You can read the Presidential Proclamation here.
President Trump revised the management section of the Proclamation. The language of interest to us follows:
NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including section 320301 of title 54, United States Code, hereby proclaim that Proclamation 9496, which established the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument, is amended as follows:
(1) in the section entitled “Prohibited Activities,” by deleting paragraph 6; and
(2) in the section entitled “Regulated Activities,” by deleting paragraph 5 and by re-designating paragraphs 6 and 7 as paragraphs 5 and 6, respectively.
Furthermore, nothing in paragraph 4 in the section entitled “Prohibited Activities” in Proclamation 9496 shall be deemed to apply to commercial fishing that is carried out in accordance with Magnuson-Stevens and other applicable laws, regulations, and requirements.
Nothing in this proclamation shall be construed to revoke, modify, or affect any withdrawal, reservation, or appropriation, other than the one created by Proclamation 9496.
Nothing in this proclamation shall change the management of the areas designated and reserved by Proclamation 9496, except as explicitly provided in this proclamation.
President Trump needs to do something similar for livestock grazing in the two Obama-designated national monuments in NM. Here are two excerpts from my previous writings on this issue:
From August 9, 2017
Laws, regulations, and policies followed by the Bureau of Land Management in issuing and administering grazing permits or leases on all lands under its jurisdiction shall continue to apply with regard to the lands in the monument administered by the Bureau of Land Management.
Let's compare that with the grazing language in the Proclamation designating the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument:
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.
Notice the new clause inserted at the end of the language. Here is what I've previously written about this new language:
A new phrase has been added to the livestock grazing language in the OMDP Proclamation that makes it the most anti-grazing of any Proclamation where grazing is still allowed. The new language is underlined:
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.I believe what just happened at Craters Moon is an example of why the enviros wanted the new language inserted. Just read Evolving Presidential Policy toward Livestock Grazing in National Monuments and you will understand their long-standing concerns with grazing in national monuments.
This “consistency” phrase sets up a two-tiered management system, where other uses (such as wildlife, recreation, science, etc.) are the dominant use and livestock grazing is the subservient use. If a rancher wants to maintain an existing range improvement or continue a current management practice and it is determined to be not consistent, that maintenance or current management practice will be denied or not be allowed. The same would hold true for constructing a new range improvement, as livestock grazing is no longer on an equal footing with other uses.
The environmental community wanted this new language in the Proclamation, as they have not had the success they had hoped for in filing lawsuits against livestock grazing in National Monuments.
Who is responsible for this anti-grazing language? Look no further than Senators Udall and Heinrich. Six months prior to President Obama signing the OMDP Proclamation, they introduced the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Conservation Act, and therein you will find the “consistency” phrase.
To demonstrate just how anti-grazing the OMDP language is, let’s compare it to a Proclamation signed by President Obama a year later. The Proclamation for the 700,000-acre Basin and Range National Monument in Nevada reads:
Nothing in this proclamation shall be deemed to affect authorizations for livestock grazing, or administration thereof, on Federal lands within the monument. Livestock grazing within the monument shall continue to be governed by laws and regulations other than this proclamation.
The language is clear and precise that the designation does not affect the administration of livestock grazing, and results in livestock grazing being on an equal footing with other uses.
In the New Mexico monument, grazing is subservient to all the other objects to be protected, while in Nevada the monument designation has no affect on grazing. How can this be? Where is the “consistency” in that? Why are ranchers in one state treated differently than ranchers in a similar situation in another state? The NM ranchers should not be singled out and discriminated against and President Trump can remedy this by revising the NM Proclamations accordingly.
Our fears about the new language were confirmed early on in preparing the management plan for the Rio Grande del Norte National Monument which has consistency language almost identical to ours. There, in the BLM's scoping documents, the first three grazing issues to be resolved were:
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?
The new language is having the affect the enviros sought. In the Craters Moon case one wonders what the judge would have ruled and what the BLM's decision would have been had the consistency language been in that Proclamation?
Secretary Zinke and President Trump have a clear choice before them. Either they let the Enviro/Udall/Heinrich anti-grazing language stand, or they do the appropriate thing for the West and the resource by revising the Proclamations to instead have grazing language such as that in the Basin and Range Proclamation. Which will it be?
And previously, from Feb. 1, 2015
Livestock Grazing in National Monuments - What A Mess
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment