1 IN THE MATTER OF: Public Comment Meeting for Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands Draft Environmental Impact Statement Taken at the Holiday Inn Grand Montana 5500 Midland Road Billings, Montana February 2, 2003 6:00 p.m. - 7:50 p.m. SHANSTROM REPORTING Registered Professional Reporters 651 Highland Park Drive Billings, Montana 59102 (406) 248-5300 SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 2 1 APPEARANCES: 2 MARTY OTT, Montana/Dakotas State Director JIM KENNA, Special Assistant to Assistant Director 3 for Renewable Resources and Planning BUD CRIBLEY, Group Manager, Rangeland, Soils, Water 4 and Air Group KENNETH VISSER, Rangeland Management Specialist 5 JOHN CHAFFIN, Moderator 6 7 Reported by Susan Shanstrom, R.P.R. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 3 1 - - - 2 P R O C E E D I N G S 3 - - - 4 MR. OTT: Well, good evening. My name is 5 Marty Ott, and I'm the state director for BLM Montana 6 and the Dakotas. Just out of curiosity, we don't 7 have that many people here this evening, but I'm 8 curious, is anyone here form the Highline? We have 9 got one of our BLM folks here, but anyone here that 10 is intending to make a public comment here from the 11 Highline? 12 The reason I ask is they've had a sure 13 enough winter on up on the Highline, and what I was 14 going to say is if there was anyone here, I was just 15 going to lead this crowd in a standing ovation, 16 because they sure wanted to be here, and we're going 17 to give them proper notice for showing up. 18 Since there is no one here, we will 19 dispense with that part of it and go on. 20 Well, again, thank you for being here this 21 evening. This meeting is being held in connection 22 with a draft environmental impact statement for a 23 proposed grazing rule, and the purpose is to receive 24 your comments on the draft impact statement. We do 25 appreciate your input on this document and for taking SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 4 1 your time to share your views with us this evening. 2 I want to take just a few minutes to 3 introduce a few folks here this evening who have come 4 from far away. These are the folks from Washington 5 who are here to help us, like Jim and Bud and all the 6 rest. Seriously, these folks have been putting a lot 7 of time and effort into these proposed rules. 8 And first, just to my right here, is Jim 9 Kenna. Jim is a special assistant in Washington, 10 D.C., who was spearheading the grazing regulations 11 effort for the director, and he'll provide a few 12 brief remarks on the background of these regulatory 13 revisions. 14 And to Jim's right is Bud Cribley, and Bud 15 is the group manager of the BLM, a rangeland group in 16 Washington, D.C. He will explain the procedures that 17 we will follow in taking public comments, and will 18 generally serve as the moderator of the session. 19 And then way over to the right is Ken 20 Visser, and Ken is a rangeland management specialist 21 who is now based in Reno, and Ken will give us a 22 brief presentation that summarizes the proposed 23 grazing rules, and then he will give an overview of 24 the draft environmental impact statement. 25 After Ken finishes with that, we will open SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 5 1 up for the public comment process, and these folks 2 will explain to you how that will go. And this is 3 your opportunity to give us your input and feedback 4 on the impact statement. 5 One other person I would like to introduce 6 is John Chaffin, who is an attorney with the 7 Department of the Interior, and John will moderate 8 the public comment session. 9 Again, thank you for being here this 10 evening. We're going to -- I'll be turning it over 11 to you for public comments in the very -- very 12 shortly. Right now, though, let me turn it over to 13 Jim, and we will sit back and hear what these folks 14 want to tell us. Thank you. 15 MR. KENNA: Does that work all right? Hey, 16 I was standing by the door as folks were starting to 17 come in, and I'm trying to find -- there was a woman 18 who came in and said you must be from out of town. 19 You're wearing a suit. And I said -- I kind of 20 looked at her a little perplexed. Well, if you were 21 smart, you would be dressed for zero below. And I 22 guess I wasn't smart in that regard, but I hope that 23 I can provide you some sense of the background that 24 -- and the thought process that went into the 25 revisions of the proposal or the proposed grazing SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 6 1 rules. 2 There were really three basic concepts. 3 First and foremost was to promote cooperation, and 4 second closely related to that was to protect 5 rangeland health, then third and finally was to 6 improve administrative efficiency. So three basic 7 concepts. 8 Let me take those concepts just a little 9 bit deeper so you understand some of the thought 10 process that went into it. And to do that, I'm going 11 to talk about a little bit of history. And I'm sure 12 there are people in this room who can probably take 13 you deeper into the history, but I'm going to try and 14 be brief and give you a sense of the thinking. 15 There have been close ties between public 16 land and public land grazing and communities of the 17 West ever since the settlement period and the first 18 homestead act at the time of Lincoln. In some parts 19 of the country you can take it back even further than 20 that. But the period in question that I really 21 wanted to talk about has to do with the 1930's and a 22 conservation movement that was going on at that time. 23 That conservation movement culminated in 24 the passage of the Taylor Grazing Act, and concepts 25 were put in place, like base property and preference. SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 7 1 And with that law, communities and the future of 2 communities in the West were tied together with 3 public land grazing. 4 Since the 1930's, if you look for some of 5 the broadest long-term improvements in rangeland 6 health, you can find at the center of most of them 7 cooperation. And that's still true today. If you 8 want to look for an example, I would submit the 9 national riparian service team and some of the work 10 that they have done. I have heard people talk about 11 working with them and the help that they have gotten 12 to work through problems; I mean, for most of the 13 western states and in Mexico. 14 Well, periodically we come to a point where 15 we need to do some revisions to regulations, and when 16 we do that, we come to the public and we ask you to 17 engage, to be thoughtful about your reacting to the 18 proposals, and to give us your comments. And that is 19 our primary purpose today. 20 We're going to do some short presentations 21 to hopefully bring everybody to the same level 22 playing field as far as an information base, but our 23 absolute primary purpose is to listen. So with that, 24 I'm not going to go any further. I'm going to pass 25 this along to Bud Cribley, who is our range group SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 8 1 manager in Washington, D.C. 2 MR. CRIBLEY: Thank you. I guess what I 3 will be doing tonight is just laying out the -- or 4 making you aware of what the ground rules are for the 5 meeting tonight. And to start with, one of the most 6 important -- two of the most important things is 7 there is water for everybody in the back of the room, 8 and then also the bathrooms, you go out this door and 9 take a right. They are just down the hallway to your 10 left. So those are probably the two most important 11 things I can tell you to start the meeting out 12 tonight. 13 Just to restate, the purpose of this 14 meeting tonight is to receive comments from the 15 public regarding the proposed rule making and the 16 draft EIS. Our coming out tonight is not to have a 17 debate on the issues here, but to hear from the 18 public and what their views are on the documents that 19 are in front of us. And because of that, we're going 20 to -- we're conducting this as if it were a formal 21 hearing. Our purpose is to receive comments. 22 We are going to give a short -- Ken Visser 23 will be giving a short presentation on the proposed 24 rule making and draft EIS. We will not be taking 25 questions or answering questions in regards to that SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 9 1 presentation. 2 What we will do is, once again, when he is 3 done with his presentation, we will just move into 4 comment -- receiving comments. What we will do is 5 once we have received all the public comments and 6 there is nobody else who would like to comment, we 7 will go ahead and close this meeting down. After we 8 do that, everyone here with BLM will stay here and 9 answer any questions that you may have about the 10 proposed rules. We welcome anybody to come up if 11 they have questions or are confused by it or just 12 anything that we can help you with in regards to 13 this. 14 I guess we kind of like to lay the 15 groundwork here that when somebody comes up to talk, 16 to be respectful to the speakers. A lot of folks 17 coming up don't have a lot of opportunities to get up 18 in front and talk to people, and it's a difficult 19 thing to do. I know that. And so we want to be 20 respectful to them and give them their right to come 21 up and have their say. 22 We had the meeting room reserved until 23 10:00 p.m., but, as I said, if we get -- as soon as 24 we're done with comments, we will shut the comment 25 period down. We will stay here until people want to SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 10 1 talk. We will be available to talk to you until 2 10:00 p.m. tonight. 3 It's very important for you folks to 4 understand that the comments that you're providing 5 tonight will become a part of the permanent record, 6 as far as comments on these documents, and that these 7 comments are very important to us back in Washington 8 as we consider finalizing the regulation and the EIS. 9 This is very serious to us, and it's very 10 important to us. It's especially important to me, 11 because I have just started in my present position as 12 group manager for rangeland resources only a month 13 ago, so I'm trying to get as much information from 14 the public as far as their viewpoints on this 15 particular issue, and find out what the folks in the 16 field really feel. So I guess it is important, if 17 you do have comments, please come forward and state 18 those comments or those feelings about things. 