Livestock Grazing in National Monuments - What A Mess

by Frank DuBois

Several days ago I posted that Senators Hatch & Lee of Utah would be introducing the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Grazing Protection Act.

They did, in the interim, introduce an amendment to the Keystone Pipeline legislation then being debated in the Senate.  Here is the language in their amendment:


SA 44. Mr. HATCH submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 2 proposed by Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself, Mr. HOEVEN, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. RISCH, Mr. LEE, Mr. FLAKE, Mr. DAINES, Mr. MANCHIN, Mr. CASSIDY, Mr. GARDNER, Mr. PORTMAN, Mr. ALEXANDER, and Mrs. CAPITO) to the bill S. 1, to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

    At the appropriate place, insert the following:
   SEC. __. PROTECTION OF EXISTING GRAZING RIGHTS.
    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any rule or regulation of the Bureau of Land Management, within the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, in areas administered by the Bureau of Land Management, any grazing of livestock that was established as of September 17, 1996, or the date that is 1 day before the designation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in accordance with Presidential Proclamation Number 6920 (whichever is earlier), and any grazing of livestock that has been established since that date, shall be allowed to continue subject to such reasonable regulations, policies, and practices as the Secretary of the Interior considers to be necessary, on the condition that the Secretary shall allow the grazing levels to continue at current levels to the maximum extent practicable.
    (b) Permits.--In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary of the Interior may issue new permits (or renew permits) for the grazing of livestock in the areas described in subsection (a).
 
I've highlighted the important language.

Its disturbing to see they are having these problems in this Utah monument, when they have friendlier grazing language than New Mexico has in its two new national monuments.

On Sept. 18, 1996 President Clinton issued Presidential Proclamation 6920 creating the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.  The relevant grazing language in that proclamation is:

Nothing in this proclamation shall be deemed to affect existing permits or leases for, or levels of, livestock grazing on Federal lands within the monument; existing grazing uses shall continue to be governed by applicable laws and regulations other than this proclamation.

That's the standard, boiler-plate language for grazing, i.e., the proclamation was to have no impact upon grazing.

Let's move forward to March 25, 2013, when Obama issued a Presidential Proclamation designating the Rio Grande del Norte National Monument with this grazing language: 

Laws, regulations, and policies followed by the BLM in issuing and administering grazing permits or leases on lands under its jurisdiction shall continue to apply with regard to the lands in the monument, consistent with the purposes of this proclamation. 

Notice the language I've highlighted.  This ties grazing directly to the purposes section of the proclamation.  Clinton's says "Nothing in this proclamation" affects grazing, while the Obama proclamation does just the opposite.

Then on May 21, 2014 Obama signed a Presidential Proclamation designating the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument and with the following grazing language:

Laws, regulations, and policies followed by the BLM in issuing and administering grazing permits or leases on lands under its jurisdiction shall continue to apply with regard to the lands in the monument, consistent with the protection of the objects identified above.

Again we see the move from "Nothing in this proclamation" affects grazing to tying grazing directly to provisions in the proclamation. And instead of a generic tie to purposes, the consistency language is for each object identified in the proclamation.

Why the interest in these consistency languages?  Because they are highly discriminatory against livestock grazing, placing it a tier below any of the objects or purposes listed in the proclamations.  If the BLM plans an action to protect an object and there is a conflict with a grazing practice, grazing will be diminished.or eliminated.  If a current ranching practice is determined to be in conflict, it will have to be discontinued.  If a rancher proposes a range improvement project or any other new activity which is determined to be in conflict, it will be disallowed.  This is confirmed now by the BLM's own planning documents.  The Rio Grande Del Norte National Monument's scoping report lists the following as the first three grazing issues to be resolved in the planning process:

What are the potential impacts of livestock grazing on the Monument objects? How can any adverse impacts be avoided or otherwise mitigated?

Should any areas within the Monument be made unavailable for livestock grazing?

Should voluntarily relinquished grazing permits be allocated to other uses?

Under the Clinton language, grazing is on an equal footing with the other uses when management decisions are made.  Under the Obama language, grazing is subservient to the other uses or objects.

No doubt this has been a goal of the environmental community for some time.  I would like to know when the consistency language was first put in a proclamation and did an agency push for the new language or did it come from outside interests? 

We now have one agency, BLM, with at least three different grazing languages in national monuments.  Congress has the authority to fix this.  Its time for some "consistency" of our own.