BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT PROPOSED GRAZING REGULATION REVISIONS PUBLIC MEETING JANUARY 31, 2004 BOISE, IDAHO REPORTED BY: NANCY SCHWARTZ, CSR NO. 483 Notary Public 2 1 PUBLIC MEETING AGENDA PAGE 2 Welcome K Lynn Bennett, Idaho 2 3 State Director 4 5 Introduction Jim Kenna, Special Assistant to 4 6 Assistant Director for Renewable 7 Resources and Planning 8 BLM Washington Office 9 10 Overview of Bud Cribley, Group Manager, 7 11 Agenda/MC Rangeland, Soils, Water and Air 12 Group, BLM Washington Office 13 14 Proposed Kenneth Visser, Rangeland 10 15 Regulations Management Specialist, BLM 16 Draft EIS Washington Office 17 Summary 18 19 Public Comment 22 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 JANUARY 31, 2004, BOISE, IDAHO 2 MR. BENNETT: Well, I think it's time that 3 we got this meeting under way. My name is K Lynn 4 Bennett. I'm the state director for BLM here in 5 Idaho. I want to extend my appreciation and thanks 6 to all of you for participating in this public 7 meeting, which BLM is holding in connection with the 8 Draft Environmental Impact Statement on our proposed 9 grazing regulations. 10 The purpose of this meeting is to hear and 11 receive your comments on the Draft Impact Statement. 12 We certainly appreciate your input on this document 13 and thank you for taking the time to share your 14 views with us on this important process. I want to 15 take a minute and introduce three BLM-ers who will 16 be speaking to you before the public comment period 17 begins. 18 First of all, Jim Kenna. Jim is a special 19 assistant in Washington, D.C, who is spearheading 20 the grazing regulation revision for the director. 21 He will provide a few remarks on the background of 22 these regulatory revisions. 23 Following Jim, Bud Cribley, who is the 24 group manager for BLM's rangelands group in 25 Washington, D.C, will explain the procedure that we 4 1 will follow in taking the public comments and will 2 serve as a moderator for this session. 3 Following Bud will be Ken Visser, our 4 rangeland management specialist now based in Reno, 5 will then gave a brief presentation and summarize 6 the proposed grazing rules. 7 Also, we have on the stand the Honorable 8 Harvey Sweitzer who is with the Department of 9 Interior Office of Hearing and Appeals in Salt Lake. 10 He will be presiding over the hearing. 11 So, after Ken finishes, we'll open up for 12 public comment process which is your opportunity to 13 give us your input and feedback on the impact 14 statement. 15 On behalf of the Department of Interior and 16 the Bureau of Land Management, I want to again thank 17 you for coming to participate in this meeting. I 18 will now turn the microphone over to Jim Kenna. 19 MR. KENNA: Thank you, K Lynn. 20 Can everybody hear me okay? All right. I 21 want to extend my thanks as well for your taking 22 some time out of a Saturday afternoon to come out 23 and participate in a public process like this. I 24 think it's really important. I also want to thank 25 K Lynn for the introduction. I'm kind of liking the M & M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (208) 345-9611 5 1 idea of being introduced as a spearhead. I think 2 that suits me well. 3 With that, I want to reiterate my purpose. 4 My purpose really is to give you some of the 5 concepts that we're behind and give you some sort of 6 a feel for the concepts that underlie the proposed 7 revisions to the grazing regulations. There are 8 three. 9 First and foremost is to promote 10 cooperation. Secondly, and closely related to 11 cooperation, is to protect rangeland health. And, 12 finally, to improve administrative efficiency. Let 13 me explain these a little bit deeper by delving into 14 some history to give you a little bit of a sense of 15 the thought process underneath this. 16 There has been a close tie between 17 communities in the West, in particular, and public 18 lands for over 150 years dating back to the time of 19 Lincoln and the first Homestead Act. Communities 20 grew up around mining camps and groups of ranches 21 and railroad stops, and over time this pattern 22 persisted clear until after the invention of the 23 automobile. 24 The period of time that I want to talk the 25 most about is the 1930s when a conservation movement M & M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (208) 345-9611 6 1 led to the passage of the Taylor Grazing Act and the 2 establishment of concepts like base property and 3 preference. And with the passage of that act, that 4 tie between communities, particularly rural 5 communities in the West, and the public lands was 6 set into law. 7 Since that time, we have a number of 8 experiences with improvement in rangeland health, 9 and the broadest scale, longest term, and some of 10 our best examples of improvements in rangeland 11 health came through cooperation. If you look to 12 today, that is still true. And for an example, I 13 would point out the National Riparian Service Team. 14 I've heard of their work across many states and even 15 in Mexico. 16 Periodically, we come to a time when we 17 need to revise the grazing regulations, and it's 18 been eight years since the last time that we did 19 this. Each time that we do, we come to you, the 20 public, and we ask you to engage in comment and to 21 give us your reactions and ideas regarding these 22 proposed revisions, and that is our primary purpose 23 today. 24 Our primary purpose is to listen. While we 25 will give a brief overview to bring everybody to M & M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (208) 345-9611 7 1 sort of the same level within the room, our primary 2 purpose is to listen. 3 So, with that, let me pass the microphone 4 to Bud Cribley, and he can sort of lay out the 5 meeting for you. 6 MR. CRIBLEY: Again, I want to also thank 7 everybody for coming in today. Also, reintroducing 8 myself, my name is Bud Cribley. I'm the new group 9 manager for Rangeland Resources in the headquarters 10 of BLM in Washington, D.C. 11 I've been in this position for about a 12 month now and feel very lucky from the standpoint 13 that we're conducting these public meetings out West 14 and that I'm getting a chance to come out, which I 15 haven't been able to do out of Washington for a 16 while, and see the West and meet the individuals who 17 are involved and engaged in the Livestock Grazing 18 Program that BLM oversees. 19 And I appreciate and -- truly appreciate 20 everybody who is here today and especially those 21 folks who are willing to come up and provide 22 comments to us as far as your thoughts and views on 23 these proposed regs and draft grazing EIS. 24 I want to restate that the purpose of this 25 meeting is to gather comments from the public. This M & M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (208) 345-9611 8 1 is not a forum for debate -- the debating of the 2 issues of livestock grazing on public lands. The 3 meeting is not intended to answer questions as a 4 part of the meeting. It is to receive comments. 5 After the presentation that Ken Visser and Jim Kenna 6 will be giving, we'll move into the comment phase. 7 One thing that we will do for everyone here 8 is that after the meeting is concluded, we do have 9 this room until about 5:00 this afternoon, I 10 believe. And we will make ourselves available to 11 answer any questions or to have any discussions on 12 these issues with anybody who would like. But that 13 will not be a part of this formal meeting. 14 I just want everybody to know that we are 15 considering this a formal meeting. We do have a 16 recorder who is recording all the comments that are 17 made at this meeting, and all comments made by the 18 public will become a part of the permanent record 19 that will be used as part of the proposed regs and 20 draft EIS. 21 I want to emphasize to you how important 22 these comments are to us. The BLM is listening to 23 everything that folks are saying in all of these 24 public meetings that we're conducting. And so we do 25 encourage folks to come up here and talk to us. M & M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (208) 345-9611 9 1 The other thing to remember is this is not 2 your only opportunity to provide input to the bureau 3 on these documents. This is just one phase of it. 4 Your comments will be recorded and put as a part of 5 the record, but an individual or group can also 6 submit written comments to the bureau, and they will 7 also be fully considered and a part of the permanent 8 record. 