Judge - BLM underreporting grazing impacts

[Big Fin]

I am usually not one to worry too much about what is reported in a newpaper as true or false, given the low level of research often conducted in the journalistic world these days. Given we have a lot of biologists who hang out on this site, I wonder if they see this northen Utah decision having much impact on public land grazing elsewhere?

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56438188-78/blm-grazing-catlin-project.html.csp

Don't anyone say or do anything that will cost them their jobs. Just trying to sort the buckwheat from the BS.

 

[Pierre]

Good question Fin. With all the RMP's up for comment now, it is very pertinent.

 

[1_pointer]

Rulings by a judge with the Office of Hearings and Appeals (or a Federal District Judge for that matter) are not precendent setting, though litigants and judges often cite these rulings to support their arguments. If this case goes to the Interior Board of Land Appeals, their ruling is precendent setting and could have wide ranging impacts on grazing management.

Other than that I don't think I will comment further on this case for the time being...

 

[Big Fin]

Rulings by a judge with the Office of Hearings and Appeals (or a Federal District Judge for that matter) are not precendent setting, though litigants and judges often cite these rulings to support their arguments. If this case goes to the Interior Board of Land Appeals, their ruling is precendent setting and could have wide ranging impacts on grazing management.

Other than that I don't think I will comment further on this case for the time being...

Thanks for that input, Pointer. Much appreciated and gives some explanation as to what is, and is not, precendent for these issues.

 

[Flynarrow]

All you need to do is look at most any BLM grazing allotment, especially riparian areas, hardwood draws and other important wildlife habitats and you know wildlife habitat needs do not have equal footing with grazing. DEADLINE: The HiLine Resource Management Plan (2,400,000 acres of BLM north of Missouri River) draft comments are due June 20. Virtually every acre will be grazed under the preferred alternative. In addition to grazing impacts on wildlife habitat, the area is next in line for extensive oil and gas development impacts. Only 7000 acres of the 2,400,000 acres are to be designated as no-motorized. Get involved and email your thoughts to [email protected]

 

[katqanna]

Heres Judge James Heffernan's opinion if any of y'all are interested.
Duck Creek Decision

There was a more recent case, here in Montana, concerning the BLM's Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument and grazing. "In an important case in front of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, federal judges ruled that the BLM did not adequately assess the impacts of grazing when it renewed the grazing permit on the Woodhawk allotment. Although the court concluded the BLM did not have to make programmatic changes in grazing policy in its Resource Management Plan, it concluded the BLM must consider a range of alternatives including reducing or eliminating grazing at the allotment level in order to prevent harm to the resources that national monuments are designated to protect. Because the BLM did not consider anything but the status quo grazing management when it renewed the Woodhawk permit, the court held the agency had erred."

Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument

The Great Falls Tribune just ran this article this morning - BLM must study more grazing plans on Missouri River Breaks

 

[Wally Dog]

Is it possible that the ranching community of SW Idaho and Western Watersheds agree on something.....that BLM continually uses flawed data/data collection!
WD

 

[1_pointer]

Though this is an old thread, I received news pertinent to this thread. The Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) reversed the Administrative Law Judge's decision (linked above in katquanna's post), thereby reinstating BLM's decision in full. This ruling can (is?) be precedent setting.

The original decision by the BLM was issued in 2007. The appeal to IBLA was issued in 2013. IBLA released their decision today. These things can take a LONG time to work through the system.

 

[mtmiller]

May be of interest for discussion. I will not be participating. ;-)

The Bureau of Land Management wants to adjust how compliance is gauged on grazing permits across the West, drawing praise from the livestock industry and concern from conservationists.

The goal of the "demonstration program" BLM unveiled today is to get land managers who oversee more than 18,000 livestock grazing permits in 13 states to work more closely with ranchers and to ultimately set ecological goals for improving and maintaining rangeland health.

BLM is trying to identify as many as a dozen "outcome based" demonstration projects that, if successful, could be used by ranchers to meet ecological rangeland health goals.