19 The other thing that I would just like to 20 tell everybody, it is good to be back in Montana. I 21 started my career in Montana back in 1976. I have 22 been in Glasgow and Malta working on the grazing 23 EIS's down on the Missouri Breaks, and it's nice to 24 be back. 25 I have been in Washington for 17 years now, SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 11 1 and been involved in administrative stuff for the 2 last couple years, and haven't had a chance to get 3 back in touch on what's on the ground, so it is very 4 valuable to hear from you tonight. And with that, I 5 will hand it over to Ken Visser, who will give you a 6 short presentation. 7 MR. VISSER: Mary, do you think that's 8 going to be bright enough? We're using real 9 high-tech stuff here. 10 My name is Ken Visser. I'm the principal 11 author of the new rule. I was in Washington, D.C. 12 since 1999. I recently got the opportunity to get -- 13 move to Reno, so I took it. 14 Our purpose at this meeting is to listen to 15 your comments, but we recognize everyone in the room 16 may not have the same level of familiarity with the 17 proposed changes in the rules, or with the 18 environmental impact statement that accompanies their 19 release. 20 And we can't just watch one slide the 21 entire time. Can you do it from up there, Mary? I 22 will just have to say next. 23 So we're providing a quick overview of the 24 proposed grazing regulations to give everyone a 25 similar foundation for the comments we will hear SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 12 1 tonight. 2 Three primary concepts were used in 3 proposing revisions to the regulations: to improve 4 and promote cooperation, to protect the health of 5 rangelands, and to increase management. 6 First, to improve and promote cooperation, 7 there are five major areas of changes proposed. The 8 first is to factor social, economic, and cultural 9 considerations into grazing decisions. This occurs, 10 to some degree, in environmental assessments now, but 11 it has not been consistently considered or applied. 12 The second is to phase in grazing changes 13 greater than 10 percent, whether they are increases 14 or decreases in the amount of use. This allows for 15 implementation of changes in logical steps. For 16 example, certain changes would occur in year one. 17 Their implementation would be worked into the grazing 18 operation, and another portion of the change would 19 occur in year three, and so on, with full 20 implementations of all necessary changes by year 21 five. 22 However, this regulation would not affect 23 BLM's ability to immediately and fully implement 24 temporary changes in an emergency, such as suspending 25 grazing use after a fire. BLM also could fully SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 13 1 implement the change immediately, if that is needed, 2 to comply with requirements of existing laws such as 3 the Endangered Species Act. 4 The third would be to allow for shared 5 title to cooperatively developed range improvements 6 based upon the level of investment made. Thus, if a 7 rancher spends money to help BLM to create a range 8 improvement, they can share in the ownership of the 9 fence in proportion to their contribution. 10 The fourth is to establish an expectation 11 to cooperate with locally established grazing boards, 12 and the fifth would allow for a review for biological 13 evaluations and biological assessments that address 14 grazing use. 15 The goals of the regulation changes are 16 also reflected in what was not changed. The Resource 17 Advisory Council established under the 1995 18 regulations have shown themself to be valuable 19 contributors to public land management. 20 The proposed regulation changes also seek 21 to make adjustments that improve long-term protection 22 of the health of rangelands. In addition to the 23 positive effects that cooperative problem solving can 24 have on rangeland help, there are three other changes 25 that are proposed. SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 14 1 First, to expand BLM's discretion to 2 approve non-use by removing the three-year limit on 3 approvals that are found in the current regulation. 4 The second is to require monitoring to support 5 rangeland health assessments. The third is allow a 6 more realistic time frame, up to two years, to 7 develop and implement actions that ensure progress 8 towards meeting health standards. This time frame 9 would allow for steps such as development of 10 cooperative approaches, alternative approaches to the 11 -- to create the solution consultation with Fish & 12 Wildlife Service, if appropriate, and preparation of 13 environmental analysis. 14 Here again, the goals of the regulation 15 changes are reflected in what was not changed. The 16 rangeland health standards and guidelines established 17 under a process provided in the 1995 regulations 18 support an orderly, consistent approach in protecting 19 rangeland health. The third goal was to increase the 20 management efficiency and address some legal issues. 21 The first change, removal of conservation use, 22 implements a court decision. The second modifies the 23 definition of "preference" to include both a priority 24 of a permit and lease, as well as the amount of 25 forage available under the permit and lease. SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 15 1 The term "permitted use" would be dropped, 2 because it would be no longer necessary. 3 Consultation requirements would be focused on the 4 major processes that describe, evaluate, and allocate 5 grazing use. Where possible, unnecessary or 6 duplicative consultation requirements would be 7 dropped. 8 Livestock, water rights issues would be 9 resolved under State process, and joint livestock, 10 water rights would be an option. The proposed 11 changes would also clarify satisfactory performance 12 and establish parameters for the phrase within the 13 terms and conditions of a permit or lease, and 14 administratively service changes are proposed to be 15 increased. 16 Three more proposed changes where an act is 17 prohibited against a permit or lease would be tied to 18 whether the prohibitive act was related to activities 19 under the permit or lease. That is with exception of 20 the violations of the Bald Eagle Protection Act and 21 the Endangered Species Act. 22 The status of a permit or lease when it is 23 under appeal is clarified, and the proposed changes 24 clarify that biological evaluations and biological 25 assessments are not grading decisions, but rather are SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 16 1 consultation documents between BLM and Fish & 2 Wildlife Service required under the Endangered 3 Species Act. 4 So with the proposed change, BLM has 5 completed a draft environmental impact statement or 6 DEIS, and is seeking public comment. The draft EIS 7 has three alternatives. The no action alternative 8 identifies the effects of the present regulation 9 without the proposed changes. The proposed action 10 discloses the effects of adopting the proposed 11 changes, and the modified action alternative 12 illustrates the effects of make some changes and not 13 others, or in some cases of making different changes. 14 Generally, the no action alternative would 15 result in no change in work relationships. No 16 regulation change would result in some hastily 17 designed and implemented action to meet required time 18 lines, which, in turn, would reduce the effectiveness 19 of some actions, and current problems and 20 administrative efficiency would not be addressed. 21 Again, the proposed alternative is expected 22 to result in improved working relationships and 23 increased cooperation, particularly when problem 24 solving and implementing change. 25 It sounds like the mike went out. We lost SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 17 1 the microphone. Is that still not enough? Let's 2 see. 3 Long term rangeland health is expected to 4 improve, and we do anticipate improvements in 5 efficiency, allowing more time to focus on important 6 decisions and more time to get work done on the 7 ground. 8 Let's take a little closer look at some of 9 the more specific effects of the proposed action. 10 There will be time to design and adjust when 11 implementing changes in the amount of livestock 12 grazing by allowing phased-in changes. Change can be 13 implemented in logical steps, starting in year one, 14 completing a phase by year five. Consideration of 15 social, economic, and cultural factors would be 16 applied more consistently across all public land 17 permits and leases. 18 Cooperation and communication with State 19 and local grazing boards would be improved, and 20 incentives for private investment in range 21 improvement projects would be improved. Taking the 22 time to seek cooperation and carefully designed 23 decisions that change livestock grazing may mean some 24 changes don't happen as fast. And in some places, 25 that could have some short-term adverse impacts at SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 18 1 the local level, but over the long-term, 2 implementation of well-designed actions to improve 3 rangeland conditions is expected to improve 4 vegetative conditions and overall watershed 5 conditions. 6 One thing to remember when talking about 7 broadscale change and vegetative and watershed 8 condition is that these changes generally occur 9 slowly. The proposed changes that create the 10 possibility for short-term adverse effects basically 11 relate to the time taken to design and implement 12 changes. Basically, the proposed action would trade 13 some localized risk of adverse impact for 14 improvements in the quality, sustain that ability and 15 long term support of underlying decisions to change 16 livestock grazing. 