Allotments & Antiquities: Items Not Addressed by Trump
I have previously discussed the many accomplishments
of the Trump administration. This month we’ll look at two more items left
unaddressed.
Livestock
Grazing
Would you like an example of how career bureaucrats
can outsmart political appointees and hornswoggle them into doing nothing? Then
read on, brother, read on.
In September of 2017 the BLM announced a new livestock
grazing initiative they claimed provided “an unprecedented level of flexibility” to allotment holders.
The BLM said they would identify 6 to 12 ranchers to issue “Outcome-Based
Grazing Authorizations”. Instead of emphasizing process and prescription the
new authorizations would instead place emphasis on ecological outcomes
“allowing livestock operators more flexibility to make adjustments in response
to changing conditions such as drought or wildland fire.” BLM said the new
program would allow, “ranching operations that are both economically and
environmentally sustainable.”
In 2018 the BLM
announced it had 11
demonstration projects in six states for its outcome-based grazing
authorizations. Five in Nevada, 2 in Oregon, and one each in Colorado, Idaho,
Montana and Wyoming. BLM said these authorizations would allow “grazing permit
holders greater flexibility in the management of permitted livestock.”
I must
confess that I’ve considered this to be a ruse all along. I viewed it as a
tactic by the BLM to appear to be doing something on livestock grazing, but
without actually changing anything of substance to the program. Wholesale
changes were being made to oil and gas regulations, hunting regulations and
access to federal lands regulations. Changes that affected all parties
involved. When it came to livestock grazing however, BLM was only proposing a
demonstration project that affected 11 out of 21,000 allotments. That comes out
to be 0.05 percent of BLM allotments. This was just a delay tactic and it
worked, as you will see below.
In
January of 2020 BLM published a Notice of Intent in the Federal
Register to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement concerning proposed
revisions to the agency’s grazing regulations. “Administration of sustainable
livestock grazing on public lands is a key part of the Bureau of Land
Management’s multiple-use mission. We continue to seek ways to improve and
streamline the grazing permit process to achieve greater efficiencies and
service to permittees,” said Acting
Assistant Secretary of Land and Minerals Management Casey B. Hammond.
“This rulemaking effort is designed to strengthen and improve our
administration of grazing permits across the West, and we welcome public and
stakeholder ideas and perspectives.”
According to
BLM the proposed revisions would “update, modernize and streamline the grazing
regulations” and “improve existing land-use planning and grazing permitting
procedures”. The BLM held scoping meetings in four different Western states and
comments were due by March 6.
Individual
ranchers, ranching organizations, state agencies and other interested parties
spent hundreds of hour preparing for the scoping meetings and submitting
written comments. I can assure you these were “outcome-based” comments. Positive
results were expected. So what was the outcome of all this effort? Zero, zip,
nada. BLM had ten months to issue draft regulations and then final regulations,
a tight schedule for sure. But to go three hundred days and not even issue
draft regulations? Clearly, revising the range code was not a priority. The
feint, dodge, delay, paralysis by analysis or whatever you want to call it of “Outcome-Based
Grazing Authorizations” had served its purpose. No new range code, the Biden
administration will quietly discontinue the demonstration projects, and BLM
will get to keep their coveted Babbitt-era range code.
A monumental failure
The initial
discoveries of prehistoric ruins and archaeological sites were made by ranchers
in New Mexico, Colorado and Arizona during the 1880s. These discoveries
eventually led to museums and professional and amateur archaeologists
excavating these sites, sometimes destroying the ruins during the process. It
is often stated there was no legislative authority to protect these areas and
no requirement of a permit to excavate. This is only partially correct. The
General Land Office was authorized to withdraw lands for their protection. An
example would be Frijoles Canyon in northern New Mexico. By July 1900 the General Land Office had withdrawn a large
area around Frijoles Canyon from entry, sale, settlement, or other disposal
pending a determination of the advisability of setting the region apart as a
national park. Another example would be Chaco
Canyon. On Aril 4, 1905 the Interior Department withdrew lands in Chaco Canyon
that included the section of land containing Pueblo Bonito, Chettro Kettle and Pueblo
del Arroyo. Interestingly, in the Pueblo del Arroyo, one Richard Wetherill had
filed a homestead claim in 1890. Special Agent Frank Grygla of the General Land
Office was sent to investigate the conflict between Wetherill's claim and the
withdrawal. According to a Park Service historian, he found that Wetherill had
constructed buildings worth five thousand dollars on his land, was raising
sixty acres of corn, five of wheat, two of vegetables, and reportedly had five
thousand sheep, two hundred horses, and four hundred chickens. Furthermore,
Wetherill informed Grygla he would relinquish his rights to the three major
ruins on his homestead to the Government. Under these circumstances, the
General Land Office concluded that a cancellation of Wetherill's claim for
fraudulent entry would be "difficult and probably unjust," and that
there was some evidence that instead of excavating the ruins at this time
Wetherill was protecting them.
Nevertheless,
in 1906 Congress passed the Antiquities Act. This law authorizes the President to declare, by public proclamation, historic
landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic
or scientific interest situated on federal lands as national monuments. The act
also authorizes the President to reserve parcels of land surrounding the
objects of historic or scientific interest, but requires that the amount of
land reserved be confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care
and management of the objects to be protected. Well, we all know how that last
section has been abused. Most recently President Obama proclaimed twenty-six
national monuments totaling 88.3 million acres. In addition, he added 465.2
million acres to existing national monuments.
The kicker here is the word “scientific” Can you
imagine an acre of land anywhere that is not of scientific interest to someone?
Furthermore, there is no requirement for public input prior to a monument being
designated. Whether or not the public has a chance to comment is completely at
the discretion of the President. There is also no requirement to weigh the
environmental consequences of such designation. NEPA doesn’t kick in until
after the monument is designated.
One person, the President, can designate however many
acres he wants without limitation, without public input and without considering
the environmental impact of his action. Certainly this is a law in need of
revision. However, during the first two years of the Trump administration, when
Republicans controlled the Executive and both Houses of Congress, nothing was
done.
Until next time, be a nuisance to the devil and don’t forget
to check that cinch.
Frank DuBois was the NM Secretary of
Agriculture from 1988 to 2003, is the author of a blog: The Westerner (www.thewesterner.blogspot.com)
and is the founder of The DuBois Rodeo Scholarship and The DuBois Western
Heritage Foundation
No comments:
Post a Comment