As long as the yet-to-be-developed standards are met, ranchers would be granted "more flexibility" in how they graze livestock on federal allotments, said BLM public affairs specialist Brian Lombard.

This would include allowing ranchers "to make adjustments in response to changing conditions such as drought or wildland fire," the agency said today in a statement.

"Farmers and ranchers know the wildlife and the land they work better than anyone, it only makes sense that we would enlist them in conservation efforts," Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke said in a statement.

"One of my top goals is for the government to be a better neighbor, land manager, and partner," Zinke said. "I think it's a great step in that direction."

BLM is accepting demonstration project proposals from ranchers through Oct. 27, Lombard said.

The Interior Department and BLM have targeted livestock grazing regulations as part of President Trump's deregulation agenda.

A "BLM Priority Work" list developed by the agency in April calls for, among other things, prioritizing the streamlining of "the grazing permit process" in an effort to "provide more flexibility to the American rancher" (Greenwire, April 10).

The latest proposal is supported by the livestock industry, which has long argued that no one works harder to protect rangeland health than ranchers, whose livelihoods depend on a healthy landscape.

They've also argued that well-managed grazing activity can keep grasses at heights that shield and protect wildlife while reducing invasive plant species like cheatgrass, which burns easily and can help spread wildfires rapidly.

"We're extremely excited that the BLM is looking for some of these new innovative ways to mange the permitting process and provide some of the flexibility that both permittees and the land management agencies recognize is needed in the process," said Ethan Lane, executive director of the Public Lands Council and the executive director for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association's federal lands program. "We look forward to participating."

The proposal comes less than a year after data compiled by Interior on the nearly 155 million acres on which grazing occurs showed that at least a quarter of federal rangelands don't meet land health standards (Greenwire, Oct. 7, 2016).

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility circulated the data last year.

Among other things, the data show that in 2015, grazing may have damaged 29 million acres, which are now classified as "not meeting all standards" for rangeland health and not making significant progress. Another 11.6 million acres also do not meet the standards, but BLM attributes that to reasons other than livestock grazing.

The data also reveal that BLM had never assessed 59 million acres, meaning the agency has not taken samples in those areas to see whether livestock grazing has damaged the land.

Some environmental groups are concerned about the new effort.

Erik Molvar, executive director of the Hailey, Idaho-based Western Watersheds Project, said the latest proposal appears to be part of a broader effort by the Trump administration "to move away from measurable standards and enforceable regulations and toward a free-for-all approach to industrial and commercial uses of our public lands."

He added: "This is bad news for land health and wildlife populations that are going to be subjected to even worse overgrazing conditions. If you abandon the already minimal standards in place today, you will end up with much worse problems with overgrazing, cheatgrass and habitat degradation."

 

[VikingsGuy]

This ruling can (is?) be precedent setting.

IBLA rulings are precedent for the ALJ's but not so for the Article 3 judges (Federal Judges, Federal Appeals Courts and SCOTUS). In fact it is the reverse, Article 3 rulings are binding on the agency. However, under "Chevron deference", Article 3 judges are supposed to give significant deference to the agency. There a many who hope that new Justice Gorsuch will work to reduce or reverse the Chevron deference standard.

 

[1_pointer]

miller- Sounds quite a bit like the Stewardship program of old. I realize the devil's in the details, but nothing in that presser gives me heartburn and I'd be interested in the details. I realize that probably "sounds like range staff"...

VG- Thanks for the clarification. I assume it's pretty obvious I'm not in the legal field...

 

[mtmiller]

miller- .....I'd be interested in the details. I realize that probably "sounds like range staff"...

I think we would all be interested.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I think we would all be interested.

This.

 

[1_pointer]

Blast from the past and some FWIW...

I was very involved with the decision posted above and used in the article in the OP. The IBLA decision was taken to district court in an appeal. I received word that the district court judge dismissed the appeal for lack of standing by the appellants. The irony of this for me is that I was on the actual allotment looking for pronghorn when I received the text after having not been on the allotment in 10 years.