0001
 1    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
 2            BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
 3   
 4   
 5                 PUBLIC HEARING
 6             TO RECEIVE COMMENTS ON
 7   THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ON
 8            THE PROPOSED GRAZING RULE
 9   
10   
11   
12   
13                    1:17 p.m.
14           Thursday, February 5, 2004
15   
16   
17   
18   
19   
20   
21               General Scott Room
22     Courtyard by Marriott-Embassy Row Hotel
23         1600 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
24                Washington, D.C. 
25   
0002
 1                         C O N T E N T S
 2   AGENDA ITEM                                           PAGE
 3   OPENING REMARKS BY BLM STAFF:
 4        TOM DYER                                            3
 5        BUD CRIBLEY                                         4
 6        KEN VISSER                                          8
 7   PUBLIC COMMENTS BY:
 8        RICK KRAUSE, American Farm Bureau Federation       17
 9        GEORGE LEA, Public Lands Foundation                21
10        STACEY KATSEANES, Public Lands Council and 
11          National Cattlemen's Beef Association            24
12        MARC SMITH, National Wildlife Federation           28
13        DAVID ALBERSWERTH, The Wilderness Society          32
14   
15   
16   
17   
18   
19   
20   
21   
22   
23   
24   
25   
0003
 1                      P R O C E E D I N G S
 2                                                  (1:17 p.m.)
 3             MR. DYER:  We'll go ahead and get started.  My
 4   name is Tom Dyer and I'm the Deputy Assistant Director for
 5   Renewable Resources and Planning for the Bureau of Land
 6   Management here in Washington.  I've been here roughly two
 7   months.  I came out from eastern Oregon.  I did a callback
 8   yesterday and found out they have close to 2 feet of snow
 9   back there.  So it's kind of nice out there right now.  I
10   know it's a little chilly for most of you, but it's kind
11   of nice. 
12             Thank you so much for coming and participating
13   in the public meeting which the BLM is holding in
14   connection with the draft environmental impact statement
15   on our proposed grazing rules.  The purpose of this
16   hearing is to receive your comments on the draft impact
17   statement.  We greatly appreciate your input on this
18   document, and thank you for taking the time to share your
19   views on this important process.
20             I want to take a few moments and introduce a
21   couple of folks that will be BLM employees who will be up
22   here to speak. 
23             Bud Cribley is in the front row here.  He is the
24   Group Manager of BLM's Rangeland, Soil, Water, Air Group
25   in Washington, D.C.  He will provide a few brief remarks
0004
 1   on the background for these regulatory revisions and
 2   explain the procedures that we will be following in taking
 3   public comment.
 4             Ken Visser, our Rangeland Management Specialist
 5   now based in Reno, Nevada -- it might be a little warmer
 6   there -- will then give a brief PowerPoint presentation to
 7   summarize the proposed grazing rule and draft
 8   environmental impact statement. 
 9             After Ken finishes, we will open up the public
10   comment process, which is your opportunity to give your
11   input and feedback on the impact statement.
12             On behalf of the Department of the Interior, the
13   Bureau of Land Management, I would again like to thank you
14   for coming to participate in this meeting.  It's really
15   good to see the size of the group.  
16             Bud?
17             MR. CRIBLEY:  I also want to welcome and thank
18   everybody for coming out today to participate in this
19   meeting and hopefully provide comments to the Bureau of
20   Land Management on these proposed rules and the draft EIS.
21             We're here today, as Tom said, to receive your
22   comments.  We're not here to debate the issues that are
23   discussed in the documents that are before you, and also
24   this isn't a question and answer session on the documents
25   themselves.  
0005
 1             The way we will conduct this meeting is we have
 2   a short presentation on the documents that we'll be
 3   receiving comments on, just to kind of make everybody
 4   familiar with what it is or give some background on what
 5   we're talking about or receiving comments on.  Then we
 6   will go through and receive comments.
 7             Once we receive comments and everybody has had
 8   an opportunity to present their comments, we'll go ahead
 9   and officially close this meeting.  But Ken and myself and
10   some other folks who are involved with this rulemaking
11   will remain here to answer any questions that you may have
12   about the rulemaking.  But that's not necessarily the
13   purpose of this meeting.  The purpose of the meeting is to
14   receive comments from the public.
15             The reason that we're here today is to receive
16   comments on the proposed rulemaking and draft EIS on the
17   Bureau of Land Management's regulations that govern the
18   livestock grazing on public lands out west.
19             The bureau back in 1995 made some very
20   significant changes to the grazing regulations, and since
21   that time for the last eight years, we've been going
22   through the process of implementation of those
23   regulations.  Through that implementation period, we've
24   felt that the time has come -- we have reviewed that, and
25   we felt there is a need to update or make adjustments to
0006
 1   those regulations.