17 Removal of restrictions on approval of 18 temporary non-use also creates greater flexibility 19 in working with permittees and lessees. 20 What impacts are expected in terms of 21 administrative efficiency? More focused 22 communications with interested public, more timely 23 discussions, improved cost recovery and improved 24 clarity of regulations. 25 One last alternative, the modified SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 19 1 action alternative. Some of the major effects of 2 this alternative would be greater flexibility due to 3 dysregulation allowed for a five-year phase-in and 4 use of monitoring data, but less flexibility due to a 5 five-year limit on consecutive years of nonuse. 6 Reduced spread of weeds is also expected, based on a 7 requirement to use certified weed free hay in range 8 operations. 9 A little information about the schedule 10 we're using. The comment period ends this next March 11 2nd. We expected to publish the final environmental 12 impact statement in September, with a final rule 13 published by October of this year. With the time 14 frames and period of waiting, this would make the 15 grazing rule effective in December of 2004. 16 Then that's a sunrise, not a sunset. I 17 hope this overview has been useful for most of you. 18 For those of you who are already very familiar with 19 the proposed regulations in the draft EIS, thank you 20 for your patience so that others could get the 21 information. 22 Now we are to our primary purpose for this 23 meeting, to listen to your thoughts and ideas. Thank 24 you. 25 MR. KENNA: A couple of things that I want SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 20 1 to reinforce is we are going to conduct this as if 2 this was a formal hearing. We do have a court 3 reporter here who is transcribing everything that is 4 being said here, so any comments that you provide to 5 us will back part of the official record on the 6 proposed rule change and draft EIS. 7 If you do want to submit written comments, 8 you can also give that to us, and that will also be 9 included. One thing I want to emphasize is that this 10 is not your only opportunity. As Ken mentioned, the 11 comment period will last until March the 2nd, so if 12 there are any other thoughts or if you want to 13 provide more detailed thoughts, you can submit that 14 to us either electronically over the internet, or you 15 can provide them to us by -- through the mail, so 16 this -- like I say, this is not your only 17 opportunity. Our comment period will continue. 18 This will be a timed comment period. We 19 will have a timer here who will tell you as far as 20 how the time goes. We are allowing five minutes for 21 each of the presenters here to provide their 22 comments. When you have two minutes left, we will 23 show you a sign, and then when you have 30 seconds 24 left, we will show you another sign. And then when 25 your time is up, we will show you that (indicating), SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 21 1 and we ask that you -- when your time is up that you 2 stop your presentation. And, like I said, if you are 3 not able to give all of the information that you 4 wanted to, you can submit that, and it will become a 5 part of the record as if you had spoken it here 6 tonight. 7 I again want to emphasize the fact that 8 this isn't questions and answers. This is an 9 opportunity for the public to talk to or give 10 comments to the BLM. And also again, we would like 11 for everybody to respect those folks who do come 12 forward to give comments, because -- so that they can 13 do that unabated. 14 One of the things we would like you to do 15 is when the moderator will call your name, based on 16 when you signed up on the card that we have for him 17 up here, we call your name and he will spell your 18 name for the recorder, and then we will also announce 19 what -- where you're -- either who you represent or 20 where you are from, and then you need to come 21 forward and give your comments. And you also -- in 22 making your comments you need to -- you are not -- 23 you are not commenting to the audience. You're 24 commenting to the moderator here at the front desk. 25 And when we have received or everybody has had an SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 22 1 opportunity to comment, then we will close the 2 meeting. 3 If you decide that you want -- if we get 4 into -- if you have not signed up to comment and we 5 start taking comments and you decide you want to 6 comment, all you need to do is go back to the back of 7 the room and fill out one of the cards, and they will 8 bring that forward to us, and we will provide that 9 opportunity for you to comment. 10 The main purpose here is to hear from you 11 folks, as far as what your thoughts are regarding 12 these documents. So what we have been doing is we'd 13 like to take about a five-minute break right now and 14 give everybody a chance to stretch and get something 15 to drink, and then I will call everybody back to 16 order and we will start taking public comments. So 17 thank you very much. 18 (Whereupon, a break was taken.) 19 MR. OTT: Okay, folks. If we can, we will 20 go ahead and get started. 21 MR. CHAFFIN: My name is John Chaffin, and 22 I'm an attorney with the Department of Interior. I'm 23 assigned to the Solicitor's Office here in Billings. 24 This is my opportunity to being your 25 hearings officer for the night. What I will do is go SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 23 1 ahead and call out your name, and I'll spell it for 2 Ms. Shanstrom here. We will invite you to come to 3 the podium. Mr. Thompson has the timer and the 4 cards. We appreciate you coming here tonight and 5 providing for us your comments. They are very 6 important. At the same time, we hope you'll respect 7 Mr. Thompson as he raises up those time limits so he 8 doesn't get too frustrated. So with that, we will go 9 ahead with the first one. 10 Arthur M. Nelson. Mr. Nelson is here 11 representing the Montana Farm Bureau. A-r-t-h-u-r, 12 M., N-e-l-s-o-n. Mr. Nelson. 13 MR. NELSON: I'm too tall for the mike, but 14 thank you for the opportunity to represent the 15 Montana Farm Bureau here this evening on the proposed 16 changes. 17 The Montana Farm Bureau applauds the Bureau 18 of Land Management for the proposed changes in the 19 grazing regulations. We see these proposed changes 20 as a positive step in creating a stronger 21 relationship between the grazing permit holders of 22 the ranchers and the BLM. These changes will also 23 improve the efficiency with which the agency manages 24 its grazing lands. 25 The rangeland decisions are based on sound SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 24 1 science and improve the working relationship between 2 the agency and the permittees. 3 I would like to outline this evening for 4 the Montana Farm Bureau some of the changes that they 5 support. Number one, allowing a permittee to share 6 title to range improvements to the extent of the 7 contribution provided. Ranchers that pay for the 8 range improvements on these allotments should have an 9 ownership interest in the improvement. Such 10 ownership interest will allow this to appear on the 11 rancher's balance sheet when applying for an 12 operating loan. This change will encourage ranchers 13 to apply and to make range improvements. 14 Number two, restoring the concept of 15 grazing performance as originally set forth in the 16 Taylor Grazing Act. While outside factors such as 17 weather might impact yearly grazing, the proposed 18 definition of "preference" will help to ensure that 19 any yearly fluctuations in forage are not permanently 20 lost. This change will also clarify that forage 21 amounts are associated with base property and land -- 22 of land or water. 23 Number three, requiring monitoring of 24 grazing assessments be made on the basis of sound 25 science. Decision processes are strengthened anytime SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 25 1 assessments can be made on -- on science instead of 2 arbitrarily and capriciously. 3 Number four, removing the requirements that 4 BLM seeks sole ownership of water rights. This 5 change will make development of water rights on BLM 6 land more consistent with State laws. Co-ownership 7 of 8 water rights will protect the permittee so livestock 9 water cannot arbitrarily be diverted or denied, and 10 will provide incentive for permittees. 11 Five, actions against a permittee can only 12 be taken if the permittee violated an applicable law 13 while engaging in livestock related activities in his 14 or her allotment. Phasing in changes to grazing 15 numbers of more than 10 percent over a five-year 16 period, this phase-in will allow both ranchers and 17 range -- and the range time to adjust to drastic 18 changes in grazing numbers. Ranchers will also have 19 the opportunity to mitigate any significant adverse 20 economic effects resulting from the reductions. 21 Six, focusing application of this 22 interested public to those circumstances which can be 23 most effective and provide the most benefit. 24 I thank you for this opportunity on behalf 25 of the Montana Farm Bureau. And myself, I'm a SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 26 1 permittee holder myself in Central Montana out of the 2 Lewistown office, and I thank you very much. 3 MR. CHAFFIN: Thank you, Mr. Nelson. 4 Next commentor, Jay -- and please forgive 5 me if I don't pronounce all these names just right. 6 I'm going to say Jay Bodner. 7 MR. BODNER: That's correct. 8 MR. CHAFFIN: Jay is J-a-y. Bodner, 9 B-o-d-n-e-r, and Jay is here with the Montana Stock 10 Growers and the Montana Public Lands Council. 