Not only does the bill not contain many improvements for federal lands ranch
families, says Jose Varela Lopez, New Mexico Cattle Growers Association
President, La Cieneguilla, New Mexico, it does just the opposite.
“The measure was intended to provide stability for ranchers grazing on Bureau
of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) as part of the multiple
use mandate for these lands,” Varela Lopez explained. “Instead, the amended
bill reduces stability and provides a path for eliminating lands from multiple
use.”
For example, he said, Senator Barrasso’s original bill would have provided term
permits for grazing of 20 years rather than the current 10 on healthy
allotments. The substitute will allow for up to 20-year permits, but it removes
the stability of even a 10-year permit.
According to Denver, Colorado based
environment and land law attorney Connie Brooks, “The grazing permit renewal
bill provides for 20-year renewal and categorical exclusion under NEPA if:
monitoring
of the allotment has indicated that the current grazing management has met, or
has satisfactorily progressed towards meeting objectives contained in the land
use and resource management plan of the allotment, as determined by the
Secretary concerned.
“In more recent
land use plans, the Forest Service adopts management objectives that are based
on the “natural range of variation.” The objectives are not tested by
data and assume management to mimic pre-western civilization. It is
possible if not probable that most grazing permits will not achieve such
objectives.
`“In North and South Dakota, the
Forest Service had adopted objectives for the National Grasslands that required
vegetation density measured by “visual obstruction rating” or “VOR.”
Despite expert opinions that the prescribed ratings cannot be achieved on
most North and South Dakota range sites due to soils, climate and lack of
precipitation, the Forest Service insisted that the land was biologically
capable of producing tall and dense vegetation. Rigorous studies have
proven that the western North Dakota range sites are not biologically capable
of meeting the management objectives. To this day, the Forest Service proposes
significant reductions in grazing for the very reason that they do not meet the
LRMP management objectives.
“Similarly the same plans called for
20 percent of the land area to be native plant species, even though the
Department of Agriculture conservation programs planted most of the land with
non-native crested wheat grass that still dominates the areas. Crested
wheatgrass is very difficult if not impossible to convert to native
grasses. So once again, the grazing permit will not conform to management
objectives.
The legislation should
be revised to remove the section in its entirety, Brooks concludes.
It is the
“categorical exclusion” language that is poison pill for Karen Budd-Falen,
Cheyenne, Wyoming federal lands attorney who was instrumental in drafting the
original Grazing Improvement Act.
“The
amended bill codifies National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis on
federal grazing allotments,” she explained. “This bill would
congressionally mandate actions that are currently discretionary.”
In an
unprecedented move, the amended Grazing Improvement Act takes dead
aim at ranchers in New Mexico and Oregon, Varela Lopez points out.
“The bill
contains a provision for “voluntary relinquishment” of up to 25 allotments in
New Mexico and Oregon,” he said. “Those allotments would be mandated to
permanently exclude grazing.”
Not only
does this undermine the small business of ranching in those states, but it
unmanaged allotments will certainly provide more fuel for the catastrophic wild
fires the West has suffered in recent times, Varela Lopez noted. Further
frustrating New Mexicans is the fact that no one was contacted regarding this
substitute bill prior to its’ committee passage he said.
The
substitute bill offered as an amendment was offered by Senators Ron Wyden
(D-OR) and Martin Heinrich (D-NM) is now ready for action on the U.S. Senate
Floor.
The U.S.
House of Representatives has an un-amended version of the measure awaiting
action as well. Neither measure is scheduled for action in Congress at this
time.
Thus far neither NCBA nor PLC have provided any information that might
alleviate ranchers’ concerns or opposition to the senate bill, says Varela
Lopez.
No comments:
Post a Comment