 2             The reason for doing that is kind of -- there
 3   are three basic comments for the need or the rationale for
 4   those changes.  The first and the foremost is to promote
 5   cooperation in the administration of the livestock grazing
 6   program.  Second and closely related to cooperation is the
 7   protection of rangeland health, and third, to improve the
 8   administrative efficiency for that program.  We've
 9   recognized and identified a lot of different sections of
10   the regulations that we can improve upon to make the
11   management of public grazing a more cooperative, a more
12   involved process, and also more effective and efficient.
13             As I said before, the purpose today is to
14   receive your comments. 
15             Just for anybody's information, right outside to
16   the right of the door are refreshments for anybody who
17   needs water or drinks and coffee, and then if you keep on
18   going around to the right and down the short hallway and
19   keep turning to the right, the rest rooms are at the end
20   of that corridor.  So we have drinks and rest rooms
21   available for you also. 
22             I want to emphasize here how important this
23   phase of receiving comments from the public has been for
24   us.  This will be the last of six public meetings that the
25   bureau has conducted the last week and a half.  We started
0007
 1   last week with public meetings out in Salt Lake City,
 2   moved down to Phoenix.  We were up in Boise, then in
 3   Billings, Montana, and then closed out Monday night in
 4   Cheyenne.  Those are the five public meetings out west,
 5   and this is the final public meeting that we'll conduct
 6   here in Washington, D.C. 
 7             The comments we consider very valuable.  We
 8   heard a lot of comments from the public out west.  About
 9   20 people at each one of those meetings came up and
10   provided comments to the BLM.  There was a wide variety of
11   ideas that were shared with us, and they were very
12   important to us. 
13             One thing to emphasize here is the comments that
14   you're providing today is not the only opportunity for
15   providing comments.  The comment period is open on this
16   until March the 2nd.  So this isn't your only opportunity
17   to do that.  Also when we're receiving comments, we're
18   limiting all the speakers to 5 minutes and we'll be timing
19   you.  If somebody has written comments or additional
20   written comments that they would like to submit for the
21   record, you can provide those to us and they will become a
22   part of the permanent public comment record.
23             So with that kind of an introduction of what
24   we're doing here, why don't we move forward and have Ken
25   Visser come up and start his program, as soon as we unlock
0008
 1   the computer. 
 2             MR. VISSER:  Good afternoon.  My name is Ken
 3   Visser.  I'm a rangeland management specialist with the
 4   Rangeland, Soil, Water, and Air Group, Washington, D.C.
 5             Our purpose at this meeting is to listen to your
 6   comments, but we recognize that everyone in the room may
 7   not have the same level of familiarity with the proposed
 8   changes in the regulations or with the environmental
 9   impact statement that accompanies their release.  So we're
10   providing a quick overview of the proposed grazing
11   regulation changes to give everyone a similar foundation
12   for the comments we will hear this afternoon. 
13             Three primary concepts were used in proposing
14   revisions to the regulations:  first, to improve and
15   promote cooperation; the second, to protect health of
16   rangelands; and the third, to increase management
17   efficiency and effectiveness. 
18             To improve and promote cooperation, there are
19   five major areas of change proposed. 
20             The first is to factor social, economic, and
21   cultural considerations into grazing decisions.  This
22   occurs to some degree in environmental assessments now,
23   but it has not been consistently considered or applied.
24             The second is to phase in grazing changes
25   whether they're increases or decreases in the amount of
0009
 1   use.  This allows implementation of change in logical
 2   steps.  For example, certain changes would occur in year
 3   1.  Their implementation would be worked into the grazing
 4   operation, and another portion of the change would occur
 5   in year 3, and so on, with full implementation of all
 6   necessary changes by year 5.
 7             This regulation, however, would not affect BLM's
 8   current ability to immediately and fully implement
 9   temporary changes in an emergency, such as suspending
10   grazing use after a fire.  BLM also could fully implement
11   the change immediately, if that is needed to comply with
12   the requirements of existing laws such as the Endangered
13   Species Act. 
14             The third would be to allow for shared title to
15   cooperatively developed range improvements.  This level of
16   cooperative title sharing would be based upon the level of
17   investment made.  Thus, if a rancher or other cooperator
18   spends money to help BLM create a range improvement like a
19   fence, they can share in the ownership of the fence in
20   proportion to their contribution.
21             The fourth is to establish an expectation to
22   cooperate with locally established grazing boards.
23             And the fifth would allow for a review
24   opportunity for biological evaluations and biological
25   assessments that address grazing use.
0010
 1             The goals of the regulation changes are also
 2   reflected in what was not changed.  The resource advisory
 3   councils, established under the 1995 regulations, have
 4   shown themselves to be a valuable contributor to public
 5   land management. 
 6             The proposed regulation changes also seek to
 7   make adjustments that improve long-term protection of the
 8   health of rangelands. 
 9             In addition to the positive effects that
10   cooperative problem-solving can have on rangeland health,
11   there are three other changes that are proposed:  first,
12   to expand BLM's discretion to approve nonuse by removing
13   the three-year limit on approvals found in the current
14   regulation.  The second is to require monitoring to
15   support rangeland health assessments, and the third is to
16   allow a more realistic time frame, up to two years, to
17   develop and implement actions to ensure that progress
18   towards meeting rangeland health standards is attained. 
19   This time frame would allow for careful deliberation and
20   cooperative approaches, consultation with the Fish and
21   Wildlife Service, if it's appropriate, in preparation of
22   environmental analysis.  This will improve the quality and
23   support of decisions made to address rangeland health.
24             Here again, the goals of the regulation changes
25   are reflected in what was not changed.  The rangeland
0011
 1   health standards and guidelines established under a
 2   process provided under the 1995 regulation support an
 3   orderly and consistent approach for protecting rangeland
 4   health.
 5             The third goal was to increase management
 6   efficiency and address some legal issues.  The first
 7   change, removal of "conservation use," implements the
 8   court decision.  The second modifies the definition of
 9   preference to include both priority of a permit or lease,
10   as well as the amount of forage available.  The term
11   "permitted use" would be dropped because it would no
12   longer be necessary.  Consultation requirements would be
13   focused on the major processes that describe, evaluate,
14   and allocate grazing use.  Where possible, unnecessary or
15   duplicative consultation requirements would be dropped. 
16   Livestock water rights issues would be resolved under
17   State processes and joint livestock water rights would be
18   an option. 
19             The proposed changes would also clarify
20   satisfactory performance and establish parameters for the
21   phrase "within the terms and conditions of a permit or
22   lease."  And administratively service charges are proposed
23   to be increased. 
24             Three more proposed changes.  Where an act is
25   prohibited, action as against a permit or a lease would be
0012
 1   tied to whether the prohibited act was related to
 2   activities under the permit or lease.  The status of a
 3   permit or lease, when it is under appeal, is clarified,
 4   and third, the proposed changes clarify that biological
 5   evaluations and biological assessments are not grazing
 6   decisions but, rather, are consultation documents between
 7   BLM and the Fish and Wildlife Service, required under the
 8   Endangered Species Act. 
 9             So with a proposed change of this type, BLM has
10   completed a draft environmental impact statement, or DEIS,
11   and is seeking public comment.
12             The draft EIS has three alternatives.  The no
13   action alternative identifies the effects of continuing
14   under the present regulations without the proposed
15   changes.  The proposed action discloses the effects of
16   adopting the proposed changes.  The modified action
17   alternative illustrates the effects of making some changes
18   and 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 designed
23   and implemented actions to meet required time lines, which
24   in turn would reduce the effectiveness of some actions,
25   and current problems in administrative efficiency would
0013
 1   not be addressed. 
 2             Again, very generally, the proposed alternative
 3   is expected to result in improved working relationships
 4   and increased cooperation, particularly when problem
 5   solving and implementing change.  Long-term rangeland
 6   health is expected to improve, and we do anticipate
 7   improvements in efficiency, allowing more time to focus on
 8   important decisions and more time to get work done on the
 9   ground.
10             Let's take a little closer look at some of the
11   more specific effects of the proposed action.  There will
12   be time to design and adjust when implementing changes in
13   the amount of livestock grazing.  By allowing phased-in
14   changes, change can be implemented in logical steps,
15   starting in year 1 and completing a phase-in by year 5. 
16   Consideration of social, economic, and cultural factors
17   would be applied more consistently across all public land
18   permits and leases.  Cooperation and communication with
19   State and local grazing boards would be improved, and
20   incentives for private investment in range improvement
21   projects would be improved.
22             Taking the time to seek cooperation in carefully
23   designed decisions that change livestock grazing may mean
24   some changes don't happen as fast and in some places that
25   could have some short-term adverse impacts at the local
0014
 1   level, but over the long term, implementation of well-
 2   designed actions to improve rangeland condition is
 3   expected to improve vegetative conditions and overall
 4   watershed conditions.  One thing to remember when talking
 5   about broad-scale change in vegetative and watershed
 6   conditions is that these changes generally occur slowly.
 7             The proposed changes that create the possibility
 8   for short-term adverse impacts basically relate to the
 9   time taken to design and implement changes in the
10   information base used to make those decisions.
11             Basically the proposed action would change some
12   localized risk for the adverse impact from improvements in
13   the quality, sustainability, and long-term support of
14   underlying decisions to change livestock grazing.  Removal
15   of restrictions on approval of temporary nonuse also
16   creates a greater flexibility in working with permittees
17   and lessees.
18             What impacts are expected in terms of
19   administrative efficiency?  More focused communications
20   with interested publics, more timely decisions, improved
21   cost recovery for processing actions, and improved clarity
22   of regulations. 
23             One last alternative is the modified action
24   alternative.  Some of the major effects of this
25   alternative would be greater flexibility due to discretion
0015
 1   allowed for five-year phase-in and use of monitoring data,
 2   but less flexibility due to a five-year limit on
 3   consecutive years of nonuse.  Reduced spread of weeds is
 4   also expected based on a requirement which would be added
 5   to the prohibited acts section to use certified weed-free
 6   hay in conducting rangeland operations. 
 7             A little information about the schedule we're
 8   using.  The comment period ends on March 2nd, 2004.  We
 9   expect to publish the final environmental impact statement
10   in September of this year, with a final rule published by
11   October.  This would make the grazing rule effective in
12   December 2004.
13             I hope this overview has been useful for most of
14   you.  For those of you who are already familiar with the
15   proposed regulations and the draft EIS, thank you for your
16   patience so that others could get the information. 
17             Now we're to the primary purpose for this
18   meeting, to listen to your thoughts and ideas. 
19             MR. CRIBLEY:  What I would like to do now is
20   just kind of describe to you how we'll go ahead and take
21   public comments.  In the taking of public comments, we are
22   going to handle it as it if was a formal hearing.  We do
23   have a recorder here who will be recording all of your
24   comments, and those comments will then become part of the
25   permanent record for the proposed rulemaking and draft
0016
 1   EIS.  We ask, understanding the difficulties, particularly
 2   out west with some of the folks that were giving comments
 3   out there, that folks that are in the audience respect
 4   those folks who are providing comments to us and not to
 5   interrupt or be disruptive in regards to those comments
 6   that they are providing. 
 7             Also, there will be a time limitation on the
 8   comments, and we'll limit it to 5 minutes as we did with
 9   all the meetings out west.  We will have a timer up front
10   who will be sitting next to you while you provide your
11   comments, and we'll give you warning when you have 2
12   minutes left, when you have 30 seconds left, and then when
13   your time is complete.  We ask that when you get the
14   signal that your time is complete, that you conclude your
15   remarks.  
16             Again, I'd like to restate that if you do have
17   written comments and are not able to provide all of those
18   verbally, you can submit those to us, and we will put the
19   entire set of comments as a part of the record.
20             I will be the moderator for the receiving of
21   public comments.  I will call out the names of the folks
22   who have signed up to provide comments.  I'll ask you to
23   come up to the podium and would like for you to state your
24   name and then to spell your name for the record and then
25   also indicate, if you're representing a group, what group
0017
 1   that is, or if you're representing yourself, where you're
 2   from.  That will also become a part of the record.
 3             With that, we need to take about a 5-minute
 4   break so that we can reconfigure this and set it up for
 5   you.  So if you want to take 5 minutes to get something to
 6   drink or use the bathroom real quick, we'll call you back
 7   here in a few minutes.  Thank you. 
 8             (Recess.)
 9             MR. CRIBLEY:  Why don't we go ahead and get
10   started. 
11             The first person who will be giving us comments
12   today is Rick Krause.  If you could go ahead and state
13   your name and spell it for the record and who you
14   represent. 
15             MR. KRAUSE:  Good afternoon.  My name is Rick
16   Krause, K-r-a-u-s-e, with the American Farm Bureau
17   Federation.
18             The American Farm Bureau Federation is the
19   largest general farm organization in the United States,
20   representing a significant number of the livestock
21   producers in the western United States who use federal
22   lands for grazing livestock.
23             We are pleased to offer some preliminary
24   comments in support of the proposed rule from the Bureau
25   of Land Management to revamp the Federal grazing
0018
 1   regulations.  We plan to provide more detailed comments at
 2   a later date. 
 3             When Congress began to regulate livestock
 4   grazing on federal lands, a key component of that
 5   regulatory scheme, expressed in the Taylor Grazing Act,
 6   was the economic stability of the ranching community. 
 7   Many rural communities throughout the West depend on
 8   federal lands grazing for their economic stability.
 9             Ranchers are good stewards of the land that they
10   use.  Some of America's best wildlife habitat is found on
11   these lands.  Federal lands ranchers preserve open space
12   and provide valuable environmental contributions
13   throughout the West.
14             We support BLM's efforts to cut red tape so that
15   more time and effort are devoted to on-the-ground
16   improvements.  We also support efforts to provide greater
17   flexibility to land managers and to ranchers while, at the
18   same time, improving the conservation of the land. 
19             This proposal addresses a number of those issues
20   that can benefit both rancher and wildlife, and I'm going
21   to describe a few of those in the time that I have.
22             First of all, title to rangeland improvements. 
23   One proposed change that benefits both the ranchers and
24   natural resources would allow permittees to have a title
25   interest in range improvements that they fund and
0019
 1   construct on their allotments.  They should be able to
 2   list range improvements that they build and pay for as
 3   assets on their balance sheets when applying for operating
 4   loans.  An increased balance sheet position also allows
 5   more funds to be available to the permittee for range
 6   improvements through increased borrowing capacity.
 7             Range improvements not only benefit ranchers,
 8   however.  They also benefit and provide drinking water for
 9   wildlife and provide other habitat enhancements as well. 
10   They can be used to promote biological diversity and
11   provide benefits to the public. 
12             Providing co-ownership of rangeland improvements
13   would give permittees an incentive to construct and
14   maintain these improvements on federal lands. 
15             Restoring the concept of grazing preference as
16   originally set forth in the Taylor Grazing Act.  This
17   change will provide ranchers with a degree of certainty as
18   to the amounts of grazing forage that they might be able
19   to use in a period of time.  That provides a rancher with
20   a better basis upon which to make the decisions regarding
21   the size of an operation.  While outside factors such as
22   weather might impact yearly grazing, the proposed
23   definition of preference will help to ensure that yearly
24   fluctuations in forage are not permanently lost. 
25             Another change, requiring that monitoring and
0020
 1   grazing assessments be made on the basis of sound science. 
 2   Scientifically based monitoring of rangeland trends and
 3   condition is very important for western ranchers and is a
 4   concept that the Farm Bureau wholeheartedly supports.  The
 5   monitoring provisions in the proposed rule will improve
 6   the decision-making process regarding the use of our
 7   nation's rangelands. 
 8             Another change, providing that actions against a
 9   permit can only be taken if the permittee violated
10   applicable law while engaged in livestock grazing-related
11   activities on his/her allotment.  This change would
12   clarify that a grazing permit can be suspended or canceled
13   only when the violation relates to grazing activities and
14   only for violations occurring on his or her own allotment. 
15   Violations of law that are not related to livestock
16   grazing activities would no longer be used as an excuse to
17   eliminate grazing.
18             Removing the requirement that BLM seek sole
19   ownership of water rights.  This change would make
20   ownership of water rights on BLM lands more consistent
21   with State laws.  Co-ownership of water rights protects
22   the permittee so that livestock water is not arbitrarily
23   diverted or denied and it protects the agency so that it
24   stays with the land.  Co-ownership will also provide an
25   incentive for permittees to develop water supplies in
0021
 1   these areas.  
 2             There are a couple of areas also that we have
 3   some questions on especially, one of which is conservation
 4   use.  The proposed change that would allow for somebody to
 5   take nonuse for an unlimited period of time on a yearly
 6   recurring basis needs to be clarified to be consistent
 7   with the change that is proposed on eliminating
 8   conservation use as required by the Tenth Circuit Court of
 9   Appeals decision. 
10             We will provide additional comments at a later
11   date.  Thanks for the opportunity to talk and our comments
12   will be forthcoming.  Thank you. 
13             MR. CRIBLEY:  Thank you. 
14             George Lea.
15             MR. LEA:  Yes.  I'm George Lea.  The last name
16   is spelled L-e-a.  I'm President of the Public Lands
17   Foundation, and we appreciate the opportunity to provide
18   you with our comments on the proposed grazing changes.
19             Let me first indicate to you that the Public
20   Lands Foundation is a nonprofit organization whose members
21   are basically retired BLM people.  We've been in operation
22   now for 16 years and have over 1,000 members.  Our
23   membership represents a large expanse of knowledge on
24   public land management. 
25             We studied the 1995 implementation regulations
0022
 1   and it's hard for us to see the need to make substantial
 2   changes.  They haven't really been in operation long
 3   enough to make a good, sound assessment.  
 4             The draft EIS states that many of the proposed
 5   changes are largely administrative and would have little
 6   direct effect on the environment.  We believe that this is
 7   not a correct assessment of the potential impacts that
 8   many of the anticipated changes would have.
 9             The regulations contain several changes, and
10   we'd like to just emphasize some of the more important
11   ones.  Our analysis of the proposed action would indicate
12   that this is an effort by the administration to undo what
13   has been done and to return to the past rather than to
14   propose progressive improvements. 
15             The first concern relates to water rights.  We
16   think it's a pretty bad policy to change the current
17   rights that require that the title to the water rights be
18   held by the United States.  After all, these are multiple
19   use improvements and should be available at all times for
20   multiple use.  And here again, it would appear to be that
21   it's an effort by the administration to provide the
22   livestock industry with more control on the management of
23   the lands.  The regulations provide plenty of
24   opportunities for them to be reimbursed for their
25   investments in range improvements, including water
0023
 1   development.  So we see little need for them to also have
 2   a title. 
 3             It's interesting to note that State lands
 4   departments do not permit grazing lessees to have title to
 5   water rights on State lands.  And, of course, private
 6   landowners will not allow a lessee to have title to water
 7   rights on their private lands. 
 8             It's an axiom of western lands that if you
 9   control the water, you control the land.  It's just that
10   simple.  Again, we see this as an effort by the industry
11   to return to the days of the old and to improve their
12   control. 
13             What's significant here is that BLM and the
14   Forest Service have lands that often adjoin each other.
15   Both agencies have the same mandates.  The lands are
16   similar in character and so we think that in the case
17   water development, that is, the water rights, and the
18   ownership of the range improvements, that two agencies
19   should not have similar policies, but identical policies. 
20             The other area that we're concerned about is the
21   ownership of range improvements, which I've talked about,
22   but here again, we see little need for them to have title
23   and to share title.  I mean, that's enough bookkeeping
24   there to keep many people busy right there.  They have the
25   ability to be compensated for it.  They still can use
0024
 1   these improvements, so we see little need for them to have
 2   title.  They can have title to those improvements put
 3   there to handle their livestock, temporary improvements,
 4   but nothing of any permanent nature.
 5             The proposed reg removes the terms and
 6   conditions relating to access across private lands, and
 7   it's an implied right, according to the IBLA.  This is a
 8   very sensitive issue.  We think it should remain in the
 9   regulations, not to remove it.  Making it silent, you're
10   just asking for more trouble. 
11             The other element, in view of the time that I
12   have, relates to the time to take action.  You're
13   proposing to wait two years after we know what the
14   conditions are to implement a decision and then five years
15   to implement it.  You're talking about seven years.  We
16   think that one year is adequate and a three-year period to
17   implement would be appropriate. 
18             I see my time is out.  And these are some of the
19   comments but the more important areas of the regulations
20   that we're concerned about, and we'll have further
21   comments later.  Thank you very much. 
22             MR. CRIBLEY:  Thank you. 
23             Stacey Katseanes.
24             MS. KATSEANES:  Hi.  My name is Stacey
25   Katseanes.  That's S-t-a-c-e-y K-a-t-s-e-a-n-e-s.  I'm
0025
 1   testifying on behalf of the Public Lands Council and the
 2   National Cattlemen's Beef Association. 
 3             PLC and NCBA would like to commend the
 4   Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Land Management,
 5   Secretary Norton, Director Clarke, and their staffs for
 6   responding to the needs of our western lands and the
 7   people who live there.  The revision of the existing
 8   grazing regulations in the manner that you are approaching
 9   this issue is definitely a step in the right direction. 
10             The following are specific things we support, as
11   well as issues of general concern to the industry. 
12             The inclusion of monitoring is an important tool
13   for land management.  Documenting of field observations as
14   a criterion to base decisions on will make it possible to
15   recheck information for accuracy and validity.  It will
16   also create a record of pertinent data for long-term
17   decisions.  This will improve the decision-making process
18   and help to point to factors that could be significant to
19   meeting acceptable rangeland standards.
20             Returning the term "preference" to the original
21   definition and concept will again attach animal unit
22   months to private-based property.  This also provides an
23   opportunity for ranchers to utilize increases in forage if
24   weather and circumstances allow, but in times when use
25   reduction is necessary for rangeland health, ranchers
0026
 1   would not permanently lose AUMs.  The AUM amount
 2   represents the value of grazing permits.  Subsequently it
 3   directly affects the base value of ranching operations.
 4             An issue that also directly affects the base
 5   value of any ranching operation is the ability to own all
 6   or part of range improvements.  Ranchers pay for and work
 7   to build and maintain these improvements on their
 8   allotments.  Allowing the expenditure of the ranchers'
 9   time and money add collateral value to the ranching
10   operation through cooperative agreements.  As well, it
11   will help to increase the stability of the ranching base
12   and that of the local communities. 
13             It is well known to those who work the land that
14   being able to directly react to situations saves times,
15   money, and resources.  By removing from the regulations
16   the need to involve the interested public in many of the
17   day-to-day planning and management actions and any
18   consultations between BLM and ranchers will accomplish
19   this goal.  Although BLM could still consult voluntarily
20   on numerous matters, this proposal will only facilitate a
21   more rapid and efficient way to perform the management
22   obligations of the land managers and the ranchers. 
23             The regulation clearly protects our public's
24   ability to speak out and comment in NEPA reviews, resource
25   management planning activities, and the following decision
0027
 1   processes.
 2             The proposed regulation change to provide that
 3   BLM cooperate with State, county, or local established
 4   grazing boards in reviewing range improvements and
 5   allotment management plans on public lands provides a way
 6   to give notice to, include, and involve the local
 7   governments and land users.  The creation and use of these
 8   boards will give land managers and resource advisory
 9   councils direct resource-related information for subject
10   matter experts in the local areas, increasing its ability
11   to advise and recommend accurate strategies for managing
12   public lands under the multiple use mandate.  This is a
13   very innovative and useful approach to implementing
14   Secretary Norton's four C's concept to resource
15   management. 
16             We ask BLM to reconsider its surcharge policy by
17   giving further thought to the effect of drought on
18   ranching economics and the use of stewardship contracting
19   in recognition of the landscape benefits provided by
20   intact ranches.
21             We ask the BLM to change the sheep-to-cow AUM
22   ratio from 5 to 1 to 7 to 1.  Research by the U.S.
23   Department of Agriculture in 1994 demonstrated that the
24   current ratio of 5 to 1 is no longer accurate and supports
25   a change to a 7 to 1 ratio.  I have a copy of the report
0028
 1   available for inclusion in this record.  In addition to
 2   the supporting arguments based on science and practice,
 3   the current ratio is based entirely on cattle which makes
 4   it a matter of fairness that the ratio be adjusted to
 5   reflect sheep use of forage resources.
 6             I'd like to thank you again for this opportunity
 7   to comment. 
 8             MR. CRIBLEY:  Thank you. 
 9             Marc Smith.
10             MR. SMITH:  Hello.  My name is Marc Smith, M-a-
11   r-c S-m-i-t-h.  I'm representing the National Wildlife
12   Federation, the nation's largest member-supported
13   conservation group, with members who have been long
14   involved in protecting wildlife habitat from irresponsible
15   and abusive livestock grazing on lands managed by the
16   Bureau of Land Management.
17             I would like to point out that our members and
18   supporters use these lands for wildlife viewing,
19   photography, hunting, hiking, fishing, and any other
20   activity that they deem appropriate.  They have a deep
21   appreciation for the recreational opportunities and the
22   wildlife habitat provided by these public lands.
23             However, we're concerned that poorly managed
24   livestock grazing has damaged our public lands and the
25   resources that rely on those lands.  Overgrazing of native
0029
 1   grasses and other plants has destroyed soils and caused
 2   erosion, degraded water quality, crippled riparian areas,
 3   reduced wildlife and its habitat, ruined recreation, and
 4   in some instances damaged archaeological sites.
 5             The proposed changes before us now would
 6   basically sweep aside efforts over the past 25 years to
 7   improve rangeland conditions and to reduce the impacts of
 8   abusive grazing on wildlife, watersheds, recreation, and
 9   cultural treasures.  The proposed rules also are
10   especially damaging because they will disenfranchise the
11   public and further entrench destructive livestock grazing.
12             Four areas that we're super-concerned with.
13             Number one, locking out the public from
14   participating in grazing decisions.  The proposed rules
15   would basically eliminate existing requirements that BLM
16   seek public input before it issues, renews, or even
17   modifies a grazing permit.  In trying to excuse
18   disenfranchising the public, the BLM claims the public is
19   already consulted when BLM analyzes the environmental
20   impacts in its grazing decisions.  However, this pretext
21   is deceptive in that the BLM knows that the grazing
22   environmental assessments, on which they want the public
23   to depend, are notoriously backlogged due to lack of staff
24   and even budget.  Even further, Congress has recognized
25   this backlog, excusing BLM from timely preparation of such
0030
 1   assessments until at least 2008. 
 2             The result of all of this will be that decisions
 3   about how our public lands will be grazed will be made in
 4   private deals between ranchers and the agency, while the
 5   public is not notified of nor allowed to participate in
 6   making those decisions. 
 7             Number two, we're concerned about the delay and
 8   obstruction of the ability to remedy abusive grazing. 
 9   Even after the BLM identifies damaging livestock grazing
10   that is the cause of failing to meet rangeland health
11   standards, the proposed rules would require monitoring and
12   data collection before implementing any needed changes. 
13   This new requirement would be imposed even where the abuse
14   is obvious and even though BLM lacks the budget and staff
15   to keep up with this monitoring. 
16             In addition, the proposed rules could double the
17   one-year time limit BLM has to begin to remedy damaging
18   grazing practices it documents.  And if a remedy requires
19   a 10 percent or greater reduction in grazing, the proposed
20   rules will require that the reductions be phased in over
21   five years.  This result will be that abusive grazing will
22   be entrenched, cures will be hamstrung, and natural
23   resources, wildlife, and recreation will take a back seat
24   to grazing's dominance on BLM lands. 
25             Third, we're concerned that the BLM's new rules
0031
 1   will hinder their ability to manage grazing by giving
 2   individuals the right to own new fences, wells, pipelines
 3   or other structures, and water on Federal lands.  The
 4   bottom line here is private ownership of water and
 5   facilities on BLM lands will make BLM's management more
 6   difficult.  It will deter the agency from reducing or even
 7   eliminating grazing practices, when necessary, to protect
 8   other resources, for fear that livestock owners might
 9   claim that their private property has been taken.
10             The fourth issue that we're concerned with is it
11   would limit the BLM's ability to penalize ranchers who
12   violate Federal laws.  The proposal would make it easier
13   for livestock owners to violate environmental laws without
14   fear that their permits could be revoked.  While the
15   existing regulations allow BLM to suspend a grazing permit
16   if a rancher violates Federal laws, such as using
17   poisonous bait to destroy wildlife, polluting water,
18   destroying archaeological or cultural resources, or
19   violating the Endangered Species Act, the proposed rules
20   will only allow BLM to recognize violations of those laws
21   if the violation occurred on the rancher's BLM allotment. 
22   If the rancher shoots, for example, eagles, poisons
23   wolves, or destroys archaeological resources anywhere
24   else, BLM would be prohibited from taking any action
25   against the rancher on his grazing allotment.
0032
 1             The lesson this will teach is that environmental
 2   criminals are free to continue grazing on Federal lands as
 3   long as these crimes were not committed on their allotment
 4   or away from home. 
 5             Thank you for your time and we'll submit formal
 6   comments in accordance with the deadline.  Thank you. 
 7             MR. CRIBLEY:  Thank you. 
 8             David Alberswerth.
 9             MR. ALBERSWERTH:  Hello.  My name is David
10   Alberswerth.  It's A-l-b-e-r-s-w-e-r-t-h.  I'm the Bureau
11   of Land Management Program Director for The Wilderness
12   Society and I have a few brief oral comments today which
13   we'll probably supplement with some written comments at a
14   later time. 
15             As you are keenly aware, the mission statement
16   of the BLM says that the mission of the agency is to
17   sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the
18   public lands for the use and enjoyment of past and future
19   generations.  I know you're all keenly aware of that and I
20   hope that in reviewing the comments on this proposal and
21   the content of the proposal, you'll keep that mission
22   statement in mind. 
23             Our view is that the no action alternative is
24   the action that you should pursue.  We see no compelling
25   reason to change any of the current grazing regulations,
0033
 1   with the possible exception of conservation use, which
 2   I'll discuss later.
 3             One of our primary concerns is the proposed
 4   public participation.  As you know, Secretary Norton at
 5   every opportunity repeats that her policy is the four C's: 
 6   consultation, communication, cooperation, and the cause of
 7   conservation.  What we see happening here in your
 8   proposal, though, are severe restrictions being imposed on
 9   the public's ability to participate in decisions about how
10   our rangelands are managed and we hope you'll revisit
11   that.
12             With respect to water rights, Mr. Lea I think
13   aptly characterized the concerns that we have with respect
14   to that.  Picture, if you will, a situation where an
15   absentee landowner has turned over his or her ranch to a
16   caretaker or manager and the manager decides that the
17   lessee is going to be able to obtain water rights on those
18   lands.  That ranch manager, I think, would soon be fired. 
19   Please don't do this.  These are publicly owned resources.
20   They should not be given away free of charge to those who
21   rent these lands for their own personal financial benefit.
22             The time frames for implementation of changes
23   has already been discussed, and I wanted to just ask a
24   couple of questions.  There are some other aspects of
25   those proposals that are of concern to us and perhaps
0034
 1   these changes were inadvertent, but it appears, for
 2   instance, that with the change proposed in 4180.2(c) that
 3   anytime an authorized officer wants to make a change or
 4   order a change in management, that an extensive amount of
 5   monitoring data needs to be collected.  Now, as you all
 6   know, the courts have upheld that in the past photographic
 7   evidence, for example, of situations where it is obvious
 8   that a spring or a bog or a riparian area has been badly
 9   damaged by livestock, that's sufficient evidence to
10   document the need for changes.  You may not have intended
11   that in the wording change here, but that's the way we
12   read the effect of the new language.  So I hope you'll
13   take a look at that. 
14             Also, we're puzzled.  It appears that the
15   relationship between the fundamentals of the rangeland
16   health and the standards and guidelines in 4180.1 have
17   been severed.  The way we read this language, it appears
18   that the only circumstance under which the fundamentals of
19   rangeland health that are articulated here need to be used
20   or adhered to is cases where no State standards and
21   guidelines have been adopted.  And I'm not sure if that's
22   what your intention was, but it appears to us that that's
23   what you have done here and we're concerned about that.
24             Conservation use.  I understand that the Supreme
25   Court -- or I understand the legal situation with that,
0035
 1   but what troubles me is that I think that there's an
 2   opportunity here for the BLM to come up with an
 3   alternative to that.  Permit buy-outs or an opportunity
 4   for a win-win-win situation where you have a rancher that
 5   may be wanting to get out of the business.  The BLM
 6   recognizes that grazing perhaps is not the most
 7   appropriate use in a particular area and you have a
 8   willing private owner, a private party that wishes to buy
 9   those out, make the rancher whole, retire the AUMs
10   permanently.  It's unfortunate that you haven't seized
11   this opportunity to come up with an alternative to
12   conservation use.  
13             I'd like to discuss some of these issues with
14   you further at a later date.  Thank you very much. 
15             MR. CRIBLEY:  Thank you. 
16             Now, that is everyone who has signed up to
17   provide comments to us this afternoon.  Is there anybody
18   else out in the audience who has not signed up but would
19   like to, at this time, provide comments to the BLM? 
20             (No response.) 
21             MR. CRIBLEY:  If there is nobody else who would
22   like to provide comments, we will go ahead and close this
23   session or this comment period, and we will close the
24   hearing.  I appreciate everybody showing up today.
25             As I said previously, we will be up here.  As
0036
 1   long as you folks stay here, we'll be here to answer
 2   questions for you.  Thank you very much. 
 3             (Whereupon, at 2:18 p.m., the public hearing was
 4   concluded.)
 5   
 6   
 7   
 8   
 9   
10   
11   
12   
13   
14   
15   
16   
17   
18   
19   
20   
21   
22   
23   
24   
25