11 MR. BODNER: Thank you. My name is Jay 12 Bodner. I am with the Montana Stock Growers and the 13 Montana Public Lands Council. We have been very 14 involved in this process since the beginning. And, 15 first of all, I guess I would like to thank the BLM 16 for coming to Billings. This is a very important 17 stop, I believe, for the people of Montana, and it 18 gives a good chance to comment on these proposed 19 grazing regulations. I think the most important 20 thing, I think, to start off with is that Kathleen 21 Clarke has shown a great effort to increase the 22 communication and the cooperation with everybody that 23 is involved with public lands, and she has continued 24 to comment on her four C's approach, which I think is 25 a very positive approach, and, I think, the right SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 27 1 approach to take when you're dealing with public 2 lands. 3 There is a number of different people users 4 with public lands, and it is important to gather 5 information from everybody. I just will touch on a 6 few of the high points, I think, that have been 7 proposed in the grazing regulations. I won't touch 8 on all of them. 9 I think, to start off with, one of the most 10 important things that we saw in the proposed changes 11 was the monitoring. I think monitoring really is 12 going to be a big one that comes down when you're 13 making decisions. If you can document any changes or 14 decisions that you're making based on monitoring, 15 sound science, then you're going to take a lot of the 16 distraction away from people that may believe 17 something -- that you're either doing something wrong 18 or doing something right. It basically will be able 19 to just show this is what the range conditions are, 20 and this is my decision that supports that. And it 21 basically will let the agency and the permittees 22 understand how the decisions are made, and so they 23 can either improve the ways that they do things, the 24 ways that they can improve the range resource. 25 The second one I would like to talk a SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 28 1 little bit about is the interested public. I think 2 there is some misconception when we talk about the 3 interested public. I think there is some folks that 4 feel that interested publics will be denied any 5 access to be able to provide input on some of these 6 grazing regulations. 7 I believe that a permittee in the agency, 8 they can make decisions on the day-to-day management 9 of their allotment, and when the interested public 10 comes in the decision process, they will still get a 11 chance. They will have an opportunity to comment 12 just like anyone else. And I think it will foster 13 decisions being done a little bit faster. There 14 won't be the -- the slowdown as you get through these 15 processes that I believe that it -- it gives a chance 16 to foster quicker -- quicker decisions and still 17 let's everyone get their chance to comment. 18 Ownership of range improvements is also 19 another big one that I think will foster big range 20 improvements down the line. It is basically a 21 rollback of how it used to be before '95, and it is 22 going to increase more people being out there and 23 taking advantage of making these range improvements. 24 It is going to make the range in better condition, 25 and it is also going to improve not only the range, SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 29 1 but it is going to improve things for wildlife and 2 all the other host of the things that are out there. 3 I think mostly the proposed changes allow 4 for flexibility, and it is going to improve the range 5 resources conditions on a whole. Public lands are an 6 integral part of many ranch operations in Montana, 7 and producers, they are going to take care of this 8 land just like they do any other part of their ranch 9 operation. When these places are in mixed ownership 10 or they have a considerable amount of animals that 11 they run on range on -- these public ranges, they 12 need to take care of everything to make it a viable 13 ranch operation. And I think through these proposed 14 regulations there is some positive changes there, and 15 producers want to do the right thing, and this is 16 going to allow them a good opportunity to do that, so 17 thank you. 18 MR. CHAFFIN: Thank you, Jay. 19 Next commentor is Mary Jones. Mary, 20 M-a-r-y, and then Jones, J-o-n-e-s. Mary, could you 21 let us know where you are from. 22 MS. JONES: I'm from Lewistown, Montana. 23 I'm the daughter of a Montana rancher, and I do come 24 from Lewistown. I am here to respectfully support 25 the no action alternative. As a constant user of SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 30 1 public lands for recreation -- actually I have used 2 it almost every day of my life for the last 35 3 years -- I would like to make a comment as a public 4 citizen for the changes the Interior Department is 5 thinking about. 6 Number one, having grazing councils or 7 boards with permittees only deciding on the changes 8 of grazing and removing permitted use to be replaced 9 with grazing preference use is doing a great 10 disservice to the 280 million Americans that actually 11 own these lands and undoubtedly would like to see the 12 ecosystem improved. 13 Number two, small farmers and ranchers who 14 all of us, all Americans, would like to see remain on 15 the land are not the ones these new rules are being 16 written for, I don't think. I think they are being 17 written for the 10 percent of corporations and 18 billionaires who control almost 75 percent of the 19 public land. The public lands are being managed 20 primarily for the livestock industry, for the 21 benefit of a small but vocal and politically powerful 22 minority of individuals who believe that the country 23 has an obligation to maintain their way of life. 24 Number three, the Taylor Grazing Act of 25 1934 conveys to the permit holder the privilege to SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 31 1 use public owned forage. The permits do not instill 2 a right for permittees to graze federal lands. This 3 distinction was upheld by the Supreme Court most 4 recently in the year 2000. Taylor Grazing Act 5 permits are revocable, amendable, nonassignable 6 ten-year leases to graze that do not convey property 7 rights. More cattle troughs owned by the permittees, 8 more pipelines and fencing owned by the permittee is 9 transferring our public lands into the hands of 10 private ownership. If you rent a house, you do not 11 get to own the fixtures you install. You don't get 12 to own the fence that you put up, or the garden that 13 you plant. 14 Number four, Secretary Gale Norton, in her 15 speech to the New Mexico stockmen said the nation's 16 ranchers are the true conservationists, and the new 17 rules proposed by the Bush administration would give 18 stockmen more flexibility to protect the land. She 19 said ranchers have helped repair areas along streams 20 and rivers, reduce flooding, protect against 21 invasive plants, and improve water quality. 22 Again, there are many, many fine, fine 23 farmers and ranchers, but if one surveys the 24 landscape, unless the rancher was given the money 25 from the public funds to ecosystem work, it is the SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 32 1 exception that she is talking about. The ecosystem 2 is continued to be hammered by grazing. I see it 3 every time I'm out on the land. 4 Here is an example of a prominent Montana 5 rancher (indicating). And notice, it is a Lewis and 6 Clark park, a place for them to rest the night, and 7 it is covered with cows. And that's not permitted. 8 Norton also said if ranchers are driven off 9 the lands and give up grazing allotment, those 10 ranches would become ski condos. It is absurd to 11 think the land in the west is going to become ski 12 country. 13 Number six, why would the department want 14 to remove the three consecutive years under which 15 livestock operators could retain grazing permits, but 16 not make use of the -- excuse me -- it is healthy for 17 the land to have livestock off of it for a while. 18 Livestock grazing is the leading cause of 19 weed invasion. Exotic weeds are possibly the 20 greatest threat, and your solution is to have more 21 grazing on the same land. 22 And the last, the idea that public grazing 23 land is woven into the landscape and cultures of the 24 rural west, and contributes valuable landscape and 25 cultural elements is a phenomena of the last 200 SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 33 1 years. Before that, for thousands of years the land 2 held a Serengeti type landscape of vast rolling 3 grasslands with abundant game. 4 These lands can supply revenues for 5 hunting, fishing, bird watching, and pack trips, not 6 to try to turn over to a few to abuse. 7 MR. CHAFFIN: Thank you, Mary. Mary, we 8 appreciate that picture you showed us, but we would 9 like to get that into the administrative record. 10 Could we have that from you? 11 Our next commentor, Dyrck Van Hyning. Is 12 that right, Dyrck? 13 MR. VAN HYNING: Pretty close, sir. 14 MR. CHAFFIN: I'll spell it. D-y-r-c-k, 15 Van, V-a-n, Hyning, H-y-n-i-n-g. He's providing 16 comments. 17 And, Dyrck, could you tell us where you're 18 from. 19 MR. VAN HYNING: I'm from Great Falls, 20 Montana. I represent only myself. I basically work 21 on grazing situations on the Upper Mississippi River 22 Breaks National Monument, and I will compliment the 23 authors of this proposed grazing rule change. 24 Between when we were here last time and now I think 25 we have come a long way. I appreciate doing that. SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 34 1 I'm going to talk about only one thing 2 tonight, and that theme is that the proposed grazing 3 rule changes seems to take the public out of the 4 process. Time and time again a section of this 5 change states drop the interested public out of the 6 proposed grazing rule changes. 7 One of these sections is nonrenewable 8 grazing permits and leases, Section 4130.6-2. It is 9 unacceptable to remove the requirement that BLM 10 consult with the interested public before issuing 11 nonrenewable permits or leases. An example -- the 12 example, given a circumstance of where this 13 regulation might apply, is to manage grazing uses on 14 -- to manage grazing use authorized on cheatgrass 15 ranges. 16 The Federal Register goes on to say that 17 cheatgrass, a non-native introduced annual, is 18 established over a vast acreage of the intermountain 19 west. The proposed rule change believes that rapid 20 response is necessary to take advantage of a 21 situation that gives rise to approval of an 22 application for temporary and nonrenewable use. The 23 BLM is proposing to remove this additional public 24 consultation requirement before issuing a temporary 25 or nonrenewable grazing permit or lease. SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 35 1 The proposed rule change example is an 2 excellent reason of why this rule change should not 3 be adopted. Cheatgrass is an indicator species of 4 overgrazing. Cheatgrass is not an opportunity. It 5 is a disaster. 6 Additional grazing on this type of range 7 accelerates the unacceptable conditions. The draft 8 EIS lists statistics of allotments not meeting 9 standards for rangeland health. Of the 58,000 plus 10 some acres assessed -- and I don't quite understand 11 that, because the articles that you handed out 12 tonight says there is 160 million acres of allotment. 13 But the book says of the 58,700 acres assessed, 14 26,000 plus did not meet standards. That's 45 15 percent of the range. 16 I would think these numbers in itself would 17 cause panic in the industry. The proposed rule 18 changes would only exacerbate this unacceptable 19 condition. The BLM must address cheatgrass and 20 reestablish native grasses. 21 Thank you for allowing me to comment. I 22 did E-mail in my lengthy comments, and I did get a 23 reply right back from the BLM, and we thank you for 24 that. 25 MR. CHAFFIN: Thank you, Dyrck. SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 36 1 Our next commentor is James Phelps. Mr. 2 Phelps is representing the Montana Audubon and the 3 Yellowstone Valley Audubon. J-a-m-e-s, Phelps, 4 P-h-e-l-p-s. 5 Jim, it is all yours. 6 MR. PHELPS: Thank you. I submitted a 7 prepared statement, but I'll kind of deviate from 8 that. We number about 4,000 in the state, and we 9 have ten chapters scattered around. We have been 10 interested in this for a long time. Way back in 11 1993, when I was chair of public lands for the 12 Montana Audubon, I put through a resolution saying 13 that grazing of domestic livestock on public lands 14 was a legitimate privilege. And we don't like the 15 tenor now it looks like the direction is headed 16 towards. 17 We were a little bit disturbed over the 18 overlapping proposals asking for comment on the 19 proposed rule or change in regulations and the draft 20 EIS. That was confusing. 21 In general comments, in the short period 22 allowed for comment at this hearing, it will not be 23 possible to comment on the issues, and I will confine 24 my remarks to some of the more important ones. 25 It is our considered opinion that the ideas SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 37 1 trotted out in the DEIS are not improvements, but 2 steps backward. They represent an effort to 3 privatize a public resource. In our opinion, they 4 represent an effort to make grazing a right instead 5 of a privilege, as I previously remarked. 6 The Federal Land Policy and Management and 7 Management Act requires the public to be involved in 8 public land decisions. We think this proposal is 9 moving in the direct opposite direction. 10 The ownership of public range improvements 11 -- the policy proposed goes against ancient common 12 law. No private landowner would go for this idea, 13 which, if agreed to, encumbers his property title. 14 On water rights, water should stay with the 15 land. Land without water is reduced to nothing. We 16 made comment during the scoping process on this, too, 17 but we find that no consideration was given to our 18 comment. 19 The time frame for decisions, this goes 20 back to what it was before the 1995 revision. And 21 most permittees, to our mind, wish timely decisions. 22 And this change will allow undue delay to take place 23 by those few who manage grazing improperly. 24 On a positive note, we notice that the BLM 25 wishes to cooperate on sage grouse habitat SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 38 1 improvement strategy and achieving goals with 2 endangered species. Those things have to be made to 3 work, and if we all sit down and work in a group, I 4 think we can get there. 5 On access, in the section entitled, 6 "Alternatives Considered but not Analyzed in Detail," 7 we note that with regard to locked gates, due to 8 unanimous opposition to the idea, this position was 9 not considered further. Well, our comment was 10 "good." "Forget it. Don't even think about it." 11 And with that, I made copies of my prepared 12 statement. If anyone wants copies, they're here 13 until the supply is exhausted. I thank you and 14 appreciate the BLM holding these hearings around the 15 country and getting the different viewpoints. Public 16 lands are a long tradition in this country, and 17 grazing is one use and should not be a dominant use. 18 I thank you. 19 MR. CHAFFIN: Thank you, Jim. 20 Our next commentor is Lowell Peterson. 21 Lowell, L-o-w-e-l-l, Peterson, P-e-t-e-r-s-o-n. 22 Lowell, could you tell us where you're from. 23 MR. PETERSON: Yes. I'm from South 24 Billings. I work out along the BLM allotment, and I 25 didn't come here prepared, but I just thought I would SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 39 1 like to make a comment. And I'm glad we have a 2 chance to be here and listen, and I would like to 3 say, too, that we have had real good luck with the 4 Billings office. They have been real good to work 5 with. 6 But I think a lot of ranchers really don't 7 know what's going on here, because you don't see very 8 much ranchers here, so most of them are trusting that 9 the decisions you make will help them and will help 10 their operation. 11 And I would like to say that as anyone 12 knows, a healthy grass makes healthy cattle, and I 13 just hope all these things you're putting in front 14 will help us in the long-run. 15 I'm kind of concerned about biological -- I 16 think it was biological evaluations and biological 17 assessments. I think a lot of ranchers are probably 18 like me. We don't understand a lot of the red tape, 19 but we just hope that these things can work better. 20 And I only have one thing, and that is 21 where I run my cattle, that we spend a lot of time 22 making sure that that grass is taken care of right. 23 We have gone to spring and winter use when the grass 24 is not grown, but we have a lot of off-road use. And 25 as you know, the four-wheelers today -- I'm talking SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 40 1 about the ATV's, they can go places where ten years 2 ago you never thought a four-wheeler could go, and 3 we're seeing a lot of erosion. 4 Well, this erosion continues to get worse, 5 and this is what is going to be seem to be way more 6 damaging than any cow out there. And I'm sure a lot 7 of ranchers are like me. We would like to see maybe 8 some restrictions put on this. And I don't know how 9 it would be, because I'm a firm believer of them are 10 public lands, too, but I kind of like to take care of 11 the public land myself. 12 And I listen to the recommendations of the 13 BLM office here in Billings, and I think these -- 14 these off-road use vehicles are very damaging, and I 15 wish there was some way that the office in Washington 16 D.C. could address this problem. 17 And I just thank you for your time for 18 letting me be here. 19 MR. CHAFFIN: Thank you, Lowell. 20 Our next speaker is -- commentor is Robert 21 -- I'm going to pronounce it -- Lubbers. 22 MR. LUBBERS: Close enough. It's often 23 mispronounced. It is Lubbers, L-u-b-b-e-r-s. 24 MR. CHAFFIN: Robert, R-o-b-e-r-t, and then 25 Lubbers is L-u-b-b-e-r-s. SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 41 1 MR. LUBBERS: "Rubbers," with an L. 2 MR. CHAFFIN: Right. Thank you. And where 3 are you from, Robert? 4 MR. LUBBERS: I'm from Billings. I'm a 5 member of the Yellowstone River Conservation Forum in 6 the Fire Mountains coalition, and I am also an 7 appointed member of the Eastern Montana branch, and 8 I'm currently severing my second term. I'm 9 addressing the grazing revision to the grazing 10 regulations, and -- excuse me. I do not intend, nor 11 should it be construed, that I speak for the 12 Yellowstone River Conservation Forum or am acting as 13 a spokesperson or as its representative. Excuse me 14 again. I'm sorry. 15 The opinions and observations concerning 16 the DEIS are my own, with the exception that I fully 17 support the collective consensus decision of the 18 Eastern Montana Yellowstone River Conservation Forum 19 via letter to Kathleen Clarke of October 30th. I'll 20 have written comments sent to the address. 21 It's my considered opinion that this 22 consensus statement, which was this: It's the -- that 23 the SWL initiative, as announced in the Federal 24 Register of March 3, 2003, not be a priority of the 25 BLM. We feel that the SWL concepts could be SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 42 1 implemented under existing regulations and laws. 2 That was the consensus of the Yellowstone River 3 Conservation Forum at the time. 4 And it is my considered opinion again that 5 this consensus statement reflects an underlying 6 philosophical understanding by Eastern Montanans that 7 to determine the best means to improve the health of 8 the rangeland and sustain the rural landscape and 9 open spaces, it's a one-size fits all concept that 10 the SWL considered to be just another burden, as are 11 so many federal regulation emanating from Washington. 12 The concepts, of course, now are moot. 13 They have been translated through 8,300 comments, and 14 so forth, into a DEIS. And those concepts are still 15 alive in some respects, but I feel that there are 16 several disagreements with the -- with the DEIS that 17 I would like to bring to the attention of the BLM. 18 And it needs to be said that the BLM proposal to 19 alter the livestock grazing rules on public lands in 20 Montana managed by the BLM would undermine the 21 efforts to improve rangeland conditions. 