9 And I guess with that, I think that's 10 enough as far as the initial introductions. A 11 little bit about housekeeping. There are restrooms 12 available for you, and we'll try not to make this a 13 marathon meeting for everybody. The restrooms 14 are -- as you go out of the meeting room, if you 15 take a right, go down the hallway, and there's a 16 hallway to your left. The first hallway to your 17 left, if you go down that hallway and immediately to 18 your left again are the restrooms for your use. 19 And, also, as you've already seen as you 20 came in, we have water in the back of the room, and 21 also there's coffee and refreshments out in the 22 entryway for your use, also. 23 Depending how long the meeting goes, if it 24 looks like it's going to last for a while, we'll 25 certainly take a break to give everybody an M & M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (208) 345-9611 10 1 opportunity to stretch and use the restrooms and get 2 something to drink before we continue on. 3 With that, I will go ahead and bring Ken 4 Visser out to start our presentation. One thing to 5 remember is this is not a dialogue, and we will not 6 be taking -- Ken or Jim will not be taking questions 7 as a part of this presentation. We'll do that after 8 the meeting. Thank you. 9 MR. VISSER: My name is Ken Visser. I wish 10 I could stand up, but I think I have to lean over in 11 order for people to hear me. 12 I'm a staff rangeland manager and 13 specialist with Washington, D.C., headquarters. I 14 recently moved to Reno, still working for 15 Washington. Before that time, I worked for 11 years 16 in Elko, Nevada, and another 10 years in Susanville, 17 California, at field level as a range manager and 18 specialist in Elko and as a supervisory range 19 manager and specialist in Susanville. 20 Our purpose at this meeting is to listen to 21 your comments, but we recognize everyone in the room 22 may not have the same level of familiarity with the 23 proposed changes in the regulations or with the 24 Environmental Impact Statement that accompanies 25 their release. M & M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (208) 345-9611 11 1 So, we're providing a quick overview to 2 give everyone a similar foundation for the comments 3 we will hear today. Three primary concepts were 4 used in proposing revisions to the regulations: to 5 improve and promote cooperation, to proceed the 6 health of rangelands, and to increase management 7 efficiency and effectiveness. 8 To improve and promote cooperation, there 9 are five major areas of change proposed. The first 10 is to factor social, economic, and cultural 11 considerations into grazing decisions. This occurs 12 to some degree in environmental assessments now, but 13 it has not been consistently considered or applied. 14 The second is to phase in grazing changes 15 whether there are increases or decreases in the 16 amount of use. This allows implementation of 17 changes in logical steps. 18 For example, certain changes would occur in 19 year one. Their implementation would be worked into 20 the grazing operation, and another portion of the 21 change would occur in year three, and so on, with 22 full implementation of all necessary changes by year 23 five. However, this regulation would not affect 24 BLM's current ability to immediately and fully 25 implement temporary changes in an emergency such as M & M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (208) 345-9611 12 1 suspending grazing use after a fire. 2 BLM could also fully implement the change 3 immediately if that is needed to comply with 4 requirements of existing law such as the Endangered 5 Species Act. 6 The third would be to allow for shared 7 title to cooperatively develop the range 8 improvements based upon the level of investment 9 made. Thus, if a rancher spends money to help BLM 10 create a range improvement like a fence, they can 11 share in the ownership of the fence in proportion to 12 their contribution. 13 The fourth is to establish an expectation 14 to cooperate with the locally established grazing 15 boards. 16 And the fifth would allow for review 17 opportunity for biological evaluations and 18 biological assessments that address grazing use. 19 The goals of the regulation changes 20 are also reflected in what was not changed. The 21 Resource Advisory Councils established under the 22 1995 regulations have shown themselves to be a 23 valuable contributor to public land management. The 24 proposed regulation changes also seek to make 25 adjustments that improve long-term protection of the M & M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (208) 345-9611 13 1 health of rangelands. 2 In addition to the positive effects that 3 cooperative problem solving can have on rangeland 4 health, there are three other changes that are 5 proposed. 6 First, to expand BLM's discretion to 7 approve nonuse by removing the three-year limit on 8 approvals found in the current regulation. The 9 second is to require monitoring to support rangeland 10 health assessments. And the third is to allow a 11 more realistic time frame up to two years to develop 12 and implement actions that ensure progress towards 13 meeting health standards. 14 This time frame would allow for the 15 improvement of the quality of decisions that are 16 made to address rangeland health and would allow for 17 steps such as the development of cooperative 18 approaches, consultation with the Fish and Wildlife 19 Service if it's appropriate, and preparation of 20 environmental analyses. 21 Here again, the goals of the regulation 22 changes are reflected in what was not changed. The 23 rangeland health standards and guidelines under a 24 process provided for under the 1995 regulation 25 support an orderly and consistent approach for M & M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (208) 345-9611 14 1 protecting rangeland health. 2 A third goal was to increase management 3 efficiency and address some legal issues. The first 4 change, removal of conservation use, implements a 5 court decision. The second modifies the definition 6 of preference to include both priority of a permit 7 or lease as well as the amount of forage available. 8 The term "permitted use" would be dropped because it 9 would no longer be necessary. 10 Consultation requirements would be focused 11 on the major processes that describe, evaluate, and 12 allocate grazing use. Where possible unnecessary or 13 duplicative consultation requirements would be 14 dropped. Livestock water rights issues would be 15 resolved under state processes and joint livestock 16 water rights would be an option. 17 The proposed changes would also clarify 18 satisfactory performance and establish parameters 19 for the phrase "within the terms and conditions of a 20 permit or lease," and administratively, service 21 charges are proposed to be increased. 22 Three more proposed changes. Where an act 23 is prohibited, action against a permit or lease 24 would be tied to whether the prohibited act was 25 related to activities under the permit or lease. M & M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (208) 345-9611 15 1 The status of a permit or lease, when it is 2 under appeal, would be clarified, and the proposed 3 changes clarify that biological evaluations and 4 biological assessments are not decisions, but rather 5 are consultation documents between BLM and Fish and 6 Wildlife Service required under the Endangered 7 Species Act. 8 So, with a proposed change of this type, 9 BLM has completed a Draft Environmental Impact 10 Statement or DEIS and is seeking public comment. 11 The Draft EIS has three alternatives. 12 The no-action alternative identifies the 13 effects of continuing under the present regulations 14 without the proposed changes. The proposed action 15 discloses the effects of adopting the proposed 16 changes, and the modified action alternative 17 illustrates the effects of making some changes and 18 not others or, in some cases, of making different 19 changes. 20 Generally, the no-action alternative would 21 result in no change in working relationships. No 22 regulation change would result in some hastily 23 designed and implemented actions to meet required 24 time lines which, in turn, would reduce the 25 effectiveness of some actions, and current problems M & M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (208) 345-9611 16 1 in administrative efficiency would not be addressed. 2 Again, very generally, the proposed 3 alternative is expected to result in improved 4 working relations and increased cooperation, 5 particularly when problem solving and implementing 6 change. Long-term rangeland health is expected to 7 improve, and we do anticipate improvements in 8 efficiency allowing more time to focus on important 9 decisions and more time to get work done on the 10 ground. 11 Let's take a little closer look at some of 12 the more specific effects of the proposed action. 13 There will be time to design and adjust when 14 implementing changes in the amount of livestock 15 grazing. By allowing phased-in changes, change can 16 be implemented in logical steps starting in year one 17 and completing a phase-in by year five. 18 Consideration of social, economic, and 19 cultural factors would be applied more consistently 20 across all public land permits and leases. 21 Cooperation and communication with state and local 22 grazing boards would be improved, and incentives for 23 private investment and range improvement projects 24 also would be improved. 25 Taking the time to see cooperation and M & M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (208) 345-9611 17 1 carefully design decisions that change livestock 2 grazing may mean some changes don't happen as fast. 3 And at some places, that could have some short-term 4 adverse impacts at the local level. 5 But over the long term, implementation of 6 well-designed actions to improve rangeland condition 7 is expected to improve vegetative conditions and 8 overall watershed conditions. One thing to remember 9 when talking about broad-scale change in vegetative 10 and watershed condition is that these changes 11 generally occur slowly. 