is the Secretary not proposing to reform the grazing fee formula
already admitted by the Secretary to be flawed in design? If the
Secretary's goal is to promote conservation, why is the Secretary not
proposing to reform the grazing fee formula to prevent the unsustainable
excess demand for public lands forage generated by setting fees
artificially below market levels?