22 Number one, the proposed revision 23 requirement added for the BLM to cooperate with the 24 State, local, or county grazing boards, I think it is 25 an agreeable and worthwhile amendment. SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 43 1 And one other thing, the proposed revisions 2 to the -- let's see. The conservation use issue, I 3 also believe that the efficiency and effectiveness of 4 the conservation use are very important. The removal 5 of this provision for conservation use would 6 negatively effect riparian wildlife resources. I'll 7 go into this further in my written comments, but I 8 would like to say that the conservation use permits 9 are integral to the rangeland health. The 10 restoration of the conservation use permits and their 11 examination and review should be made a function of 12 the existing resource advisory council and kept as a 13 permanent subcommittee. 14 I have several additional comments. My 15 time is up, but I do appreciate the chance to speak 16 to the BLM. We are very much concerned with this 17 issue. We have addressed it several times. It's 18 important, especially here to all of us here at 19 Eastern Montana. And thank you. 20 MR. CHAFFIN: Thank you, Robert. 21 Our next commentor is James J. Sparks. 22 MR. SPARKS: I have no comment. 23 MR. CHAFFIN: Okay. Appreciate it. 24 Joe Gibson. Joe, J-o-e, Gibson, 25 G-i-b-s-o-n. Joe, could you tell us where you're SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 44 1 from. 2 MR. GIBSON: I'm currently from Billings 3 the last 20 year or so. I retired here in 1981 from 4 the BLM. I am here representing to some extent the 5 Public Lands Foundation, which is an organization of 6 retired BLM-ers, primarily, but we also welcome 7 working BLM-ers and general public to become members 8 of our organization. 9 I'm particularly concerned with the 10 continued professional management of the public lands 11 and retaining the public lands and public ownership 12 as much as possible. I have a comment sheet here 13 that I will turn in. There are a couple of points 14 that I would like to make while I'm up. 15 The Foundation somewhat feels that the 1995 16 changes in grazing regulations have hardly been in 17 operation long enough to be evaluated. They were 18 huge and cost -- quite costly. We've followed the 19 adoption of the '95 rules closely, and are unaware of 20 problems brought on by the new rules. 21 Our analysis of the proposal indicates it 22 to be a BLM effort by the administration to undo 23 rather than make progressive improvements. 24 Just a couple comments of concerns that we 25 have in particular are on the issue of water rights. SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 45 1 We believe that the water rights should retain -- be 2 retained with the land. Water controls the land, and 3 we think that they should be controlled. Now, that 4 doesn't mean that the permittee can't use the water 5 and all of this, but the managing agency should have 6 the control of that water and retain the ownership of 7 it. 8 Somewhat the same thing on the ownership of 9 range improvements. The permittee improvements are 10 attached to the land when the permittee has the 11 permit 12 on that land or not. It makes it a little bit 13 awkward. If for some particular reason he should 14 lose control of that permit, then how do we reimburse 15 him? 16 I believe in the current regulations there 17 are some provisions for reimbursing the permittee for 18 the investment he has made in range improvements, but 19 again, I think they should retain some public 20 ownership. 21 On the issue of access across private land, 22 I really sympathize with these guys on the problem 23 they have with off-road vehicles and what have you. 24 I do believe, however, that the -- we should require 25 reasonable access across public land, and, for the SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 46 1 most part, most of the permittees are very 2 cooperative and work with it. But you have the few 3 that refuse to grant public access. It's a sensitive 4 issue that should not be left silent by eliminating 5 it from the permit terms and conditions. 6 On rangeland monitoring, we pretty strongly 7 feel that the obligation for monitoring the public 8 lands be with the agency, rather than outsourcing it 9 to somebody else. The manager eventually is going to 10 have to make his decisions based on this monitoring, 11 and he needs to know that it has been done by 12 qualified people who understand the situation. 13 Again, I'll hand this in to the -- for the 14 record, and thanks again for permitting us to appear. 15 MR. CHAFFIN: Thank you, Joe. We 16 appreciate that. 17 The next commentor, Ron Moody. Ron is here 18 from the Montana Wildlife Federation. Ron, R-o-n, 19 M-o-o-d-y. 20 MR. MOODY: That's correct. Thank you. I 21 live in Lewistown. I am vice president of the 22 Montana Wildlife Federation. We are a statewide 23 organization of hunters and anglers with more than 24 8,000 members. And this federation is 67 years old, 25 and we have been concerned with proper management of SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 47 1 our public lands over the entire span of that 67 2 years. 3 I commented here a year ago March 13th, I 4 think, 2003, on the subject of the initial proposal 5 for grazing rule changes. I have spoken to our 6 resource advisory council on the subject, and I 7 already submitted comments, via the web site, E-mail 8 on the subject of the changes. 9 Speaking to the draft EIS, we want to state 10 firmly in advance of anything else that I might say 11 on the subject that we fully support a well-managed 12 grazing industry on our public lands. It is how do 13 we define "well-managed" that creates this 14 discussion. But I want to make it clear that nothing 15 that I say is intended to make good grazing 16 permittees have to leave our public lands. 17 Having said that, we want to support the no 18 action alternative as it is stated in the draft EIS, 19 and propose the proposed alternative and the modified 20 proposed alternative. It's our belief that this 21 draft EIS is sufficient and defective in several 22 respects. 23 In general, the analysis section supporting 24 the proposed rule changes are not supported by the 25 data. And the professed need for these rule changes SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 48 1 is neither quantified or justified. It simply says 2 that harm has been done to the grazing industry, but 3 it does not quantify how much, where, and by what 4 rule people have been economically harmed, and that 5 is a fatal flaw, in my view. 6 I would suggest that a better proposal 7 would be yet another alternative. Having spent my 8 career in private industry, I would suggest that you 9 look next time around at an alternative which is 10 based upon what was called best practices methodology 11 in private industry and go out and examine how 12 private landowners managed, leased, and rented 13 grazings on their privately owned land, and build a 14 rule change, if it's necessary, on that basis, 15 because I think you will find that private landowners 16 do not surrender water rights to their land without a 17 fight, and they certainly do not allow their lessees 18 to own the improvements on their lands for the 19 convenience and profit of the lessee, just as two 20 examples. 21 I would -- I agree with the earlier 22 commentor, that since 1995 the rangeland reform 23 program has not had an opportunity to be fully 24 judged, but to the extent it has been in operation, 25 it is much better than its predecessor that these SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 49 1 rule changes suggest we should go back to. Water 2 rights in particular should stay in the land and 3 there should be no federal regulations which would 4 facilitate the use of State water laws to sever water 5 rights on the land. The Bureau of Land Management 6 should at every opportunity move to retain or gain 7 the water rights to the public lands. 8 Just in summation, I believe there are a 9 lot of good grazing permittees out there who can be 10 well served by the present rangeland reform program. 11 There are in 200,000 grazing operators in this 12 country, some 23,000 of which have public land 13 grazing permits. Whatever pressure they are to us, 14 it is a small special interest group of our industry 15 and it can't be taken care of without a public 16 welfare program to support it. Thank you. 17 MR. CHAFFIN: Thank you, Mr. Moody. 18 Our next commentor is John Gibson. John, 19 J-o-h-n, Gibson, G-i-b-s-o-n. 20 MR. GIBSON: That's correct. 21 MR. CHAFFIN: And, Mr. Gibson, you're with 22 the public land access? 23 MR. GIBSON: I live in Billings. My career 24 is with the Forrest Service, and including range 25 management, and it all had to do with public SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 50 1 resource management. And there is one axiom, I 2 believe, and that is if you want to keep a public 3 resource public, you don't give away a vested 4 interest. 5 And two of the proposals that I saw in the 6 proposed alternative certainly do that, and the one 7 obviously is a water right. The other obviously is 8 the ownership of the range improvements themselves. 9 Clearly, if the agency does this, and then 10 they find that they have to do a necessary action on 11 that permit, they're very likely to find themselves 12 in the middle of a lawsuit. This is public land, and 13 it should remain public land along with the resources 14 and the water. Thank you. 15 MR. CHAFFIN: Thank you, Mr. Gibson. 16 I would like to ask if there is anyone else 17 who would like to speak who we have missed. If you 18 would like to come to the podium, we would invite you 19 to do so if you haven't signed up previously. 20 Could you provide for us your name and 21 would you spell it for the record, please, and let us 22 know where you're from or if you're representing a 23 group. 24 MR. LEA: I'll see what my name is. 25 Bernard, B-e-r-n-a-r-d, Lea, L-e-a, and I will speak SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 51 1 for Public Land Access Association. 