12 The proposed changes that create the 13 possibility for short-term adverse effects basically 14 relate to the time taken to design and implement 15 changes and information base used to make those 16 decisions. 17 Basically, the proposed action would trade 18 some localized risk of adverse impact for 19 improvements in the quality sustainability and 20 long-term support of underlying decisions to change 21 livestock grazing. Removal of restrictions on 22 approval of temporary nonuse also creates greater 23 flexibility in working with permittees and lessees. 24 What impacts are expected in terms of 25 administrative efficiency? More focused M & M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (208) 345-9611 18 1 communications with interested public, more timely 2 decisions, improved cost recovery for processing 3 actions, and improved clarity of regulations. 4 One last alternative, the modified action 5 alternative. Some of the major effects of this 6 alternative would be greater flexibility due to 7 discretion allowed for five-year phase-in and use of 8 monitoring data, but less flexibility due to the 9 five-year limit on consecutive years of nonuse. 10 Reduced spread of weeds is also expected 11 based on a requirement which would be added to the 12 Prohibited Act section to use certified weed-free 13 hay. 14 There is information on the schedule that 15 we're using. The comment period ends on March 2, 16 2004. We expect to publish the Final Environmental 17 Impact Statement in September of this year with the 18 final rule published by October. This would make 19 the grazing rule effective in December 2004. 20 I hope this overview has been useful for 21 most of you. For those of you who are already very 22 familiar with the proposed regulations and the Draft 23 EIS, thank you for your patience so that others 24 could get the information. Now we are on to our 25 primary purpose for the meeting, to listen to your M & M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (208) 345-9611 19 1 thoughts and ideas. 2 MR. CRIBLEY: Thank you, Ken. 3 What I would like to do now is just to 4 remind everybody that this is a formal meeting and 5 that we will be conducting it that way. This is the 6 purpose that we brought Judge Schweitzer in is to 7 conduct the most important part of this which is to 8 receive public comments. 9 A few things as far as how we will be 10 conducting this: Judge Schweitzer will be 11 bringing -- or asking people to come forward to give 12 their comments. He has -- and we will only be 13 taking comments from those folks who have signed up 14 front at the registration desk. This isn't one 15 where you can wave your hand and you can come up and 16 talk. 17 You need to sign up. They will bring a 18 card for you, and Judge Schweitzer will call you, 19 and you can come forward to the microphone. 20 When you come forward to the microphone to 21 give your comments, you need to clearly and plainly 22 and slowly state your name and to also spell your 23 name for our recorder. You also need to either let 24 us know or indicate what organization you're 25 representing or where you are from. M & M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (208) 345-9611 20 1 And as I said, everything that is -- all of 2 the public comments that are made here are being 3 officially recorded, and that will become a part of 4 the record. Those comments will also be made 5 available to the public so that if anybody wants to 6 see what comments were made at the other public 7 meetings that we're conducting, they will be able to 8 see those. 9 In addition, all the comments that are 10 submitted to the bureau right now are being posted 11 on the Internet and can be looked at any time. I 12 believe we've got about -- last count we had about 13 150 individual comments that had been received 14 either by mail or e-mail, and they have been posted. 15 Again, this is a formal hearing and to 16 receive comments. We will not be taking any 17 questions during this portion of the meeting, and we 18 ask that everybody who is participating at the 19 meeting today to be respectful of those folks who 20 come forward to give their comments. 21 Sometimes I know it's very difficult to get 22 up in front of a crowd like this and give comments, 23 particularly if you're not comfortable with that or 24 feel like you're not in a friendly environment. 25 So, we ask you to be respectful from that M & M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (208) 345-9611 21 1 standpoint and to not interrupt any of our speakers. 2 If that occurs, Judge Schweitzer will stop the 3 meeting, and we'll have to bring it back into order 4 before we can move on. 5 I think that's about all that I have for 6 right now. Why don't we take about five-minute 7 stretch breaks so that we can kind of transition 8 over from our presentation to the public comment 9 period, and then we'll get started again. So, thank 10 you very much, and we'll talk to you in a couple 11 minutes. 12 (Break taken.) 13 MR. CRIBLEY: We'll go ahead and move into 14 the public comment period. There's two things that 15 I forgot to mention previously. One of them is that 16 the comments will be limited to five minutes. This 17 is what we have been doing at the previous two 18 meetings and will be doing for all of the meetings. 19 Also, the five minutes is being timed. We 20 will have a gentleman sitting up front here who will 21 be timing you, and as you get down to having two 22 minutes remaining, he will give you a sign. He has 23 a big sign to show to you. 24 When you are at 30 seconds, he will give 25 you another indication of your time, and then when M & M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (208) 345-9611 22 1 your time is up, he will also give you a sign. We 2 ask that you respect that and conclude your comments 3 at the -- this is the end of your time allotted. 4 I think that is about all we have as far as 5 housekeeping and procedures for this public comment 6 period. With that, I'll hand it over to Judge 7 Schweitzer, and he can call up the first individual 8 who'll give us comments. Thank you. 9 JUDGE SWEITZER: Greetings, everybody. Can 10 you hear me okay in the back? Thank you. I will 11 call your names according to the cards in the order 12 they've been presented to me. 13 I think -- although one of the speakers 14 indicated please spell your name, I think it will 15 simplify things if I just spell it, and I will also 16 indicate the organization that you're a part of or 17 that you represent. And if I misstate anything, 18 please correct me on that. 19 You see the microphone here in the middle. 20 That's what you're asked to come up to make your 21 comments. 22 I'm here as an impartial moderator. I've 23 had nothing to do with the preparation of the draft, 24 and I will have absolutely nothing to do with the 25 consideration of the comments. With that, then M & M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (208) 345-9611 23 1 let's begin. 2 The first card is Andrew Prescott, 3 P-R-E-S-C-O-T-T, with Prescott Land and Livestock. 4 And, Mr. Prescott, your residence is Jerome, Idaho. 5 MR. PRESCOTT: My name is Andrew Prescott, 6 A-N-D-R-E-W, P-R-E-S-C-O-T-T, Prescott Land and 7 Livestock. I'm a third-generation rancher on our 8 ranch in southern Idaho down in Jerome. We have 9 approximately 100 head of cows that we run on the 10 Shoshone District down in south central Idaho. 11 We have reviewed the proposed regulations, 12 and we believe that the proposed regulations will 13 promote cooperation. They will protect rangeland 14 health, and it will help in rangeland management 15 efficiency. We're grateful for this opportunity to 16 make these comments, and we appreciate it. Thank 17 you. 18 JUDGE SWEITZER: Thank you, sir. 19 Next, Bud Bedke, B-e-d-k-e. You indicate, 20 sir, you're a rancher, and you're from Oakley, 21 Idaho. 22 MR. BEDKE: Yes, sir. Bud Bedke, B-u-d, 23 B-e-d-k-e, from Oakley, Idaho. That's our 24 headquarters. 25 We run cattle in Idaho, Utah, and Nevada, M & M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (208) 345-9611 24 1 as to where we lay. We've got three different 2 allotments. We run approximately 1800 head of 3 mother cows. I'm fourth-generation, and I'm a 4 little bit nervous right now. But, anyway, we ranch 5 and we ranch well. And I, like Mr. Prescott, think 6 this is going to be a great new move for the BLM as 7 far as cooperation. 8 One thing that I think, instead of having 9 so much special interest, I don't consider myself a 10 special interest as a grazer. I consider myself a 11 partner of the BLM. I contribute to the land. They 12 contribute to the land. And, I guess, I just kind 13 of hate to see a lot of the management done through 14 the BLM done through the threat of court rulings by 15 environmental and special interest groups. 16 I don't know how you'd put the wording or 17 the verbiage, but sometime we've either got to 18 manage for the land, or call the environmentalists' 19 bluffs and take them on in a major way with 20 lawsuits. 21 I've got just a few specifics here with -- 22 like in this part where it took 24 months to look at 23 the range health. We've been in severe drought. I 24 think 24 months is a little short. I think we need 25 to go, like, to five years to kind of study to M & M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (208) 345-9611 25 1 get -- because we've been in a drought for four 2 years. 3 I think grazing plans, we've got some great 4 grazing plans. I've worked hard with the BLM in all 5 three states to get them through, and they're, by no 6 means, perfect. But I would like to see us 7 incorporate the universities into some of the range 8 plans and use some of their expertise as well as, 9 like, the Department of -- Idaho, the Department of 10 Agriculture. 11 And the one thing that they said they're 12 not going to make any changes or look at that I 13 think need to be revisited very strongly is the 14 Range and Reform of '94. I've had people that work 15 for the BLM tell me that that's a major problem from 16 their side, too, the way it was written. 17 It seems to me the special interests had 18 way more input in that than did the ranchers and 19 other users of the land. But, like I say, I'd just 20 like to say that I am a partner with the people of 21 the BLM, and I will continue to do so. Thank you. 22 JUDGE SWEITZER: Thank you, sir. 23 Jim Alves, A-l-v-e-s, with Westfall Ranches 24 of Westfall, Oregon. 25 MR. ALVES: My name is Jim Alves, M & M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (208) 345-9611 26 1 A-l-v-e-s. My family owns and operates a cattle 2 operation in Westfall, Oregon, Eastern Oregon, 3 Malheur County, in the Vale District of the Bureau 4 of Land Management. We run upwards to 3,500 head of 5 mother cows. So, our life, as a whole, basically 6 revolves around our ability to run cattle on the 7 federal range. 8 This Draft EIS, if approved and becomes 9 final, I think is a great start. I think we have a 10 long ways to go. I think, thank goodness, with this 11 administration, hopefully we're headed in a positive 12 direction with getting back to a more common sense 13 range-friendly way of running things. 14 A couple of quick comments. I think it is 15 great that the Department of Interior is starting to 16 really recognize the social, economic, and cultural 17 considerations. I feel that is very important in 18 the West, especially when most of the time our 19 grazing rules and regulations are brought forward, 20 written, and a lot of times implemented by people 21 who a lot of times have never been west of the 22 Mississippi River. 23 One thing that's pretty important in these 24 small western communities is agriculture. When you 25 put a hit on the agriculture in an area, you wipe M & M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (208) 345-9611 27 1 out the local economy. I think this is a great step 2 forward to starting to deal with this. 3 Another thing I think is very important is 4 reverting back to the old style of shared ownership 5 of range improvements. When you involve someone in 6 the ownership of something, you bring forth a sense 7 of pride for maintenance, range improvement any time 8 that can you actually apply someone's name to it. 9 When they take the pride of ownership, you 10 do nothing but increase its value, to know that it's 11 going to be there for the next generation and the 12 next generation. 13 To be continually taking away the names of 14 the ownership off of the individual and continually 15 turning it further and further over to the 16 government becomes more socialistic and I feel 17 begins to hamper the American way of life. And then 18 we go back to our social and economic and cultural 19 considerations again. It all revolves around each 20 other. 21 At this point, I would like to reserve more 22 time for my written considerations that I will hand 23 in at a later time. Thank you. 24 JUDGE SWEITZER: Thank you, Mr. Alves. 25 Bob Baker of Mountain Home, Idaho, M & M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (208) 345-9611 28 1 B-a-k-e-r. Your organization is what, sir? 2 MR. BAKER: I'm with Danskin Cattle 3 Company. We're a private cattle operation out of 4 Mountain Home. I'm also a member of the Lower Snake 5 River Resource Advisory Commission of the BLM. But 6 my comments are not -- they're my personal comments 7 of our cattle company. They are not representing 8 the Resource Advisory Committee. We will formally 9 give you our comments after our meeting next week. 10 For most of my adult life, I've been 11 involved with the BLM in grazing administration, 12 using of permits, et cetera, in several states. I 13 have seen the BLM management style go from a 14 hands-on approach where we had field personnel on 15 the ground on a regular basis to the approach where 16 the BLM personnel were basically desk-bound and 17 spent most of their time either in defense of 18 proposed litigation, threatened litigation, or 19 actual litigation where we never saw them on the 20 ground. 21 Now we're seeing a style involving the BLM 22 personnel more in a cooperative stance with the 23 users of the land in a collaborative approach and, 24 hopefully, a more hands-on style of management. We 25 applaud that. I think these new grazing regulations M & M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (208) 345-9611 29 1 are taking a large step in that direction. 2 We support the collaboration and 3 cooperation approach. We've just seen an example of 4 how that works wherein the BLM, a group of private 5 landowners, the Fish and Wildlife Service worked 6 together to prevent the listing of a plant which had 7 been proposed for listing under the Threatened and 8 Endangered Species Act. 9 Through the drafting of a cooperative 10 agreement among those various people and to include 11 the private landowners, this listing has been 12 forestalled. I think it's a great example of how 13 this can be done. To my knowledge, it's the first 14 time it's been done in the country. 15 I applaud the BLM taking a fresh look at 16 the nonuse limitations that had been previously 17 imposed on us. We just have been through a severe 18 four-year drought here in Southwest Idaho. Had we 19 elected to put part of our rangeland in nonuse to 20 preserve the resource through this -- through the 21 three-year period, on the fourth year we have been 22 required to stop the allotment fully in order to 23 preserve our permit. Thereby we would have 24 contributed greatly to the demise and decline of the 25 resource. M & M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (208) 345-9611 30 1 To be hampered by that is really 2 counterproductive. If we can go into a more liberal 3 nonuse regime whereby if the resource requires 4 nonuse, we can do it. Thank you. 5 The only other comment I have, other than 6 supporting this, is I would have liked to have seen 7 the BLM, in their drafting of this, pay a little 8 more attention to the nongrazing users of the BLM 9 lands. 10 Those of us who have grazing permits are 11 easy to control because we have the threat of 12 forfeiture of our permit if we abuse the resource. 13 Those who do not have a grazing permit face no such 14 threat, and we find that there are abusers of the 15 land who really need to be brought accountable to 16 it. Thank you very much for your time. 17 JUDGE SWEITZER: Thank you. Alan 18 Schroeder, A-l-a-n, S-c-h-r-o-e-d-e-r, is from 19 Boise. He's a public land lawyer, and he represents 20 the Association of Rangeland Consultants. 21 MR. SCHROEDER: Good afternoon. My name is 22 Alan, A-l-a-n, Schroeder, S-c-h-r-o-e-d-e-r. I 23 testify here on behalf of myself and the Association 24 of Rangeland Consultants. As to myself, I am a 25 lawyer here in Boise. My comments here today are on M & M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (208) 345-9611 31 1 behalf of myself and not any particular client that 2 I have. 3 I have practiced law before the Department 4 of Interior, specifically the Office of Hearings and 5 Appeals, since 1989. Over time I've been involved 6 in perhaps hundreds of appeals of decisions issued 7 by the Bureau of Land Management for a range of 8 clients such as ranchers, road districts, irrigation 9 districts, and recreational groups. 10 All of these clients have to some degree 11 had dependency by use upon the public land and are 12 directly affected in whole or in part by the grazing 13 rules that are being proposed by the department. 14 As to the Association of Rangeland 15 Consultants, or ARC, it is a voluntary organization 16 of rangeland resource professionals that provide 17 resource, research monitoring, and evaluation of 18 vegetative conditions and trends relative to grazing 19 management on the public lands within the Western 20 United States. 21 ARC's general purpose is to promote the 22 understanding and use of sound range management that 23 is scientifically based and technically sound among 24 all users of the public land. 25 ARC and I have had significant background M & M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (208) 345-9611 32 1 in the use interpretation and application of the 2 grazing use on literally a daily basis. In light of 3 our respective backgrounds and experience, we 4 believe we bring to the table credible ideas and 5 comments for the department to consider in their 6 proposed rule-making process. 7 Due to limitations of time today, my 8 comments here today are, in my view, just a mere 9 introduction to the extensive written comments 10 already prepared by ARC. These written comments 11 will be submitted to the department on or about 12 February 10th and will be posted on ARC's Website on 13 or about the same date. They can be reviewed at 14 www.countgrass.com for a link to ARC's Website. 15 Generally speaking, the proposed rules are 16 what I will call a continuing step in the right 17 direction. The word "continuing" is used. I wish 18 to emphasize the word "continuing" because even the 19 pre-1995 and the post-1995 rules lack proper balance 20 to be scientifically based and technically sound. 21 As to technical soundness, the proposed 22 rules need to be revised to make consistent the 23 concepts of active use monitoring, rangeland 24 studies, livestock-carrying capacity, and even the 25 word or words, quote, forage available on a M & M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (208) 345-9611 33 1 sustained yield basis, end quote. Currently, these 2 concepts, while defined, in part, in the existing 3 rules and while refined in the proposed rules, lack 4 a consistency between themselves and throughout the 5 existing rules and the proposed rules. 6 The written comments of ARC offer some 7 ideas to the department to remedy this 8 inconsistency. In addition, the proposed rules need 9 to be revised to ensure the focus of decision-making 10 on management objectives stated in applicable land 11 use plans, activity plans, and grazing decisions. 12 While ARC is not suggesting the eliminations of the 13 fundamentals of rangeland health standards, ARC 14 desires to refocus decision-making. 15 It is the combined experience of the 16 membership of ARC that the existing and proposed 17 rules give undue deference to FRH standards over 18 applicable land use plans. Since FRH standards are 19 required to be consistent with applicable land use 20 plans, that's where we think the focus should be. 21 Since I have little time left, I do have 22 one last comment about the proposed rules, and one 23 -- and that is to reverse course on the department's 24 proposal to move the Board of Land Appeals' decision 25 in Blake. M & M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (208) 345-9611 34 1 Much effort was expended by the Board of 2 Land Appeals in establishing proper balance between 3 guaranteeing the rights of the public to a hearing 4 under the Taylor Grazing Act and the obligations of 5 the department under the Endangered Species Act. 6 Thank you for this opportunity to comment. 7 Obviously, our written comments will be much more 8 extensive. Thank you. 9 JUDGE SWEITZER: Thank you, Mr. Schroeder. 10 Let me mention that since I'm spelling your 11 names as you come up, for the benefit of the 12 reporter, it won't be necessary for you to spell 13 them again once you get here. 14 The next is Elias Jaca, E-l-i-a-s, J-a-c-a, 15 Nampa, Idaho. 16 And you, sir, are with Jaca Livestock 17 Company? 18 MR. JACA: Yes. And I represent Chipmunk 19 Grazing Association. 20 In general, I support the proposed grazing 21 rule revisions with some tweaking, which I will 22 submit in written comments later. One part I do 23 like is the engagement of the local grazing boards 24 would be helpful. Thank you. 25 JUDGE SWEITZER: Thank you, sir. M & M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (208) 345-9611 35 1 Calvin Ireland, I-r-e-l-a-n-d, is with the 2 Elmore County Commission. 3 Your home, sir, is in Mountain Home, Idaho? 4 MR. IRELAND: Yes, it is. I'm an Elmore 5 County Commissioner, fourth-generation resident of 6 the county. I'm very happy to have the opportunity 7 to participate in this process. This is my fourth 8 year on the County Commission, and this is the first 9 time I've been personally invited other than as a 10 ranger, which I also do. As a politician, this is 11 my first invitation to come to something like this. 12 I think we need more of that. 13 In Elmore County, agriculture is a major 14 player. It's our number one source of revenue. 15 Decisions by the -- well, I better back up a little 16 bit. Elmore County is 67-percent federal ground. 17 That's a combination of BLM and Forest Service. 18 Changes that have been done in the past on 19 a short term raise havoc with our ranch community. 20 We are very happy to see, in this document, a 21 five-year suggested process. We think that would be 22 great. The Commissioners of Elmore County are in 23 favor of multiple use of our federal grounds. We 24 think there is more room out there than there is 25 livestock. M & M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (208) 345-9611 36 1 The other thing that I would like to 2 mention is ranches, at least in Elmore County, are 3 either ranches or they're subdivisions. Anyone that 4 has driven the freeway between here and Mountain 5 Home, you'll see a not very pretty, in my opinion, 6 example of a rural subdivision sitting out in the 7 middle of the desert. That's counter-productive to 8 the economy, hazardous to the fire situation. Think 9 long and hard on ranching. 10 My last comment deals with the fire cycle, 11 most specifically on the Elmore County Mountain Home 12 desert. It has been the contention of the Elmore 13 County Commission for at least the last four years 14 that fires are a no-win situation for everyone on 15 the desert. We strongly urge whatever steps are 16 necessary to curtail the fire cycle. Thank you very 17 much. 18 JUDGE SWEITZER: Thank you. 19 Delmar Vail, D-e-l-m-a-r, V-a-i-l of Eagle, 20 Idaho, is with the Public Lands Foundation. 21 MR. VAIL: First, let me introduce you to 22 the Public Lands Foundation. We're a nonprofit 23 national organization whose members are primarily 24 retired BLM employees, but with working employees 25 and members of the general public also as members. M & M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (208) 345-9611 37 1 We've been in operation for 16 years and have more 2 than 1,000 members. 3 PLF's mission is to foster the proper use, 4 protection, restoration, conservation, and 5 management of BLM administered lands by working to 6 keep the BLM lands in national public ownership and 7 open to the public use; encouraging professional and 8 scientific management of these lands; participating 9 in efforts that will sustain the health, diversity, 10 and productivity of these lands; and encouraging 11 contacts, communication, and coordination with the 12 public land users and interest groups and between 13 BLM. All officers and board members and directors 14 serve without compensation. 15 There are several issues in this draft. 16 I'm only going to speak on a couple of them. Our 17 national president is preparing a total coverage and 18 will be sending it to the bureau. 19 The first one is on water rights. The 20 proposal to have permittees hold a water right is 21 not something new. In 1981, when that 22 administration came in, that was a proposal that was 23 made. I was, at that time, deputy director to the 24 national director of BLM. 25 We found that many states -- and Idaho is M & M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (208) 345-9611 38 1 one of them -- requires that a landowner of record 2 has to be named on the water right. There are 3 several states that require that. Water rights mean 4 different in different parts of the West. In the 5 Southwest, water rights there is entirely a 6 different deal as compared to the water rights in 7 Idaho, Wyoming, so forth. 8 The other concern we have is that the BLM 9 and the Forest Service who have nearly identical 10 legislation mandates the management guidance of the 11 public lands and each agency with their 12 jurisdiction. We need to have whatever the 13 regulations are on water rights similar or the same 14 between the two agencies. 15 Ownership of range improvements, this one 16 really has me standing on my ear because when I went 17 to Washington in 1980, we had for years, through 18 Section 4 permits, allowed ownership of improvements 19 on public lands. In 1981, when that administration 20 came in, they zapped the whole thing. They just 21 took that privilege away. It really set hard with 22 me because I had signed a lot of those permits. 23 Then, here by the wipe of one hand, they were taken 24 away. 25 Now I see that there is a Supreme Court M & M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (208) 345-9611 39 1 ruling that upholds the BLM's authority to take 2 title to those improvements. I think that they need 3 to have the opportunity. There are provisions in 4 the regulations that if an operator loses the use of 5 that permit, he can be compensated for it -- or for 6 the improvement. He can be compensated for it. 7 The last one -- I've got several more, but 8 the last one I'll speak to is access across private 9 land. The proposed regulations would remove the 10 terms and conditions in existing regulations that 11 provide to allow BLM employees access across private 12 land to public land to do their job. I think that's 13 essential and should be left in. Thank you. 14 JUDGE SWEITZER: Thank you, Mr. Vail. 15 Katie Fite, K-a-t-i-e, F-i-t-e, of Boise 16 Idaho. 17 Please state your organization. I can't 18 read my card. 19 MS. FITE: It's Western Watersheds Project. 