2 I would just like to take a few minutes to 3 say I was on the Eastern Montana rack (ph.) in 1995 4 when it was first incorporated, and we were the first 5 group in Montana to get the grazing rule regulations 6 out to the satisfaction of all parties concerned, 7 recreationists, ATV riders, ranchers, and everybody 8 was happy with it. And I agree with the statements 9 that have been made previously, is give it a chance 10 to work. 11 I also want to state any objection to the 12 water rights going private on any public lands, the 13 improvements going private. I happen to be a land 14 appraiser at this point in time, and that can really 15 cause problems in value if the land belongs to one 16 person and the improvements belong to somebody else. 17 It would make it a nightmare. 18 And in order to keep those lands public, I 19 think we need to ensure that that public land is 20 public land. 21 And the only last statement I would like to 22 make is they have to be managed and they have to be 23 managed by the government. The people that are in 24 charge of keeping track of them, they're the ones 25 that have to do that. We did it for years. SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 52 1 I'm a friend of John Gibson, I spent my a 2 year with the U.S. Forest Service. We managed the 3 land. Did we always do it the way everybody agreed 4 to? Absolutely not. They were the managers. 5 Whatever it is going to take, put the budgets up to 6 stop the ATV's running all over. That is what has to 7 happen, but it has to happen by a government agency 8 to enforce those rules. I think that is it. Thank 9 you. 10 MR. CHAFFIN: Thank you, Bernard. 11 Appreciate that. 12 Is there anyone else that would like to 13 comment? 14 Yes, sir. Please come forward. If you 15 could provide for us your name and spell it. 16 MR. WOERNER: My name is Don Woerner, 17 W-o-e-r-n-e-r, just west of Billings here. I 18 appreciate the chance to come and talk. I just want 19 to say a couple of things. I think your proposal is 20 a backward step. If you look at the history of 21 public lands and especially the arid west, a lot of 22 these lands started out as free grass and were 23 terribly abused before the Taylor Grazing Act, which 24 helped a lot. 25 We have come to value the land more for SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 53 1 other things that we never saw was there early on, 2 such as wildlife and allowing -- and not to have so 3 much fragmentation of habitat. Just look at a map of 4 Eastern Montana, and you see the way we settle it up 5 with a rectangular service system. It is a disaster. 6 A lot of these public lands are all chopped 7 up, and they are in little pieces. And I think the 8 groups that are hurt by this are probably just the 9 average people and the wildlife. You look at Eastern 10 Montana and you look at what's happening with the 11 purchasing of these ranches out here. Do a little 12 demographic study to who is buying these ranches. 13 They're going into private hands. They are hunting 14 preserves. Many of them are being kept out of -- 15 there are outfitters that are controlling the land. 16 The public can't get on them anymore. We don't have 17 the good old boys -- we still have a lot of them, but 18 -- and I come from a family that owns a ranch with 19 BLM permit. 20 I'm also a veterinarian, and I have worked 21 with cows for about 35 years, so -- but I'm real 22 concerned about the way we're going, and I don't like 23 the idea of privatizing things. I think that is a 24 silly idea. 25 The water rights should go with the land, SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 54 1 and you shouldn't privatize improvements. I think 2 that benefits too small a group that really uses 3 these lands and has the potential for using these 4 lands in the future. 5 As for the ATV's, I fully agree. We don't 6 need them tearing up the land and anybody -- 7 including anybody in the public that is a bad actor 8 needs to be taken care of. And we do have rules on 9 that, so -- and I appreciate the many, many good 10 permittee holders graze the land, and I think they 11 should continue to do so, but we must recognize that 12 things are changing, and we need to actually -- I 13 agree with one of the other speakers who said we need 14 to look at more how we manage these lands and manage 15 them like a private people would manage them. That 16 includes increasing the cost per AUM of running a 17 cow. 18 You look at what it costs to administer 19 these lands, and then you look at what the federal 20 government charges, and it's a joke. And I am sorry. 21 All of these mountain ranches are owned by 22 people that are hobby ranches. I shouldn't say all, 23 but this is what is happening. People are buying 24 these ranches. They may run cows. They may take 25 their tax deductions, but they live somewhere else. SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 55 1 And people live on the land. They may be young 2 families, but they're -- it is not the same that it 3 used to be. It's changing. We need to protect the 4 use of these public lands for the public and for the 5 wildlife. Thank you. 6 MR. CHAFFIN: Thank you, sir. 7 Sir, please come on up. 8 MR. BEGGESS: My name is Howard Beggess, 9 B-e-g-g-e-s-s. I have been listening to a lot of 10 this and I'm very, very concerned about it. I am a 11 Crow American Indian. I grew up on the reservation. 12 I have been on government land my entire life. And, 13 you know, the stuff that you guys are proposing here 14 is absolutely ridiculous, giving water rights away, 15 giving, you know, the improvements to -- that people 16 do on Billings. 17 I mean, I have worked on ranches and stuff 18 all my life and they -- when a rancher -- he pays his 19 lease, people are still allowed to use the -- to use 20 the land. And I say when you use it, you use it 21 properly. If you go out there and tear it up, I 22 think you should be arrested and prosecuted properly, 23 but, you know, water rights should stay with the land 24 definitely. 25 And also, buildings should remain with the SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 56 1 land. If somebody does an improvement on a building 2 or something such as that, then they have a right to 3 stop other people from using that land. Somebody 4 goes up after the cow season is over, and they want 5 to stay in there and do some hunting or something, 6 the landowner then can tell them that they cannot do 7 this. 8 But on a reservation, we do -- I have 9 worked on places where we went out and we improved 10 things. We have built fences. We did all of these 11 things, and this was all done at a cost of the 12 lessee, not -- not the Bureau of Indian Affairs. And 13 when we left there, we didn't go out there and roll 14 up the fences. They were left. When we -- when we 15 left there and we went into cabins and we fixed them 16 up. They were liveable. We rebuilt the barns and 17 all of these things so they were usable. We didn't 18 go out there and roll that stuff up and take it with 19 us or tell anybody else that they couldn't go in 20 there and use that. 21 There was many times when we would go up 22 there -- we would be up there maybe once six weeks 23 working our cattle or something like that. We would 24 use the building for six weeks, but 30 minutes after 25 we left, we would have people coming in and using the SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 57 1 cabins. And, you know, so I'm pretty much against 2 some of these things of taking away any rights of 3 public property. I think public property should stay 4 in the hands of the public, not of a lessee. 5 I know that I got tangled up with a ranch 6 in Western Montana. I'll just say Diamond-E. Most 7 of you know Diamond-E, who owns it. I got involved 8 with him up there. He denied us the right to use 9 public land, and all we was going to do was to cross 10 this public land with a wagon train. Two and a half 11 hours after we went on the land we would have been 12 off of the land, but we would to make a journey 13 probably 17, 18 miles to get around the two and a 14 half miles that we could have using his land. 15 So like I say, I'm mostly in favor of 16 public lands stay in public. I believe the public 17 should take care of the land when they're out there. 18 One of the other things that I'm very, very 19 concerned about is that historic and cultural sites 20 that are out there, I think that -- that the 21 government has to stay involved in this and make sure 22 that them there are taken care of. I don't want 23 somebody to go out here and destroy a thousand year 24 old painting. I don't want somebody to go out here 25 and tear up a bunch of teepee rings that are out SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 58 1 there. Some of these teepee rings are more than a 2 thousand years old. There is paintings out of 3 Bridger, Montana, only site in the United States. It 4 has been carbon dated a thousand years old on BLM 5 land. Only the BLM can take care of them. 6 You turn that over to a private landowner, 7 and they will be gone in a little while, because 8 somebody will be out there using it as target 9 practice. Thank you. 10 MR. CHAFFIN: Thank you, Mr. Beggess. We 11 appreciate that. 12 We have a commentor, Mr. Mike Penfold. 13 Mike, M-i-k-e, Penfold, P-e-n-f-o-l-d. 14 MR. PENFOLD: Yes. Who is getting this 15 stuff? 16 MR. CHAFFIN: Mr. Penfold, could you tell 17 us where you're from or if you're representing an 18 organization. 19 MR. PENFOLD: Yes. My name is Mike 20 Penfold. I'm from Billings here, and I'm 21 representing an organization called Our Montana, and 22 I am a retired federal employee. I've worked in the 23 field in the Forrest Service and on the council on 24 environmental quality, the White House organization, 25 and also the Bureau of Land Management. My job was SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 59 1 to develop the environmental policies, acts, 2 regulations. I worked on that team that this EIS or 3 draft EIS is supposed to be guided by. My last 4 assignments with the BLM were to be -- where I was 5 responsible for national resources and land policies 6 at the national level. 