20 I'm just going to go quickly through the 21 handout that BLM did of the slides that were shown 22 in the Power Point presentation and point out how I 23 believe both the EIS and BLM's presentation today 24 was tremendously flawed and biased toward one view, 25 and that is the view of livestock commodity M & M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (208) 345-9611 40 1 production on lands that belong to all the people in 2 this country. 3 BLM states the purpose is to improve and 4 promote cooperation. The only cooperation that's 5 going to be improved here is with the livestock 6 permitees. BLM is slamming the door on the public 7 by limiting consultation over several actions right 8 now that have to do with grazing permits, TNR, and 9 other grazing-related actions on public lands. 10 BLM intends to shut out the public. This 11 is a tremendous mistake. It will lead to more 12 problems down the road with endangered species, 13 special status species becoming endangered species, 14 weed invasions, erosion, you name it. 15 To consider the social, economic, and 16 cultural consideration into grazing decisions, I'm 17 all for that, but what you need to consider is 18 the -- consider the economic, social, and cultural 19 considerations of the vast majority of the people in 20 this country who view public lands as a place to 21 produce wildlife, for recreational enjoyment, clean 22 water, and wild and scenic vistas. It's not for 23 industrialization as with fences, more 24 spring-gutting projects and more developments for 25 western public lands ranchers. M & M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (208) 345-9611 41 1 I support retaining the RACs. BLM says it 2 wants to protect health of rangelands. Yet, it 3 wants to have two years to implement actions that 4 are needed just to begin to change things on the 5 ground. That's ridiculous. One year is too long. 6 Six months should be the time frame. 7 The rangeland -- retain rangeland health 8 standards and guidelines, they aren't perfect, but 9 they're infinitely better than what BLM is proposing 10 here. 11 What BLM dubs as increased management 12 efficiency is actually a way to allow the permitees 13 to avoid public scrutiny by removing the public 14 consultation requirements on a lot of grazing 15 actions. And, basically, what we'll see is BLM 16 going much more back to the political cronyism it 17 was famous for in days past. We're already starting 18 to see that here in Idaho with the way BLM decisions 19 are made and some of the closed-door things that are 20 going on. 21 Link permit penalties to permitted 22 allotments, no. What that will mean is if a rancher 23 goes and robs an archeological site on his 24 neighbor's allotment, he can still retain his public 25 lands grazing permit. That's nonsense. M & M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (208) 345-9611 42 1 The Draft Environmental Impact Statement, 2 well, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is 3 woefully inadequate, and it's also already been the 4 object of political tampering. The biological 5 evaluation that was originally done was removed, and 6 one much more based on flawed self-serving 7 pseudo-science was put in place. 8 We believe that the DEIS does not even meet 9 the minimum requirements for a federal agency 10 document based on science, and that it violates the 11 Federal Data Quality Act. 12 The alternatives, BLM failed to evaluate a 13 suitable range of alternatives. It only evaluated 14 three alternatives, and the evaluation was, as I 15 said, very flawed, very biased toward one single 16 commodity-minded approach and world view. 17 Working relationship impacts, that is -- 18 it's only working relationships you're talking about 19 here with the ranchers. You aren't talking about 20 working relationships with the public. There's 21 fewer than 27,000 public lands ranchers in the whole 22 country. In Idaho, fewer than 3,000. The largest 23 public lands rancher is J.R. Simplot, a billionaire. 24 That's who you're talking about giving unprecedented 25 access and control of water and control of projects M & M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (208) 345-9611 43 1 on public lands. 2 The proposal to allow permittees to share 3 in ownership of projects, that will be a disaster. 4 I've already seen the impacts just this past year of 5 redigging projects on public lands, archeological 6 artifacts broken in pieces, exposed on the surface, 7 sites permanently destroyed. 8 I believe I'm nearing the end of my time. 9 We're submitting a lot more comments. 10 JUDGE SWEITZER: Thank you, Ms. Fite. 11 Brenda Richards, Murphy, Idaho. 12 Ms. Richards is with the Idaho Cattle Association. 13 MS. RICHARDS: Thank you. My name is 14 Brenda Richards, B-r-e-n-d-a, Richards, 15 R-i-c-h-a-r-d-s. We are permitees in Reynolds 16 Creek, Idaho. I'm also a member of the Lower Snake 17 River District BLM RAC. However, today I am here on 18 behalf of the Idaho Cattle Association as their 19 Federal Lands Committee chair. 20 On behalf of the Idaho Cattle Association, 21 I would like to thank you for providing this 22 opportunity to comment on the proposed changes to 23 the BLM's grazing regulations. 24 The administration of livestock grazing on 25 BLM lands in Idaho is vital to the state's cattle M & M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (208) 345-9611 44 1 industry. The Idaho Cattle Association is 2 supportive of these changes and believes that they 3 are necessary in order to maintain the 4 sustainability of the land and the communities in 5 the western United States. 6 These regulations will allow for adaptive 7 on-the-ground management which is crucial in making 8 the best day-to-day decisions for land and the 9 resource. By allowing this flexibility, the 10 regulations will greatly improve the relationships 11 and the level of cooperation between the permitees 12 and the BLM. In doing so, the Idaho Cattle 13 Association believes the changes will ensure 14 long-term viability and health of the rangelands. 15 I would like to comment on the following 16 key points: Referring to interested public, the ICA 17 has long maintained that only those who have an 18 economic-vested interest in the BLM grazing 19 administration should be involved at the individual 20 allotment level. We are supportive of your efforts 21 to remove the interference by those interested 22 publics who seek to disrupt the day-to-day 23 management of these BLM allotments. 24 Standard and guideline monitoring, within 25 the proposed regulations, these guide the BLM to M & M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (208) 345-9611 45 1 increase the level of monitoring. This is a very 2 important and significant change. Decisions should 3 be made based on long-term trend and not on the 4 observation of one point this time. 5 Regarding NEPA, ICA believes the NEPA 6 analysis should not be required for the renewal of 7 grazing permits unless significant modification of 8 this permit is occurring, nor for activities that 9 implemented the goals of a resource management plan 10 that has met existing NEPA requirements. 11 In many cases, the requirement for NEPA 12 review to be conducted creates a redundancy of work 13 that could easily be eliminated and free up the BLM 14 range staff to be out on the ground instead of 15 behind a desk. We encourage the BLM to follow 16 through on these regulation changes to allow for 17 this. 18 Regarding the ESA, the Endangered Species 19 Act, conditions placed on permits as the result of 20 the endangered species consultation can potentially 21 have very detrimental effects on the viability of 22 grazing permits often without the justification of 23 sound science. We agree with the changes which 24 allow permitees to be involved in the consultation 25 process for endangered species. M & M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (208) 345-9611 46 1 Regarding local impacts, ICA is encouraged 2 by the changes which will include consideration of 3 the impact of BLM decisions on the economics and 4 lifestyles. We want to emphasize that the impact at 5 the local level should be foremost considered. 6 Regarding AUM reductions, we are supportive 7 of the phase-in grazing reductions. In addition, we 8 encourage you to develop a process so that a 9 decision that has been made to reduce grazing can 10 later be adopted based on subsequent monitoring 11 showing improved conditions to return those grazing 12 AUMs. 13 For range improvements, the improvements 14 that permitees place on their allotment add great 15 value to the BLM lands. These improvements 16 generally bring benefits to the entire ecosystem. 17 Allowing permitees to share title to these 18 improvements is an important change that will also 19 serve as an increased incentive to develop range 20 improvements. 21 Additionally, ICA would like to see this 22 change made retroactive for those permitees who have 23 invested so much time and money in enhancing the 24 allotments. 25 Conservation use, ICA is supportive of the M & M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (208) 345-9611 47 1 BLM's recognition of the need for allotments to be 2 grazed. The elimination of conservation permits is 3 important. 