7 With that background, in considerable 8 thought I submit this paper with comments on the 9 draft EIS. The paper is too long to cover, so I'll 10 just make a few summary comments. The policies 11 proposed by the administration are neither in the 12 interest of the public land or the long-term 13 stability of the livestock industry. The draft EIS 14 is seriously flawed, and it does not meet the 15 fundamental requirements of the National 16 Environmental Policy Act. 17 It is my recommendation that the proposals 18 be dropped by the administration, or that the draft 19 EIS be rewritten to disclose the real impact of the 20 proposals on the public lands, as the law requires. 21 We understand that family farms and 22 ranchers are an important part of the basics of who 23 we are. Ranching in the west is a darn tough 24 business. 25 It is also important to keep in mind that SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 60 1 urban people support farm programs when they come in 2 front of congress. Urban people send tax dollars to 3 support rural schools and roads. We charge ranchers 4 pennies on the dollar for public land grazing fees. 5 We fund entire agencies to assist farmers and 6 ranchers with technology, research, and extension 7 education. 8 We have to tax ourselves, because so much 9 of our money is going someplace else. It seems only 10 reasonable that those ranchers who enjoy privileges 11 should take care of our land, our public land. Most 12 sectors assume that support is inexhaustible. 13 There are only about 18,000 permits across 14 the west. That is about as many people who live in 15 the Heights here in Billings. Most of these 18,000 16 ranchers are good stewards. There are fewer that are 17 BLM allotments, fewer than 18,000 that have 18 allotments that are in bad shape, that need work. 19 And most of those people that have allotments work 20 cooperatively with the BLM to get those allotments in 21 better shape. 22 There is a smaller group of that 18,000 23 that are bad actors, and that is really where the 24 range reform of 1995 was focused on, trying to 25 provide the BLM with tools so we could straighten out SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 61 1 the bad actors. And it's these bad actors who hardly 2 acknowledge the land is public. They resist any 3 reasonable grazing administration by BLM. These are 4 often those who give the public land grazing a bad 5 name. They put the entire industry at risk. 6 The policies that the administration 7 proposes are policies that no private land owner 8 would allow if they were to lease the land for 9 grazing. If they were going to lease their own land, 10 they wouldn't consider these kind of things. Could 11 you imagine a private land owner saying to you, yes, 12 you can graze my land, and, by the way, if you want 13 to file on my water resources, go ahead and take my 14 water. It won't affect me. If you want to put the 15 permanent improvements on the land, I will pay you 16 back if you have to move. That won't have any effect 17 on me either. If you are overgrazing my land, I will 18 pay for several years of monitoring to prove that you 19 are damaging my land. But don't worry, that won't 20 affect me either. And if you have to take a few more 21 years to get the cows off, take five years to do 22 that, too. That won't have any effect. 23 This is ridiculous. You have to get real. 24 This is bad policy for any landowner and darn bad 25 policy for our public lands. A legitimate draft EIS SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 62 1 couldn't stand the light of day. The proposal is a 2 step backwards. 3 MR. CHAFFIN: Thank you, Mike. We 4 appreciate that. 5 Commentor Cathy Byron. Cathy, C-a-t-h-y, 6 Byron, B-y-r-o-n. Cathy, if you could let us know 7 where you're from and if you're representing an 8 organization. 9 MS. BYRON: I live in Forsyth. I own a 10 partnership in my grandparents homestead at Brusett. 11 I'm a fifth generation land owner in Montana. I only 12 learned of this hearing, EIS hearing, Saturday night, 13 and have not read the document, so my comments will 14 sort of be in response to some of the things I heard 15 here. 16 I am working as a team leader for the 17 community action team out in our community at 18 Brusett. We were burned out head to toe in the 19 130,000 acre Missouri Breaks fire. That also has 20 implications with the BLM, but we won't go there. 21 I have a couple questions. Will there be a 22 hearing, a deposition such as this east of Billings? 23 Is there one scheduled for Miles City? 24 MR. CHAFFIN: I believe this is the hearing 25 for Montana. SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 63 1 MS. BYRON: And will a transcript of this 2 hearing be available to us in the near future? 3 MR. OTT: Yes. As a matter of fact, it 4 will be posted on the internet with the other 5 comments that are provided to the rule making and 6 draft EIS. 7 MS. BYRON: And when is the deadline for 8 entrance of comments? 9 MR. OTT: March the 2nd. 10 MS. BYRON: I will work with my community. 11 If we come up with a statement which I think we will 12 all agree, could we all sign and count as 35 13 signatures or 50, or do we have to each submit 14 separate papers even though it would be the same 15 comment? 16 MR. OTT: You can sign it as a group, yes. 17 MS. BYRON: They have authorized me as 18 their spokesman, not for this, because we haven't had 19 time, but the comments you are going to hear me 20 making are things that you would hear from that part 21 of the world. 22 The landowners in the aftermath of the 23 Missouri Breaks fire are facing issues. That 24 explains why they take the stance that the AUM's have 25 to remain at a lower level than what it might be on SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 64 1 the open market. Fences by the miles -- they 2 estimate a thousand miles of fence is gone in that 3 country in the wake of that fire. 4 Much of that land, as was said here 5 earlier, is in little squares, public land. BLM, we 6 have worked closely with the BLM. We have had three 7 community meetings just as a community to see what we 8 could do. BLM came in and joined us, and they had a 9 fourth meeting. The only fencing materials that they 10 will replace are those that divide BLM from BLM. 11 Where we have private bordering BLM, we foot the 12 bill. We're going to replace that fencing. 13 Weeds have been alluded to more than once 14 here. I would like to compliment the Miles City BLM 15 office. They have coupled in an effort with our 16 county weed crew, and somehow we have been able to 17 draw the CMR in, but I would challenge anyone who is 18 concerned about weeds on private land to take a look 19 at the lack of weed control, even lack of a weed 20 specialist on the staff of the CMR. They hire an 21 ecologist, and that is their weed specialist. 22 We have an aggressive plan put together. 23 We have 130 acres that are scorched, some of it white 24 ash with the top of the ground burned like a glass 25 plate, and weeds are an issue. And believe you me, SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 65 1 the landowners, ranchers are perhaps even more 2 concerned than the BLM about control of the weeds. I 3 could sit on my deck this summer, and if I had a 4 butterfly net, I would have had basket full of 5 Canadian Thistle seed. You can talk to the pilots. 6 They run into thousands of it 10,000 feet in the air. 7 MR. CHAFFIN: Thank you, Cathy. 8 Is there anyone else that wants to provide 9 comments? Could you give us your full name and spell 10 it and let us know where you're from. 11 MR. SEILSTAD: My name is Carl Seilstad, 12 S-e-i-l-s-t-a-d. I, like some of the others, come a 13 little bit unprepared. I haven't had a chance to 14 really look over the document yet, other than 15 listening to Mr. Visser's presentation on the board 16 up here. 17 Anything that the BLM can do to build a 18 better working relationship with the permittee is a 19 step in the right direction. I think it takes that 20 working relationship if you plan on bettering the 21 health of the land, and I think that will happen. If 22 you can set up a better working relationship, I think 23 it is a step in the right direction. I fully support 24 it. 25 Fergus County commissioners have attested SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 66 1 all along that on the day-to-day operations, the 2 permittee and the agency is the two that should be 3 handling those problems. On the planning, yes, then 4 involve the public. But we feel, to get things done, 5 if you want to improve it, you've got to go to the 6 permittee and work out that deal with him or her. 7 That is just a few comments that I did have. I will 8 submit a more thorough comment by the March 2nd 9 deadline. Thank you. 10 MR. CHAFFIN: Thank you. 11 Is there anyone else that would like to 12 offer public comment? If not, then I will officially 13 close this meeting. The BLM officials will be 14 available afterwards to have conversations and 15 provide some responses to your questions. And so 16 with that, we will now go off the record. Thank you 17 very much. 18 (Whereupon, the meeting adjourned at 7:50 19 p.m.) 20 21 22 23 24 25 SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300 67 1 CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER State of Montana ) 2 ss: County of Yellowstone ) 3 4 5 I, Susan Shanstrom, R.P.R., and Notary Public in and 6 for the State of Montana, residing in Billings, Montana, do 7 hereby certify: 8 That I was duly authorized to and did report the 9 foregoing meeting; that the meeting was taken at the time 10 and place stated on the caption hereto; that the meeting 11 was taken in shorthand by me and subsequently reduced to 12 writing under my direction; that the foregoing is a true 13 and correct transcript of the meeting. 14 I further certify that I am not counsel, attorney, 15 nor relative or employee of any party, nor otherwise 16 interested in the event of this action. 17 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my 18 name and affixed my notarial seal this 21st day of March 19 2004. 20 21 22 SUSAN SHANSTROM, R.P.R., and Notary Public, State of Montana 23 Residing in Billings, Montana My Commission expires 8-11-04 24 25 SHANSTROM REPORTING (406) 248-5300