4 Regarding advisory boards, ICA supports the 5 requirement in the regs that requires the BLM to 6 consult and cooperate with local grazing advisory 7 boards. 8 Again, the Idaho Cattle Association is 9 supportive of these proposed changes and encourages 10 the BLM to move forward with this process quickly to 11 attain final approval of these changes. 12 ICA recognizes the need for a good 13 partnership, a strong relationship between the 14 grazing permitees and the BLM. These changes will 15 create that. Above all, the changes will sustain 16 the rural communities as well as the environment. 17 Thank you for the opportunity to comment. 18 JUDGE SWEITZER: Thank you, Ms. Richards. 19 Jim Desmond of Murphy, Idaho, is with 20 Owyhee County. Are you a county commissioner? 21 MR. DESMOND: No, sir. I was going to 22 clarify that for you. I work as a staff member. I 23 work directly for the county commissioners, and I 24 need to make clear that the remarks that I'm going 25 to make to you today are my remarks as an M & M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (208) 345-9611 48 1 individual. 2 In numerous instances, I will cite previous 3 comments or actions that I've seen the county 4 commissioners take. But only the county commissions 5 can speak for the county. 6 I would point out that as a person 7 currently working for the Owyhee County 8 Commissioners, I'm a resident of the county. I'm a 9 property taxpayer in the county, but unlike many of 10 the people who will speak to you today in support of 11 the proposed change in regulations, I'm not a 12 multi-generation resident of Owyhee County. I moved 13 there relatively recently. 14 I've been working in my present position 15 for the county for approximately six years now. I 16 retired from the Army in 1996. I have a background 17 in planning and reviewing plans, and I also have a 18 background in standardization of evaluations. And I 19 would speak to several of those things in my 20 comments to you. 21 Owyhee County is approximately 80 percent 22 federal land. It's a very large land-base county 23 with approximately 12,000 residents. The major 24 economic activity in the county is agriculture and 25 ranching. There's a University of Idaho study of M & M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (208) 345-9611 49 1 1996 that's been reevaluated just recently that 2 indicates that about 50 percent of the economic 3 production and the economic effect in the county is 4 from agriculture and grazing. 5 The county commissioners, realizing that a 6 number of years ago put into effect an attempt to 7 work with the BLM under the provision of FLIPA to 8 work on coordination of BLM plans and decisions so 9 that they were consistent with the Owyhee County 10 Commission's plan for the federal lands. And the 11 intent was to preserve the custom, culture, and 12 economy of the county. 13 Under previous administrations, that was 14 not a very successful effort, and the effect of that 15 has been clearly seen in terms of reduced grazing 16 operations and harmful effects to grazing 17 operations, and that is very clearly felt within the 18 county's economy. It's an effect we can measure. 19 It's an effect we can define. 20 I believe that the proposed regulation 21 changes, as has been said by several previous 22 speakers, is an additional step in the right 23 direction. It's certainly not going to be the final 24 step that will be necessary, but it's a step in the 25 right direction. M & M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (208) 345-9611 50 1 There is certainly a need to increase the 2 standardization definitions and to increase the 3 standardization of application of procedures. I 4 would see that the regulation would attempt to do 5 some of that. 6 There is a real benefit to the federal 7 lands of working cooperatively with ranchers. The 8 ranchers are the persons who are affected. They are 9 the persons who are on the land. They are the 10 persons that you want to keep on the land because 11 there are those scattered parcels -- some large, 12 some small -- of private land within the federal 13 lands in the county that will be -- if the grazing 14 operator goes as the result of effects of the BLM 15 decision, those lands will be looked at for other 16 uses. 17 The most likely other use is subdivision. 18 The subdivision would, one, be inconsistent with the 19 Owyhee County's land use plan and its comprehensive 20 plan for planning and zoning. It would be 21 inconsistent with what BLM is trying to do, which is 22 to maintain open space, maintain healthy populations 23 of fish and wildlife and plants, and it would not be 24 in the best interest of the federal lands. 25 You have heard, today, comments about the M & M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (208) 345-9611 51 1 fact that the largest of the federal land grazers in 2 the area is J.R. Simplot. The comment was made in 3 some way to cause you to think that you're 4 supporting a rich man, and you're not doing anything 5 for anybody else. 6 Well, J.R. Simplot's employees are 7 residents of Owyhee County. The lifestyle that's 8 being maintained by employment with J.R. Simplot, 9 whether it's employment with J.R. Simplot on a ranch 10 or working as a member of a family-operated ranch, 11 is all in support of that custom and culture of the 12 county and is all consistent within that 50 percent 13 of the economy in the county that's supported by 14 grazing. 15 I would offer, as a final comment, that I 16 will be making written comments as an individual, 17 and I know that the Owyhee County Commissioners will 18 be submitting written comments on their own. Thank 19 you for your time. 20 THE COURT: Thank you. 21 John Urquide, U-R-Q-U-I-D-E, and I'm not 22 sure, sir, where you reside or who you're present. 23 MR. URQUIDE: Owyhee County. I'm a rancher 24 from Bruneau, Idaho. It's about 70 miles south of 25 Boise here. M & M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (208) 345-9611 52 1 We live and reside like many people here on 2 what I call a historical evolutionary ranch. We are 3 the benefactors of the work of our forefathers, and 4 that means the fences, the structures, the 5 facilities they brought together, and the resources 6 and management they brought together to allow the 7 management we have today. 8 What we see is that we have to look at 9 things from an evolutionary standpoint in our 10 management in the standpoint that we need to protect 11 and build on what we have. It's not the best, but 12 we try to tweak and improve it all the time. 13 In our community, we are highly based and 14 molded by the lands we own and by lands we graze 15 on. Now, with a county that's 83 percent federally 16 owned, we might be strangers when we all come to the 17 county, but within 10 years, even the newcomers 18 sound like the old-timers because the land moulds 19 the people. The resources and uses fit them all 20 together. 21 We're a sparse-populated county where the 22 people are highly integrated in many organizations. 23 They wear many hats because there's only a few of 24 them to do all the work. What we see is that focus 25 should be on maintaining the schools, which the land M & M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (208) 345-9611 53 1 base should improve our endowment lands which are 2 state lands that help our school systems. 3 We need to find other mechanisms even 4 through the grazing permits for funding to the 5 county to help to offset for what we call the burden 6 of managing the resources in our county that are -- 7 we're for the benefit of the nation. Yet, we want a 8 dollar's worth of management with only a penny worth 9 of paying for that management. And without the 10 cooperation of the ranchers and everybody in the 11 community, we're not going to get that type of 12 management. 13 I see this system as a way of getting 14 closer back to the phase of cooperating and working 15 on the same sheet. I think we need to avoid what I 16 call conflict management where nothing seems to 17 acquire except for lawyers get rich and resources go 18 neglected. 19 What I would like to also say is we also 20 have to recognize that we've moved from a society 21 that's 90 percent production of wholesome healthy 22 food to now that ag culture only accommodates 1-1/2 23 percent of the production. So, that means 1-1/2 24 percent of the people are producing the food. 25 That's is big difference. So, when someone says M & M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (208) 345-9611 54 1 there's big multiconglomerates in there, a lot of 2 that's because that's the efficient model to work 3 with. 4 In summation, I'd also like to bring up a 5 couple things in more particular on what we call the 6 conservation nonuse segment here. There needs to 7 be, from a study standpoint, the assessment of what 8 we call fire hazard because when we start talking 9 about conservation use, everybody's making the 10 assumption that something's in horrible shape. But 11 what we need to look at seriously there is the fire 12 loading -- what we call fuel loading management. 13 If the fuel loading and the resource in the 14 area has a high potential for fire, it needs to be 15 addressed in the EIS and addressed as a hazard and a 16 safety issue because it might acquire -- it needs to 17 be integrated into a larger plan to make sure it 18 doesn't create a sequence of what we call a fire 19 ladder into higher-range counties. If it's not 20 properly managed, the conservation nonuse could end 21 up being a significant hazard, especially on safety. 22 Public access across public ground. In our 23 county, it seems ludicrous for an 83 percent private 24 property -- I mean, essentially, a 10 percent 25 private-property holder, to allow 83 percent owner M & M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (208) 345-9611 55 1 which is the public, has any landlock issues 2 whatsoever. They might have what we call a 3 convenience of access issue, but there definitely 4 cannot reasonably be a landlock situation. 5 So, I suggest not addressing what's outside 6 of the domain and making it part of the permit 7 requirement, but to only address on the BLM-managed 8 lands. Thank you. 9 JUDGE SWEITZER: Thank you. 10 Duncan Mackenzie, M-a-c-k-e-n-z-i-e, is 11 with MC Ranch of Baker City, Oregon. 12 MR. MACKENZIE: I would like to clarify 13 that. I'm from Baker City. My family ranch is in 14 Jordan Valley. I'm a fourth-generation rancher 15 here. We started ranching in 1883. And the range 16 in -- I started ranching 30 years ago. I moved back 17 on the ranch in 1974. 18 Prior to that, my dad -- we would ride -- 19 it was before the BLM, and we'd ride the range, and 20 there was no improvements and no fences, so we'd 21 just go out and stay in these camps. My dad, he 22 took me up on this hill and said there's going to be 23 a change and he didn't know if it was for the better 24 or for the worse. 25 But, anyway, in that time, we've improved M & M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (208) 345-9611 56 1 with fences and the seedings and the range health. 2 Everybody talks about the range health. You just 3 need to go into the archives and look at the 4 pictures before and after the Taylor Grazing moved 5 on. The ranges improved tenfold over. 6 When I came back in 1974, I thought every 7 year would be a better year, we'd improve on each 8 year, but Mother Nature and politics has interfered. 9 So, we have this chart that goes up and down. We'll 10 improve and then we won't improve. But it seems 11 like the most -- when we do the most improvement is 12 when we have the hands-on deal. When we don't get 13 it back from Washington, D.C., it comes from the 14 land. 15 In the 30 years I've been out there, our 16 cattle, the health in them has improved, and the 17 fences and the water development has been tremendous 18 for the wildlife and the plant habitat, and that's 19 why we're seeing an increase in wildlife. 20 So, we need to really, really concentrate 21 on harvesting what we have grown out there. We need 22 to do some more harvesting of our grasses. And the 23 wildlife, from the tags that Fish and Game sell and 24 stuff, has improved in the last 30 years. 25 We do support the proposed grazing M & M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (208) 345-9611 57 1 regulations, and we will follow up with more 2 comments. There's some things in there we would 3 like to see you change. 4 From a ranching family that -- we started 5 in 1883. It has improved, and we are going in the 6 right direction, but we just all need to stay in the 7 same room, talk it over, and make sound management 8 decisions. Thank you. 9 JUDGE SWEITZER: Thank you. 10 Ken Crane of Boise is with the Idaho 11 Department of Agriculture. 12 MR. CRANE: Thank you. I'd like to start 13 by stating that we feel that the proposed changes to 14 the grazing rules are a very positive move and will 15 help promote the implementation of the 3Cs as was 16 directed by Director Clark. 17 Some examples of that would be the return 18 to co-ownership of range improvements. This will be 19 a great incentive for ranchers to return capital to 20 the land and to help improve and maintain these 21 improvements which are very important to the proper 22 management. In light of that, I would like to 23 suggest, though, that where there's sufficient 24 documentation that the ownership of these 25 improvements should be retroactive to the M & M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (208) 345-9611 58 1 implementation of the grazing rules. 2 Another example of these moves -- or the 3 proposed rules being very positive is the 4 requirement that both assessments and monitoring are 5 going to be used in making determinations. All to 6 often, in recent past, a lot of very important 7 determinations were being made on a one-time 8 assessment of the resource, which is a very poor way 9 to manage anything. 10 In light of that, I would think it would be 11 very important for the BLM to update their handbooks 12 and clarify what levels of monitoring and 13 methodology will be used in these assessments and 14 monitoring. With the increased outsourcing of a lot 15 of this work and increased interest of special 16 interest groups to fulfill this monitoring, it will 17 be very important to clarify and make very clear the 18 methods that can be used and when they can be used 19 so that our data is consistent and accurate. 20 I think the recognition of the social and 21 economic values of our ranches and rural communities 22 that they make up is a very big step in improving 23 the relationships between the BLM and the local 24 communities. Recognition of one's value is one of 25 the very first and critical steps to developing a M & M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (208) 345-9611 59 1 very strong and productive working relationship. 2 Another point -- and it was brought up a 3 little bit ago by another person -- is the time 4 frame for taking actions to meet standards. I think 5 this is going to be a very good move in improving 6 the overall management of the range resources. 7 The way it is now, often the data comes in, 8 is analyzed, and the managers only have a month or 9 two for them to be able to work with the ranchers, 10 consult with other federal and state agencies to get 11 through all those hoops and to be able to be ready 12 to implement these changes on the onset of the next 13 grazing season. The extra year to evaluate these 14 processes, the data, and come up with some 15 reasonable opportunities to make positive changes 16 will be very helpful. 17 One concern that I did have in here did 18 relate to assessments in monitoring. There is 19 throughout the document, EIS and proposed rules, the 20 mention of increased monitoring. And I feel that 21 though it was addressed and mentioned within the 22 Draft EIS, I don't know that there's enough 23 recognition in the workload that this is going to be 24 placing on the local field offices. 25 I don't feel that simply reprioritizing M & M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (208) 345-9611 60 1 workloads is going to be sufficient. In many of the 2 field offices throughout Idaho, there is a 3 tremendous workload as it is in relation to ESA 4 consultation and not -- this is not just related to 5 grazing, but it's mining, timber, both private and 6 commercial recreation interests on these public 7 lands. 8 In this consultation, there is very little 9 flexibility in being able to reprioritize these 10 workloads, and I think that it's going to be 11 critical for the BLM, as they implement these 12 things -- and I think that this monitoring is 13 critical. It has to be done. But to make that 14 effective and effective on the ground, there's going 15 to have to be some increased funding into these 16 budgets so that they can either outsource more or 17 hire additional personnel to get that workload done. 18 Thank you. 19 JUDGE SWEITZER: Thank you, Mr. Crane. 20 That, then, is the last card. Those are 21 all the cards I was given. 22 Was anybody missed that wanted to be heard 23 this afternoon? Evidently not. So, thank you all 24 for your participation. We can conclude this 25 portion of the record then. M & M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (208) 345-9611 61 1 And what I suggest is take a few-minute 2 recess, not over 10 minutes, and as was mentioned 3 earlier, the BLM officials will be here for any of 4 you that want to talk to them. Come back after the 5 10-minute recess, if you wish, to speak to them. 6 Thanks all of you for showing up and for your 7 participation. 8 (Hearing concluded at 2:44 p.m.) 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 M & M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (208) 345-9611 62 1 STATE OF IDAHO ) ) Ss. 2 County of Ada ) 3 4 I, NANCY SCHWARTZ, Certified Court Reporter 5 No. 483 and Notary Public in and for the State of 6 Idaho, do hereby certify: 7 That said hearing was taken down by me in 8 shorthand at the time and place therein named and 9 thereafter reduced to computer type, and that the 10 foregoing transcript contains a true and correct 11 record of the said hearing, all done to the best of 12 my skill and ability. 13 I further certify that I have no interest 14 in the event of the action. 15 WITNESS my hand and seal this 17th day 16 of February, 2004. 17 __________________________ 18 Nancy Schwartz, Notary 19 Public in and for the 20 State of Idaho 21 My commission expires: 22 March 19, 2007 23 24 25 M & M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (208) 345-9611